The Implications If Parts of the Bible Texts are UnTrue

[Philip]

There is a raging debate from some that declare that some portions of the Bible are simply untrue - that they are either just myth or outright fictions. Therefore, if we they are speaking of the original writings as given by the Moses, the Prophets, Law Givers, as recorded about Jesus by the Apostles, as well as the content of their writings, then, for those believing in God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit - this brings up some immense ramifications and questions that need explanation. Those who are so quick to dismiss various passages rarely confront the obvious problems that creates for our ability to know the truth, or even our ability to trust God. This is an entirely different matter than thinking that the Scripture can be true, but we might have many questions as to exactly HOW that played out, in time, place, with the characters and events across Scripture.

Therefore, IF ANY of the Bible, as originally written, is false and not presently held by the Church in an intact WHOLE, then that means one or more of the following is true and should be explained:

- God is unconcerned about His Word not being kept together intact by the Church, and not blended with half-truths and outright fictions - this, His Word Jesus came to DIE to fulfill!

- If God is unconcerned about His word being hopelessly entangled with dangerous untruths and fictions, then He is unconcerned about the chaos and evil that might well arise from such distortions. Why is it people are all in an uproar at what the Muslims, Mormons and other cults have tacked onto God's Word, and yet we're not to be equally upset that through out 16 or whatever centuries that this has been done to Scripture???!!!

- Jesus either didn't say it, or truly didn't mean it, when He confirmed the Old Testament to be God's Holy and unchangeable Word.

- That neither the Jesus, the Prophets, nor the Apostles were concerned that some aspects of what were commonly held to be Scripture were not actually true. And that they saw no danger in these things, and thus saw no reason to raise an alarm. THIS of Jesus, the One who exclaimed that not one Jot or Tittle would pass away.

- One can have no real confidence in the Bible's truths. Because how do we know what is what? Look at where people say things in the Bible aren't true - and we often see such passages are immediately connected to and intertwined with key doctrines - IN FACT, they are sometimes used as a illustration for the doctrine. And these kinds of things are often reinforced over and over by the Apostles, as they prolifically quote from all over the OT, including passages asserted untrue.

- Even more absurd: The God Who spoke a universe into existence could not impart His Holy Word to man AND ALSO PROTECT IT; He doesn't have the ABILITY to protect it; He doesn't have the POWER to protect it.

- There are no dangers in disbelieving portions of the Bible that we might THINK are false, but which are totally true.

- We CAN'T trust God to guide us into all truth, because fully knowing even the truths of His on Word is very problematic.

To add: If we are trying to ONLY use our intellect and science or whatever to determine the truth of Scripture or we think to ourselves, "God would never do this or that," well - doesn't Scripture throughout show that He does not think like a man, nor how we might expect He would? Is it not filled with the miraculous? Is the very fact that I exist and am typing this not due to an enormous array of phenomenal miracles of God? So, every time we see a passage that has a mysterious, strange aspect to it - and as that is how God often seems to us - are we going to say it's completely or partially false because we don't deem it entirely logical or plausible? Again, a different thing than disagreeing over HOW it is true. And what do we do when the collective of Scripture doubles down on such assertions? That gets far harder to dismiss, does it not?

Thoughts?

[neo-x]

- Even more absurd: The God Who spoke a universe into existence could not impart His Holy Word to man AND ALSO PROTECT IT; He doesn't have the ABILITY to protect it; He doesn't have the POWER to protect it.

Even more absurder is God's inability to be clear in the text as you believe it has many meanings interpretations etc. So its ok to be extraordinarily vague but not wrong. So that no one xan agree to one meaning? I fail to see the importance of such protection which results in everyone bending scriptures to their own agenda which basically means that everyone can read and mean it to what he thinks.

