the Bible - literal or not?

[Lonely Summer]

Hi friends, been a few months since I dropped in here, presently I am reading a very good book titled "What's the Least I Can Believe and Still Be a Christian?" It raises many good points - bad hangups/ideas Christians have versus things that are absolutely essential to the faith. One thing that comes up numerous times in Biblical literalism. Many Christians now accept scientific evidence of evolution, don't believe God actually flooded the entire Earth (or that Noah could get two of every species on Earth onto a boat), etc. But some things are not considered open for debate if you call yourself a Christian, i.e, Jesus' death and resurrection. So my question is, how do we decide which parts of the Bible are merely good stories to learn a moral or lesson from, and which parts should be considered historical fact? This has been nagging at me for quite some time, because I was raised to believe each and every word of the Bible was literally true.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: I believe every word to be true, and science just needs to catch up. Many times their discoveries to hit the news, bear witness to the Word, particlarly in archeology.

But aside from that, what is most important is not the literal message, but the underlying spiritual message to the souls of men, that never changes. Once you see the patterns contained therein, that could not possibly be inserted over thousands of years by chance, and the names of people, places and things, that contain messages to our souls, the things those in the world have to say about it's validity (and even some in Christiandom) cannot move you off that sure foundation of Truth. My  :2c:  Blessings....

[Taffy]

:cloud9: I believe every word to be true, and science just needs to catch up. Many times their discoveries to hit the news, bear witness to the Word, particlarly in archeology.

But aside from that, what is most important is not the literal message, but the underlying spiritual message to the souls of men, that never changes. Once you see the patterns contained therein, that could not possibly be inserted over thousands of years by chance, and the names of people, places and things, that contain messages to our souls, the things those in the world have to say about it's validity (and even some in Christiandom) cannot move you off that sure foundation of Truth. My  :2c:  Blessings....

Amen~ :icon_flower:

[thinktank]

Its important to realize that faith takes time to build. Just like excercise.

The disciples hanged around Jesus and witnessed his miracles, but yet they did not believe that Jesus would literally raise from the dead.

There are many scoffers today, who no longer have the faith to believe that the bible has literal truth, so they exchange the truth for their own fancy ideas, as to whatever they can regard as true.

E.g many have trouble believing that Noahs flood was world wide, so they rely on their minds to interpret that the flood = local flood. A local flood is possible and acceptable to their minds, but a world flood is impossible to them, or they might say the flood did not take place, it was just a story for us to draw spiritual strength from.

But of course faith takes time, just be aware that many believers do not excercise their faith and so are unlikely to receive FULL revelations from God. The revelation they receive will have to pass the filters in their minds, that people have in place.
Since Jesus said all things are possible, every christian has a filter of some sorts, it's a matter of degree, in different categories. Just like school subjects, some excel in science, but are hopeless in English. So a christian might be good at patience, but hopeless at feeding the poor and might even have a negative score, where they desire to drag everyone down to their level of income, hating the rich, not giving to the church and being a pain and hindrance to the gospel.

[Nathan]

Totally with Taf and Cardinal on this as well.  There is of course a natural reality, there really was a Goliath and a Noah . . .but the greater manna is not what lies on the surface, but what lies beneath it.  I see the literal application much like the law of the Old Covenant, both can lead you "to" the promise land, but neither can lead you "in" it.  The "New and Living Way" consists of spirit leading spirit.  The literal exists, but as Scripture states, flesh profiteth nothing.  There is some benefit to literal, but there's just soooo much more that lies beneath the surface that the literal becomes almost irrelevant. 

Does it really matter whether or not the flood covered the entire earth?

[jabcat]

:cloud9: I believe every word to be true, and science just needs to catch up. Many times their discoveries to hit the news, bear witness to the Word, particlarly in archeology.

But aside from that, what is most important is not the literal message, but the underlying spiritual message to the souls of men, that never changes. Once you see the patterns contained therein, that could not possibly be inserted over thousands of years by chance, and the names of people, places and things, that contain messages to our souls, the things those in the world have to say about it's validity (and even some in Christiandom) cannot move you off that sure foundation of Truth. My  :2c:  Blessings....

:thumbsup:

[thinktank]

The flood shows the power of God over nature.

