Believing Scripture is 100% true

Good ideas. I personally am fine with any of those, even him just being a mythical character in a story- no matter the method a theological purpose and him being used by Paul is effective to his readers because of how they thought of the ‘man.’

Side note: anyone read Gibersons new book called something like ‘Saving the Original Sinner?’ It is partially relevant to the original post at least in spirit

1 Like

Even if Adam isn’t a real person, I don’t see how that invalidates Christianity. The message would still be the same. We’re separated from God by sin.

Like if Adam and Eve didn’t exist then the Bible isn’t true. No, Genesis needs to be interpreted differently. Or if the earth isn’t 6,000 years old then the Bible isn’t true. ( seems that’s what I lot of fundamentalist Christians think.) Sorry I can’t elaborate more.

I agree same message regardless of whether he was a real person or not. Do you have any other specific questions?

Sure, okay. The purpose of the Bible is true. But does your salvation depend on whether or not you believe it is all true? If so, when did that become a “rule”?

I would answer “no” to this question. I think it’s entirely possible for parts of the Bible to be interpreted as allegorical (like the story of Job or Jonah living for 3 days in a fish stomach). I would go so far as to say that there are discrepancies that would technically mean parts of the Bible are “wrong”. The Bible clearly teaches that the incarnate Jesus Christ came to earth, died to redeem us from our sinful state, and rose again, victorious over death, to offer us new life. I would say there are very few other “musts” including a belief in whether or not the entire Bible is true.

Your last sentence seems to contradict your first unless I am misunderstanding.

I think you’re saying that it is okay and appropriate to interpret parts of the Bible as allegorical without dismissing them as “untrue.” Is that what you’re saying? And if so, where is that line and what are the criteria for making such a determination? Is it okay to say Genesis 1 is allegory or symbolic? Is it okay to say that a physical resurrection of Jesus is allegory?

I don’t think I disagree with you on anything here…just exploring.

Interesting topic. Isn’t everything in the Bible symbolic? Is not language itself symbolic? And written language is a symbolic representation of spoken language. If you limit the Bible to cold hard facts, can it be the word of God? Can you reduce God to paper and ink?
Think I need another cup of coffee. Sorry for the interjection.

3 Likes

I would say of course it is acceptable/appropriate to take parts of scripture as allegorical or metaphorical. All figures of speech were available to the biblical writers. “I am the vine,” we all would agree, does not imply that we could pick grapes off of Jesus. Just how far you can go is a personal question with, as far as I know, no good answer. I more or less define my circle of orthodoxy by the earliest creeds–especially the Nicene creed (which affirms a physical resurrection). Why do I do that? I don’t know. It just seems to provide the Goldilocks radius of orthodoxy. It is subject to change.

1 Like

Wow.

“It’s all symbolic because language itself is symbolic.” It’s too early in the morning to feel my mind explode, but I’m going to file that away and throw it at someone some day.

I think you hit on something important though (and something that people have a really hard time with): God cannot be reduced to paper and ink. Or, as I would put it, an infinite God cannot be reduced to a finite set of words.

Sorry, F, I wrote that poorly.[quote=“cwhenderson, post:15, topic:36314”]
I would say there are very few other “musts” including a belief in whether or not the entire Bible is true.
[/quote]

I don’t think that believing the Bible is 100% true is one of the “musts”.

I can also see how, in certain cases, that parts of the Bible are “untrue”, depending on how one looks at it. For example, Jesus talked about the mustard seed being the smallest of the seeds. Technically, this is untrue. But for the purpose of illustration to His audience, it is acceptable to use. I’m sure there are many other examples of technical “untruths”, some more obvious than others. But these (in my opinion) do not take away from the value of the Bible.

1 Like

Agreed. i think we’re on the same page.

I think the Bible needs to be looked at in a larger context. Genesis for example. I do believe Genesis- not as literal history- but what it communicates. We are separated from God by sin. In that sense I do believe the Bible is true, as well as other stories by what they’re trying to communicate. An aspect of God’s character etc.

I do believe that Jesus, his death, and resurrection happened.

1 Like

Sooo…you believe the Bible is 100% true.:wink:

Even strict literalists don’t take all the Bible literally, because they don’t believe God is made of stone (even though he is “my Rock”).

1 Like

Although I don’t believe in a world wide flood. Or that a man could literally survive inside a fish since its physically and logically impossible.

2 Likes

Here is a possibility: Jonah died inside the fish and three days later was resurrected. This explains why Jesus called his death and resurrection three days later as “the sign of Jonah” (Matt 12:38-45).

Jonah describes his experience with these words “Out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice … The waters surrounded me, even to my soul … The earth with its bars closed behind me forever, Yet you have brought up my life from the pit, O Lord, my God” - Jonah 2:1-6.

1 Like

@Thomas_Bell,

I believe that is how Jonah was intended to be read - - as a parable of confronting death for the traditional 3 day time frame, and then returning from the experience.

Certainly, you are being more consistent to think Jonah was dead, drowned and chewed up - - and then resurrected to his pre-Piscean mortal life.

The following quote may contribute to a better understanding of Christian doctrine and understanding scripture:

"The risen Christ reveals to his disciples that the scriptures are about him; and furthermore, it was necessary for the risen Christ himself to teach the disciples how to understand the scriptures. Jesus’ paideia demonstrates that interpretation and meaning resides neither in text nor in tradition. If it were otherwise, the disciples would not have required Christ’s instruction, as perspicuity of the text would have left no room for doubt and confusion; the meaning of the Mosaic tradition would have been self-evident to all. The disciples’ account, however, indicates that only after having been taught by Christ himself were they empowered by the Holy Spirit with divine authority to carry the good news to the ends of the world. We see this post-resurrection Pentecost transformation at work in the book of Acts, such as in Peter’s famous sermon as recorded in Acts chapter 2. In a surprise move the once timid and oblivious Peter by way of Christ’s hermeneutic boldly expounds Moses and the Prophets and proclaims that, ‘God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ.’ There is ample evidence that the ‘Christ hermeneutic’ did not change after the close of the apostolic period; the same exposition of scripture is encountered as early as circa 110 AD in the writing of Ignatius of Antioch in the Epistle to the Philadelphians about the Prophets foretelling of Christ and the Gospel."

3 Likes

Also I think people have taken that to mean something that it doesn’t. They say all scripture is “God-breathed” therefore it’s inerrant, 100% true, etc. But I don’t think that’s what Paul is saying. God’s breath brings to mind Genesis and could be maybe what Paul was drawing on? (who knows). But God’s breath/spirit (ruach) is what makes things alive so Paul could be just reiterating, as he has elsewhere, that scripture is alive.

1 Like

I believe the testament of Jesus is infallible, but believing the Bible is inerrant is like building your house on sand. I nearly lost my faith many times trying to be a theological contortionist to make every aspect of the Bible fit with historical/scientific truth.

Whenever in doubt, I’d suggest focusing on the love Jesus had towards us.

As a side note, I prefer to save my analytical energy for science, philosophy and whatever the latest Netflix original release is. Over analyzing the Bible is pretty fruitless for me and rarely impacts my life in a positive way. Anyone else find that to be the same?

2 Likes