[neo-x]

add: If we are trying to ONLY use our intellect and science or whatever to determine the truth of Scripture or we think to ourselves, "God would never do this or that," well - doesn't Scripture throughout show that He does not think like a man, nor how we might expect He would? Is it not filled with the miraculous? Is the very fact that I exist and am typing this not due to an enormous array of phenomenal miracles of God? So, every time we see a passage that has a mysterious, strange aspect to it - and as that is how God often seems to us - are we going to say it's completely or partially false because we don't deem it entirely logical or plausible? Again, a different thing than disagreeing over HOW it is true. And what do we do when the collective of Scripture doubles down on such assertions? That gets far harder to dismiss, does it not?

I didn't think you could have managed to misrepresent me anymore but you still have.

I didn't just read a passage and say that can't happen. Had that been true I would have denied Jesus' birth or resurrection. I told you repeatedly that I took exception to passages which we have evidence against. Phil, I am beginning to tire of your misrepresentations.

And its ironic given the fact that these are your words, because of all peoples it was you who denied the passage claiming that the sun and moon stopped.

[melanie]

I thought for a very long time that every word of the Bible had to be true. By true I mean literal but we already know that there is symbolism and storytelling that is extremely open to interpretation.
Which is why there are so many differing branches of Christianity with differing interpretations. Language is poetic as seen in scripture, symbolic and written in a way that speaks a language we understand. Although that is open to linguistic translation and a vastly superior spiritual language and understanding that exists in the spiritual realm. A language we are intellectually and spiritually unable to fully grasp and understand.
By that notion of course there is an element of mythology which presents itself in poetry, mythology and storytelling.
This in no way diminishes scripture as untrue, but rather paints it in the correct light.
Was Jonah trapped in the belly of a whale? Does a donkey talk?
Is the lesson the importance?
This notion that if we discredit any part of scripture as true then every aspect comes crashing down is what I used to think, and I believe that is based on fear rather than rationality.
Jesus spoke in parables, His lessonary was storytelling.
Painted pictures of moral with layers of spiritual lessons.
If scripture lends to a higher spiritual understanding through the means of imagery and parables then this is no way discredits but only adds value.
Regardless of whether any piece of scripture is taken literally from the Old to the New in no way negates from very profound spiritual lessons.

Which is why the Bible is so iconic. The most read book in history, a spiritual oasis of knowledge.
To Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Lutherans, and all other denominations wacko and otherwise.
Faith lives within.
It is internal not external.
The Word is living and resides within every believer, the Bible is a knowledge of God rich in story and testimony but the Word of God is Jesus and He is living. Within us.
The living, breathing Word of God is not written in pages but in our heart.
"For I am with you always"
The Bible is not an idol, it is a beautiful book of lessons and history.

[Philip]

Neo: I didn't think you could have managed to misrepresent me anymore but you still have.

Neo, this is not aimed at ONLY the implications of things you have said. The implications are for ANY who believe that the Bible is interlaced with pure myth, fictions and untruths.

Neo: Even more absurder is God's inability to be clear in the text as you believe it has many meanings interpretations etc.

The text has but ONE proper interpretation. That does not mean we always have that. And are the less clear portions always MEANT to be perfectly clear? Does God not want us to wrestle with some aspects as we mature in our understandings? So, you're saying that if there is something mysterious, strange or unclear to us, then A) it's automatically false or highly suspect? B) Are you saying that the text is not to contain mysteries?

Why did Jesus feel the need to explain and interpret, post his resurrection, to two of His Apostles, life-long Jews who knew the Scriptures, had followed and knew Him, of things they had wrongly or not understood? And not just a few things:

Luke 24:25: "And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe ALL that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."

Do you really think this quote of Jesus was written to only those two? Not recorded for the illumination of all afterward?

So, why had those many things in Scripture not been so clear before to these men? Because they were FALSE? Or is it not that, beforehand, the time for clearer understandings not yet arrived, as God so enlightened. How arrogant to think that God MUST have something recorded only in a way that we can perfectly understand it. Or, maybe you just doubt that passage as well? Or that our understanding should logically be immediate. How foolish!