Also shows the extent at which God will go to in order to save his creation, that he is willing to go to war and destroy the evil in order to save the rightoeus. As the meek inherit the earth. Blessed are they who mourn for they shall be comforted. The future belongs to the meek and the humble, the evil shall no longer rule.

The song of Moses sing about God as a God of war.

When the beast comes the people of God can rest in the knowledge that God is a God of war and will fight for them.

[Molly]

Its important to realize that faith takes time to build. Just like excercise

:thumbsup:

For me, my whole walk is about faith.  Faith determines how you live your life, how you treat people, how you feel inside, how you emotionally handle what life throws at you, how you behave in the world.

I got to the point in faith that I am at now through reading the Bible literally.

I needed to fight [literal] giants, so I had to find out how Joshua did it.

I needed God's help, so I had to find out how David did it.

At that time, I was on the outside looking in.

It was not an abstract to me, it was real life and I was up to my neck in alligators.

I made a promise to God that I would read the Bble literally when I started this walk, and it has never let me down.

We're all different.  I am just very practical.

[micah7:9]

:cloud9: I believe every word to be true, and science just needs to catch up. Many times their discoveries to hit the news, bear witness to the Word, particlarly in archeology.

But aside from that, what is most important is not the literal message, but the underlying spiritual message to the souls of men, that never changes. Once you see the patterns contained therein, that could not possibly be inserted over thousands of years by chance, and the names of people, places and things, that contain messages to our souls, the things those in the world have to say about it's validity (and even some in Christiandom) cannot move you off that sure foundation of Truth. My  :2c:  Blessings....

History is.
Science can only prove the history or disprove the history the Bible; and science as it tries to disprove the Bible has only proven that names of people, places, and things, are true, they were, they existed. Glory and Amen.
Real people lived in the places that are named, and those real people handled the things that have been found. The literal history is given for the spiritual message that the new creature born of the Spirit to see and glean the knowledge from the words written and the stories given for our walk in the Spirit.
But to hold our faith on the literal history and the Bible being a literal book of literal meaning builds only the faith of man and his mind for the literal history. I contend that those who build on the belief and literalness of the Bible hold their faith in the theology and religiouness of how man wants and needs the Bible to be.. Whether the story of Abraham and Issac is literal, holds no strength of validity to my faith and hope.
Either the Bible is the Living Word of God working Alive today in my walk or it is of no use to the Spirit that keeps me strong in the race.
The Words  "In the Begining..." are either alive today by faith or they are as dead as the literal history of the biblical record. The literal history of the Bible establishes
very little.

[micah7:9]

Its important to realize that faith takes time to build. Just like excercise.

The disciples hanged around Jesus and witnessed his miracles, but yet they did not believe that Jesus would literally raise from the dead.

There are many scoffers today, who no longer have the faith to believe that the bible has literal truth, so they exchange the truth for their own fancy ideas, as to whatever they can regard as true.

E.g many have trouble believing that Noahs flood was world wide, so they rely on their minds to interpret that the flood = local flood. A local flood is possible and acceptable to their minds, but a world flood is impossible to them, or they might say the flood did not take place, it was just a story for us to draw spiritual strength from.

But of course faith takes time, just be aware that many believers do not excercise their faith and so are unlikely to receive FULL revelations from God. The revelation they receive will have to pass the filters in their minds, that people have in place.
Since Jesus said all things are possible, every christian has a filter of some sorts, it's a matter of degree, in different categories. Just like school subjects, some excel in science, but are hopeless in English. So a christian might be good at patience, but hopeless at feeding the poor and might even have a negative score, where they desire to drag everyone down to their level of income, hating the rich, not giving to the church and being a pain and hindrance to the gospel.

"E.g many have trouble believing that Noahs flood was world wide, so they rely on their minds to interpret that the flood = local flood. A local flood is possible and acceptable to their minds, but a world flood is impossible to them, or they might say the flood did not take place, it was just a story for us to draw spiritual strength from." TT

Science has proven there was no world wide flood, it is the theologians and religious myths and fables that perpetuate  these stories for control of the masses.

[micah7:9]

Totally with Taf and Cardinal on this as well.  There is of course a natural reality, there really was a Goliath and a Noah . . .but the greater manna is not what lies on the surface, but what lies beneath it.  I see the literal application much like the law of the Old Covenant, both can lead you "to" the promise land, but neither can lead you "in" it.  The "New and Living Way" consists of spirit leading spirit.  The literal exists, but as Scripture states, flesh profiteth nothing.  There is some benefit to literal, but there's just soooo much more that lies beneath the surface that the literal becomes almost irrelevant. 

Does it really matter whether or not the flood covered the entire earth?

"Does it really matter whether or not the flood covered the entire earth?" Nathan

Yes and no. If one has the need to believe the truth, then yes; but if one needs to except stories to make their so called "faith," then no.

[micah7:9]

The flood shows the power of God over nature.

Also shows the extent at which God will go to in order to save his creation, that he is willing to go to war and destroy the evil in order to save the rightoeus. As the meek inherit the earth. Blessed are they who mourn for they shall be comforted. The future belongs to the meek and the humble, the evil shall no longer rule.

The song of Moses sing about God as a God of war.

When the beast comes the people of God can rest in the knowledge that God is a God of war and will fight for them.

"The flood shows the power of God over nature." TT

So if the flood was just a local flood, the power of God over nature is smaller? I think not.
As far as I have read it is not God (in that singular sense) that is making war to destroy evil to save the righteous, it is God working through vessels of clay(the meek) so that those who believe would over come and destroy evil and give Him the Glory.

[Nathan]

Totally with Taf and Cardinal on this as well.  There is of course a natural reality, there really was a Goliath and a Noah . . .but the greater manna is not what lies on the surface, but what lies beneath it.  I see the literal application much like the law of the Old Covenant, both can lead you "to" the promise land, but neither can lead you "in" it.  The "New and Living Way" consists of spirit leading spirit.  The literal exists, but as Scripture states, flesh profiteth nothing.  There is some benefit to literal, but there's just soooo much more that lies beneath the surface that the literal becomes almost irrelevant. 

Does it really matter whether or not the flood covered the entire earth?

"Does it really matter whether or not the flood covered the entire earth?" Nathan

Yes and no. If one has the need to believe the truth, then yes; but if one needs to except stories to make their so called "faith," then no.

I really have no idea where you stand with any of this, you tend to jump around in the ring a lot.  The point is, whether you/we believe the flood did or didn't cover the whole earth is irrelevant to the validity and authenticity of Gods truths in us.  Truth doesn't manifest according to whether or not man's mind acknowledges it's existance.  Truth is the foundation of everything.  Proving whether or not the flood reached the Grand Canyon should have no bearing whatsoever on our relationship with God. 

The reason why it's all irrelavant is because our relationship isn't built on natural proof.  It's built on faith.  It's another reason why emphasizing the literal shackles one from the freedom of pursuing the spiritual. 

Again, even though I say it's irrelevant, I don't mean throw it out, I mean use it for the purpose in which it's given.  It's not to be elevated, it's merely to be used as a sign that pionts to deeper and greater truths.  The entire story isn't about whether or not water covered the entire earth literally.  It's about Christ and his redemption for man.  His restoration.  His passion to Father us and purge us from our unrighteousness that we may live in Him and He in us.  It's about reversing the curse and establishing a promise.  "That's" why I said it doesn't "really" matter whether people think it literally did or it literally didn't. 

[micah7:9]

Totally with Taf and Cardinal on this as well.  There is of course a natural reality, there really was a Goliath and a Noah . . .but the greater manna is not what lies on the surface, but what lies beneath it.  I see the literal application much like the law of the Old Covenant, both can lead you "to" the promise land, but neither can lead you "in" it.  The "New and Living Way" consists of spirit leading spirit.  The literal exists, but as Scripture states, flesh profiteth nothing.  There is some benefit to literal, but there's just soooo much more that lies beneath the surface that the literal becomes almost irrelevant. 

Does it really matter whether or not the flood covered the entire earth?

"Does it really matter whether or not the flood covered the entire earth?" Nathan

Yes and no. If one has the need to believe the truth, then yes; but if one needs to except stories to make their so called "faith," then no.

I really have no idea where you stand with any of this, you tend to jump around in the ring a lot.  The point is, whether you/we believe the flood did or didn't cover the whole earth is irrelevant to the validity and authenticity of Gods truths in us.  Truth doesn't manifest according to whether or not man's mind acknowledges it's existance.  Truth is the foundation of everything.  Proving whether or not the flood reached the Grand Canyon should have no bearing whatsoever on our relationship with God. 