Neo: So its ok to be extraordinarily vague but not wrong.

Do you think ANY theologian perfectly understands Scripture, that there are not mysteries to them? Do you think it is God's responsibility to make all things clear to us NOW???!!! How arrogant: The creature says to his Creator: "Lord, I think you should have done things differently. I don't like how you have left me with questions. I demand to clearly know ALL, RIGHT NOW! I refuse to believe this is your Word because, I a puny human with a finite mind, cannot accurately grasp it all. Lord, you should have done better! You shouldn't have let creative writing hacks pollute your intact Word. Etc."

Neo: So that no one xan agree to one meaning? I fail to see the importance of such protection which results in everyone bending scriptures to their own agenda which basically means that everyone can read and mean it to what he thinks.

Neo, the VAST majority of the Church agrees upon A) What it considers to be the Scriptures of God (the books), and B) agrees upon the essential doctrines of the faith. So, what of importance do you find so vague that is critical to your faith or salvation? Or, is it not more more a matter of you slicing and dicing aspects of Scripture which are far less important, and elevating such things to some supposed immense importance that YOU must understand them perfectly NOW?[/quote]

And I've not had time to sift through your long post of the other week yet. But I've not seen you address the HUGE, glaring problem that not ONE prophet, Jesus or apostle EVER sounded an alarm concerning supposed fictions being blended in with God's Word. In fact, ALL that is recorded expresses exactly the opposite of what you assert to be true about that. Explain THAT! Don't mince words. You either believe the entirety of Scripture is a whole is true, as originally given, OR you have a minefield of uncertainties about key doctrines, as they are so intricately intertwined with things you appear to doubt.

Modern textual criticism techniques have brought us far more certainties about the few minor passages that we can't historically authenticate - that bring reasonable doubt to their historical original inclusions - really, mere specs of insignificance - with not one few questioned verses changing anything of great doctrinal consequences. And they don't change reasonable confidence by scholars that the whole of Scripture, as given by the men of God, IS, in fact, intact.

To add: The truth of Scripture also isn't changed due to miscopies of word order, synonyms mistakenly used, spelling errors, etc. It also doesn't mean that all written down is verbatim, as an accurate summary of what was said or occurred is more than sufficient. It also doesn't negate that it includes allegory, metaphor, poetry, symbolism - all of that. But the existence of these things are not sufficient to reasonably declare that parts of Scripture, as originally given or inspired (by God), are simply false. That is a dangerous assumption - and is what I am most concerned with.

[PaulSacramento]

Just an FYI:

Myth as it is CORRECTLY used when referring to historical works:

myth
miTH/Submit
noun
1.
a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.


When some say the bible has some myth stories, they mean they above.

In short, a story that explains some social or moral issue that may or may not be true and may or may not involve the supernatural.
Jonah for example.

[PaulSacramento]

We need to understand that the bible is not A book but a collection of writings of various genres.
Some are to be taken as literal historical events written in the style of the ancient near east and others as poetry and others as ancient biographies in the style of the Pre and Post-Hellenistic period.

In short, they must be taken for what they were written as and not what we THINK or WANT them to be.

[Philip]

Paul: In short, they must be taken for what they were written as and not what we THINK or WANT them to be.

ABSOLUTELY true! One must get certain things right - IF possible - to get at the total meanings and truth. The question, however, is not just that - the question is: Did or did not God inspire the entirety of the text to be written down as it is? Did He use flawed vessels to do so? Of course. Does that limit His ability to control what was included or how? No! God is not limited in any way!