The reason why it's all irrelavant is because our relationship isn't built on natural proof.  It's built on faith.  It's another reason why emphasizing the literal shackles one from the freedom of pursuing the spiritual. 

Again, even though I say it's irrelevant, I don't mean throw it out, I mean use it for the purpose in which it's given.  It's not to be elevated, it's merely to be used as a sign that pionts to deeper and greater truths.  The entire story isn't about whether or not water covered the entire earth literally.  It's about Christ and his redemption for man.  His restoration.  His passion to Father us and purge us from our unrighteousness that we may live in Him and He in us.  It's about reversing the curse and establishing a promise.  "That's" why I said it doesn't "really" matter whether people think it literally did or it literally didn't.

"I really have no idea where you stand with any of this, you tend to jump around in the ring a lot.  The point is, whether you/we believe the flood did or didn't cover the whole earth is irrelevant to the validity and authenticity of Gods truths in us.  Truth doesn't manifest according to whether or not man's mind acknowledges it's existance.  Truth is the foundation of everything.  Proving whether or not the flood reached the Grand Canyon should have no bearing whatsoever on our relationship with God. "

WHAT?!

Flood was a flood, something or someplace was covered with water. I aint trying to prove anything, the Bible states there was a flood. Relevant.....relevant to what?  "

"I really have no idea where you stand with any of this, you tend to jump around in the ring a lot." Nathan
There was not entire flood of the entire earth. There was a flood for His purposes, did anyone understand? I do not think so. There you go I stopped jumping around.
and may I add of  your talk about "jump around the ring a lot," you are a real Muhamud Ali yourself.

[micah7:9]

Hi friends, been a few months since I dropped in here, presently I am reading a very good book titled "What's the Least I Can Believe and Still Be a Christian?" It raises many good points - bad hangups/ideas Christians have versus things that are absolutely essential to the faith. One thing that comes up numerous times in Biblical literalism. Many Christians now accept scientific evidence of evolution, don't believe God actually flooded the entire Earth (or that Noah could get two of every species on Earth onto a boat), etc. But some things are not considered open for debate if you call yourself a Christian, i.e, Jesus' death and resurrection. So my question is, how do we decide which parts of the Bible are merely good stories to learn a moral or lesson from, and which parts should be considered historical fact? This has been nagging at me for quite some time, because I was raised to believe each and every word of the Bible was literally true.

No, it should not be understood as literal. The Bible and the stories that have been given are for spiritual understanding. Yet we can learn how to build up our faith and hope through the stories we have been given to read.

[Lonely Summer]

Okay, the responses here are really confusing me. I feel like the rest of you are highly evolved spiritual beings, and I'm just a lowly...something. Maybe I should rephrase my question...if it even is a question. I'm surrounded by people at work that don't believe God exists, because so much of science seems to conflict with the stories of the Bible. I guess we can say it's irrelevant whether the stories are literally true or not, but recognize this is a big stumbling block for a lot of people. No matter what happens, I am going to know that God exists, I can sense Him within me, but I do see some conflicts with a literal translation of every single word/story in the Bible and actual history. Can science prove or disprove that there was ever a worldwide flood? I don't know. Can science prove or disprove that the world was created only 6000 years ago, or milions or billions of years ago? I don't know. Some people have a real problem believing that a real, living, breathing person named Jonah was swallowed by a literal whale. Or that God literally parted the Red Sea. We can say that's irrelevant, but where do we stop? Do we say it's irrelevant if there was  a Virgin Birth or not? Do we believe that Jesus was just a made up person? Do you see where I'm going with this? I was brought up to believe that "either every word of the Bible is true, or none of it is true". Not sure that I feel that way now. And now I'm not even sure I belong in this discussion forum.

[micah7:9]

Okay, the responses here are really confusing me. I feel like the rest of you are highly evolved spiritual beings, and I'm just a lowly...something. Maybe I should rephrase my question...if it even is a question. I'm surrounded by people at work that don't believe God exists, because so much of science seems to conflict with the stories of the Bible. I guess we can say it's irrelevant whether the stories are literally true or not, but recognize this is a big stumbling block for a lot of people. No matter what happens, I am going to know that God exists, I can sense Him within me, but I do see some conflicts with a literal translation of every single word/story in the Bible and actual history. Can science prove or disprove that there was ever a worldwide flood? I don't know. Can science prove or disprove that the world was created only 6000 years ago, or milions or billions of years ago? I don't know. Some people have a real problem believing that a real, living, breathing person named Jonah was swallowed by a literal whale. Or that God literally parted the Red Sea. We can say that's irrelevant, but where do we stop? Do we say it's irrelevant if there was  a Virgin Birth or not? Do we believe that Jesus was just a made up person? Do you see where I'm going with this? I was brought up to believe that "either every word of the Bible is true, or none of it is true". Not sure that I feel that way now. And now I'm not even sure I belong in this discussion forum.

You most certainly belong or you would not be asking the questions you ask. Know that.
" Can science prove or disprove that there was ever a worldwide flood?"
Science has proven there was not world wide flood. Now religion and theologians will disagree because they need the
world wide flood, it is their whole foundation of keeping the control. Theologians and religion will deny the findings but they cannot prove a world wide flood; the earth will not prove a world wide flood.
I do not believe that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish, its a story, to be understood, not believed; the stories offered in the Bible are real, but they are not literal but the storys, the people, the places were and are very real, but have nothing to do with literal understanding... unless thats how you desire to believe them. I will get much fire and debate for this post, to the negative on this, but I believe what I understand to be worth my faith. Moses did part the Red Sea, but what significance is there in that without faith to understand what that means to you? What did The Father want you to glean from the story. Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, but what significance is there in the literal? Nothing but the controversies that you yourself have brought forth and to give power to religion.
Every word of the Bible is TRUE, do not doubt that. Do you believe in Jesus Christ? Has the Lord found you? Or are you just a Bible reader who questions that God Is? God is and every word of that Bible you question, along with your friends, is real, its alive, it gives life...but you have to believe, not just question what it has on its pages.
I hope that my words were of some help. God Bless. Peace and Love Through Jesus :HeartThrob:

[Molly]

Science and religion are not incompatible.  But, it is a stigma for scientists in many universities to believe in God.  They are harassed and fired for not believing in evolution in the biological fields.  A lot of this is peer pressure.  This will change as evolution is proven to be not only an inaccurate theory but an impossible one, as is happening today.

Happily for us, the group of scientists that are most likely to believe in God are the medical doctors.

"...a study that "found that 76 percent of doctors believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife." and "90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally, compared to 81 percent of all adults." "

"Another study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that "just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."[99] 48% say they have a religious affiliation, equal to the number who say they are not affiliated with any religious tradition. The survey also found younger scientists to be "substantially more likely than their older counterparts to say they believe in God". Among the surveyed fields, chemists were the most likely to say they believe in God.[93"

--Wikipedia


Do you have to believe in a literal reading of the Bible?  No, but like you said, where do you draw the line?  I told you that I believe it all is literally true and I have never been disappointed.  But, that is between you and God.

If you asked my advice, I would say, yes, Believe it!  believe it's all true.   Most would say seeimg is believing, but I say that believing is seeing.

One more thing, science will eventually prove the existence of God.  Already, today, it is dawning on scientists that all this  couldn't have happened by accident.  The physicists are spending millions of dollars searching for a 'god particle' these days.  lol.  The astronomers know, as do the best biologists.  To my mind, just the discovery of DNA proves it all by itself.   

[Nathan]

There was a time when the people all thought the world was flat.  Was it?  No.  Did their "belief" that it was change the fact that it wasn't?  No.  What "proof" did they have that it was?  It was based on their "knowledge".  And that's just natural knowledge about natural reality.  Just imagine how even more detatched we become when using natural knowledge against spiritual truth.  Let those that have to have proof to believe worry about the evidence.  Scripture isn't written to prove or disprove science.  It's a book of signs pointing to the Lamb.  It takes a measure of faith to see that.  We're all given a measure, but how many activate it?

Which one leads to abundant ife?  Faith?  Or science?