For instance, the inspiration to write down doesn't mean every verse is LITERALLY true, but may well be true in other ways. People are recorded to have told lies in Scripture - so, clearly, such details of the recorded lie itself are historical, but while the history is true, the lie is false. Many sinful things are recorded, etc. There are portions that people read as science, that are not meant as such. People may well express themselves per their understandings of the day - meaning, the sun doesn't literally/scientifically rise or go down. We still use such expressions. Does the earth have four corners, etc. Think of all the OT Scripture written by Prophets didn't necessarily have a comprehensive understanding or completely understand exactly what their inspired prophecies ultimately meant (as to the details in how they would play out). How would an ancient human have described space travel, if revealed in a dream or whatever? He'd describe it in as best words possible his experience would allow - in the verbiage common to his time.

So, the question is never ONLY one of, Is a Scripture true in a literal sense - but in WHAT sense, in what CONTEXT, in what MEANING, and did God inspire it to be written down - these are the questions. So, when I refer to inerrancy, I am referring to the question of whether God wanted it written down - did He intend it to be included as it is found, in the Canon of Scripture. Reasonable debate can be had over HOW a particular passage is meant to be interpreted. It's just that having uncertainties, I think a terrible approach is to assume a passage simply wasn't inspired - as redundantly mentioned, that is the polar opposite of what the entirety of Scripture claims for itself.

[abelcainsbrother]

All of the bible is true but there are things in it we cannot understand until more is revealed but what we do know gives us the evidence we need to know it is all true. Just because you might not understand certain parts of the bible right now does not mean it is not true or is a reason to doubt other parts of it. It is not good if we prop up a world view and it becomes more important to us than what we do understand or can understand about scripture.Scripture always is more important than your world view. World views have changed so much throughout history so that it is actually foolish for anybody to prop up their world view over scripture.God's word never changes even if there are parts in it where we do not yet have proper revelation from God about it. It really comes down to either man or God and you know man CANNOT be trusted,so choose God.

[Kurieuo]

We need to understand that the bible is not A book but a collection of writings of various genres.
Some are to be taken as literal historical events written in the style of the ancient near east and others as poetry and others as ancient biographies in the style of the Pre and Post-Hellenistic period.

In short, they must be taken for what they were written as and not what we THINK or WANT them to be.

I think it can't be ignored also the theology entwined around the history. That's primarily perhaps what makes many question the history within, the "God" factor. Yet, otherwise, the OT is largely just Israel recording their own history.

[PaulSacramento]

We need to understand that the bible is not A book but a collection of writings of various genres.
Some are to be taken as literal historical events written in the style of the ancient near east and others as poetry and others as ancient biographies in the style of the Pre and Post-Hellenistic period.

In short, they must be taken for what they were written as and not what we THINK or WANT them to be.

I think it can't be ignored also the theology entwined around the history. That's primarily perhaps what makes many question the history within, the "God" factor. Yet, otherwise, the OT is largely just Israel recording their own history.

Yes, indeed.
Some parts of the OT don't even have much, if any, theological significance, like Chronicles for example.
The OT is a Historical-geographical-theological-poetic account of the history of Israel.
Sure there is a HUGE amount of theological significance in the OT, that is an under statement, BUT we always need to remember that it was very tribal at certain points, that it dealt with a special message to a chosen group and was addressing very unique circumstances of those days AND that particular group that was being singled out for for future events.

[B. W.]

There are just too many things that point out that the writers wrote dictation from God such as this link shows...

http://www.bereanpublishers.com/a-hidden-torah-secret/

There is a lot more than this such as meaning on proper names from Adam to Noah...

Name----------Meaning

Adam.............Man
Seth..............Appointed
Enosh.............Mortal
Kenan............Sorrow
Mahalalel..........The Blessed God
Jared...............Shall come down
Enoch..............Teaching
Methuselah........His death shall bring
Lamech.............The Despairing
Noah ...............Rest, or comfort.

There are all sorts of things like this and I only listed the more known examples...
-
-
-

[Ecclesiastes12]

There's also the opinion of such individuals as Saint Augustine that there are many parts of the Bible that are allegorical. The Bible is first and foremost a moral text regarding God's law. It's not necessarily going to be a historical record in all places.