[CHB]

Okay, the responses here are really confusing me. I feel like the rest of you are highly evolved spiritual beings, and I'm just a lowly...something. Maybe I should rephrase my question...if it even is a question. I'm surrounded by people at work that don't believe God exists, because so much of science seems to conflict with the stories of the Bible. I guess we can say it's irrelevant whether the stories are literally true or not, but recognize this is a big stumbling block for a lot of people. No matter what happens, I am going to know that God exists, I can sense Him within me, but I do see some conflicts with a literal translation of every single word/story in the Bible and actual history. Can science prove or disprove that there was ever a worldwide flood? I don't know. Can science prove or disprove that the world was created only 6000 years ago, or milions or billions of years ago? I don't know. Some people have a real problem believing that a real, living, breathing person named Jonah was swallowed by a literal whale. Or that God literally parted the Red Sea. We can say that's irrelevant, but where do we stop? Do we say it's irrelevant if there was  a Virgin Birth or not? Do we believe that Jesus was just a made up person? Do you see where I'm going with this? I was brought up to believe that "either every word of the Bible is true, or none of it is true". Not sure that I feel that way now. And now I'm not even sure I belong in this discussion forum.

Hi Summer,

I guess I see things a little different than most on here concerning this. I was brought up to believe that every word of the Bible was true also and I do believe every word of God is true. The Bible has many errors because of the mistranslations of men but even this is according to the plan of God.

I believe all of the stories in the Bible are true, even the parables of Jesus were true because Jesus used the literal to explain spiritual things. Many say the book of Job isn't a literal book but every single one of us can relate to at least one of the things that happened to Job, some more than one. Was Jonah in the belly of a whale? Could have been, how do we know he wasn't? The Bible says he was, so is it lying? I don't think so. Were these things written to prove a spiritual point, probably so.

Please don't think that any one on here is highly evolved spiritual beings, we are human just like you are, we also make mistakes as well. No one has all the truth, nor will they in this life. I hope you will stick around, maybe you can teach us a thing or two. It is good to read different views once in a while.

CHB

[jabcat]

Okay, the responses here are really confusing me. I feel like the rest of you are highly evolved spiritual beings, and I'm just a lowly...something. Maybe I should rephrase my question...if it even is a question. I'm surrounded by people at work that don't believe God exists, because so much of science seems to conflict with the stories of the Bible. I guess we can say it's irrelevant whether the stories are literally true or not, but recognize this is a big stumbling block for a lot of people. No matter what happens, I am going to know that God exists, I can sense Him within me, but I do see some conflicts with a literal translation of every single word/story in the Bible and actual history. Can science prove or disprove that there was ever a worldwide flood? I don't know. Can science prove or disprove that the world was created only 6000 years ago, or milions or billions of years ago? I don't know. Some people have a real problem believing that a real, living, breathing person named Jonah was swallowed by a literal whale. Or that God literally parted the Red Sea. We can say that's irrelevant, but where do we stop? Do we say it's irrelevant if there was  a Virgin Birth or not? Do we believe that Jesus was just a made up person? Do you see where I'm going with this? I was brought up to believe that "either every word of the Bible is true, or none of it is true". Not sure that I feel that way now. And now I'm not even sure I belong in this discussion forum.

Hi Summer,

I guess I see things a little different than most on here concerning this. I was brought up to believe that every word of the Bible was true also and I do believe every word of God is true. The Bible has many errors because of the mistranslations of men but even this is according to the plan of God.

I believe all of the stories in the Bible are true, even the parables of Jesus were true because Jesus used the literal to explain spiritual things. Many say the book of Job isn't a literal book but every single one of us can relate to at least one of the things that happened to Job, some more than one. Was Jonah in the belly of a whale? Could have been, how do we know he wasn't? The Bible says he was, so is it lying? I don't think so. Were these things written to prove a spiritual point, probably so.

Please don't think that any one on here is highly evolved spiritual beings, we are human just like you are, we also make mistakes as well. No one has all the truth, nor will they in this life. I hope you will stick around, maybe you can teach us a thing or two. It is good to read different views once in a while.

CHB

Great post C.  Clear and to the point.   :HeartThrob:

[micah7:9]

There was a time when the people all thought the world was flat.  Was it?  No.  Did their "belief" that it was change the fact that it wasn't?  No.  What "proof" did they have that it was?  It was based on their "knowledge".  And that's just natural knowledge about natural reality.  Just imagine how even more detatched we become when using natural knowledge against spiritual truth.  Let those that have to have proof to believe worry about the evidence.  Scripture isn't written to prove or disprove science.  It's a book of signs pointing to the Lamb.  It takes a measure of faith to see that.  We're all given a measure, but how many activate it?

Which one leads to abundantl ife?  Faith?  Or science?

:thumbsup: I can hear that :happy3:

[thinktank]

:cloud9: I believe every word to be true, and science just needs to catch up. Many times their discoveries to hit the news, bear witness to the Word, particlarly in archeology.

But aside from that, what is most important is not the literal message, but the underlying spiritual message to the souls of men, that never changes. Once you see the patterns contained therein, that could not possibly be inserted over thousands of years by chance, and the names of people, places and things, that contain messages to our souls, the things those in the world have to say about it's validity (and even some in Christiandom) cannot move you off that sure foundation of Truth. My  :2c:  Blessings....

History is.
Science can only prove the history or disprove the history the Bible; and science as it tries to disprove the Bible has only proven that names of people, places, and things, are true, they were, they existed. Glory and Amen.
Real people lived in the places that are named, and those real people handled the things that have been found. The literal history is given for the spiritual message that the new creature born of the Spirit to see and glean the knowledge from the words written and the stories given for our walk in the Spirit.
But to hold our faith on the literal history and the Bible being a literal book of literal meaning builds only the faith of man and his mind for the literal history. I contend that those who build on the belief and literalness of the Bible hold their faith in the theology and religiouness of how man wants and needs the Bible to be.. Whether the story of Abraham and Issac is literal, holds no strength of validity to my faith and hope.
Either the Bible is the Living Word of God working Alive today in my walk or it is of no use to the Spirit that keeps me strong in the race.
The Words  "In the Begining..." are either alive today by faith or they are as dead as the literal history of the biblical record. The literal history of the Bible establishes
very little.

Abraham and Issac just a story?

While I am happy that some gain spiritual knowledge to strengthen their lives, to discount the historic achievements and sacrifices of those of the past, particularly Abraham, who's seed gave birth to Jesus Christ the saviour of mankind. There is much to be gained by seeing the example of faith that these prophets took. Many times I find that the prophets did things that that the new testament doesn't really touch much upon.

The history of the bible is important as it establishes our origins. Right now there is a conceited effort to distort our true origins.

[micah7:9]

"Right now there is a conceited effort to distort our true origins." TT

In what way? How can this be?

I'll stand here    Rom 8:37  but in all these we more than conquer, through him who loved us;
Rom 8:38  for I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor messengers, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present,
Rom 8:39  nor things about to be, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of god, that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Now what "true origins" do you speak of? I'm just wondering. :dontknow:

[thinktank]

Okay, the responses here are really confusing me. I feel like the rest of you are highly evolved spiritual beings, and I'm just a lowly...something. Maybe I should rephrase my question...if it even is a question. I'm surrounded by people at work that don't believe God exists, because so much of science seems to conflict with the stories of the Bible. I guess we can say it's irrelevant whether the stories are literally true or not, but recognize this is a big stumbling block for a lot of people. No matter what happens, I am going to know that God exists, I can sense Him within me, but I do see some conflicts with a literal translation of every single word/story in the Bible and actual history. Can science prove or disprove that there was ever a worldwide flood? I don't know. Can science prove or disprove that the world was created only 6000 years ago, or milions or billions of years ago? I don't know. Some people have a real problem believing that a real, living, breathing person named Jonah was swallowed by a literal whale. Or that God literally parted the Red Sea. We can say that's irrelevant, but where do we stop? Do we say it's irrelevant if there was  a Virgin Birth or not? Do we believe that Jesus was just a made up person? Do you see where I'm going with this? I was brought up to believe that "either every word of the Bible is true, or none of it is true". Not sure that I feel that way now. And now I'm not even sure I belong in this discussion forum.

I think the premise is that having knowledge that God exists and the bible is true, doesn't make someone worship God.

I also think that man deliberatly blinds himself from the truth of God and devise fables, so that he does not have to face the possibility of judgment.

Also the religious preaching of ET does not help at all, by placing the idea that God loses most of his creation into a barbecue, simply because they were not good enough to pass his standards, a prospect that does not motivate a person at all. The writings of Dawkins shows that ET is a stumbling block to their faith.

I hope you continue to discuss here at tentmaker