Hi everyone,
my question is this, is it possible to be a literal believer in the Bible. When I say this I mean can Christians believe that events like the flooding and Noah's Ark, parting of the sea, origin of the earth etc to be literal, historical facts? I can understand the "spiritual" nature of Biblical stories i.e. that biblical stories cannot be understood without spiritual insight. The consequence of thinking like that is that the bible may be largely metaphorical, can only be understood with deeper insight and knowledge.

I don't believe that thinking of the bible in this way takes away from the central message of the bible and in fact think that insistence on a literal interpretation of the bible only ends up in endless argument and quarrel. Would like to hear what people think of this.

Is there anyone that can give some insight into the question asked? Thanks.

The bible is the word of God and a history book. To say you would only read it for its "spiritual" message would be to miss the whole point entirely by a mile.
God frequently establishes and proves His sovereignty by many miracles and events that occur in the bible, if these events weren't meant to be read literally, then God would just be empty, making claims bout who He was but never able to back it up. It would just be a nice story book void of real power in changing people's lives.

So you couldn't be more wrong when you said "I don't believe that thinking of the bible in this way takes away from the central message of the bible".

The central message of the bible is Jesus coming to die for sinful people. If this never actually happened then there is no message. Why is it so hard to believe those stories? like the crossing of the red sea? or the great flood? or the many miracles? These accounts teach us about the nature of God, that He is all-powerful and we're taught to teach these events to our children and so forth. So to answer your question:

Literal bible belief is not only possible, it is necessary to understand the message of the bible. Cheers!

The bible is the word of God and a history book

the bible has been discarded as an history or archaeological source. if the bible is the word of God, why are their different versions of the bible among christian denominations

if these events weren't meant to be read literally, then God would just be empty, making claims bout who He was but never able to back it up. It would just be a nice story book void of real power in changing people's lives.

do u read the laws of the old and new testament literally? yes or no?

bawomolo:

The bible is the word of God and a history book

the bible has been discarded as an history or archaeological source. if the bible is the word of God, why are their different versions of the bible among christian denominations

if these events weren't meant to be read literally, then God would just be empty, making claims bout who He was but never able to back it up. It would just be a nice story book void of real power in changing people's lives.

do u read the laws of the old and new testament literally? yes or no?

ehen you have come with ur wahala again. . . I'm answering an honest seeker, something you wouldn't know about. I have seen that its pointless answering ur "questions" so I won't even bother with you.

ehen you have come with your wahala again. . . I'm answering an honest seeker, something you wouldn't know about. I have seen that its pointless answering your "questions" so I won't even bother with you.

why are u running away like maradonna.

bawomolo:

ehen you have come with your wahala again. . . I'm answering an honest seeker, something you wouldn't know about. I have seen that its pointless answering your "questions" so I won't even bother with you.

why are u running away like maradonna.

Lol. . . yes oh I am running away from a false pretender, whom I have seen in the past to waste the time of anyone who attempts to have a rational & honest discussion with him. When you're ready to engage honestly holla @me homeboy.

Ok JeSoul,
so what happens when scientific knowledge refutes something that is alleged to have happened in the Bible. If the Bible describes a flood that wiped out the earth and there is no evidence to back it up, do you just accept it? If the Bible says that a single family built a boat that carried two - male and female - of every animal on this earth does this really sound literally right to you. You may say that the scientific tools to check this details are faulty but remember that it's the same scientific principles that are used to built the car you drive, the computer you use, rocket ships that go to the moon.

Isn't it more likely that the Biblical stories are mythical but still bear a message. Again would love to hear your reply.

Lol. . . yes oh I am running away from a false pretender, whom I have seen in the past to waste the time of anyone who attempts to have a rational & honest discussion with him. When you're ready to engage honestly holla @me homeboy.

so how old is the earth??

Genesis 3:1:: King James Version (KJV) - “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”

“. . . And he (the serpent) said unto the woman . . .What Christians do not realise is that[b] There are no species of snake that can speak, and no species of reptile have a larynx in order to hold a conversation[/b].

??

Anyone with meaningful insight to the questions asked?

Tasma:

Hi everyone,
my question is this, is it possible to be a literal believer in the Bible. When I say this I mean can Christians believe that events like the flooding and Noah's Ark, parting of the sea, origin of the earth etc to be literal, historical facts? I can understand the "spiritual" nature of Biblical stories i.e. that biblical stories cannot be understood without spiritual insight. The consequence of thinking like that is that the bible may be largely metaphorical, can only be understood with deeper insight and knowledge.

I don't believe that thinking of the bible in this way takes away from the central message of the bible and in fact think that insistence on a literal interpretation of the bible only ends up in endless argument and quarrel. Would like to hear what people think of this.

In my opinion, it's virtually impossible to be a strict Biblcal literalist. I suspect even the Charles Johnsons of the Flat Earth Research Society fame would have conceded that much. I agree with what you: many sections in the Bible were meant to be taken allegorically as opposed to an historical fact. I believe those that take the Creation story and Noah's flood as historical portrayals not only miss the point of those stories, but also give ample fodder for the Bible and their gospel - redemption through Jesus - to be discarded wholesale.

My two pence, take it for what it's worth.

KAG:

In my opinion, it's virtually impossible to be a strict Biblcal literalist.

  did you say impossible? this forum and a large percentage of the world, including myself are "strict bible literalists" so I'm not sure how you formed that opinion. I believe every word, syllable, comma, full stop, impossible sounding, scandalous, incredible, beautiful, perfect, hopeful story in the bible. You wan try?
And you're talking to a scientist here, I've heard it all in this field but I'll take my bible over any nobel prize winner textbook or thesis or theory any day! so don't say it's impossible at all.

  Anyways

Tasma

Tasma:

Ok JeSoul,
so what happens when scientific knowledge refutes something that is alledged to have happened in the Bible. If the Bible describes a flood that wiped out the earth and there is no evidence to back it up, do you just accept it? If the Bible says that a single family built a boat that carried two - male and female - of every animal on this earth does this really sound literally right to you. You may say that the scientific tools to check this details are faulty but remember that it's the same scientific principles that are used to built the car you drive, the computer you use, rocket ships that go to the moon.

Isn't it more likely that the Biblical stories are mythical but still bear a message. Again would love to hear your reply.

  I think the first thing you need to understand is that it is near impossible to expect science to explain everything the bible says happened. . .so if that's what you're looking for, you won't find it. There are proposed theories from both sides supporting or denouncing the flood - if you do an internet search you'll find lots and lots of them so I don't think we need to go over them here one by one.

  It all comes down to you honestly. . .because in spite of the evidence supporting or not supporting those biblical stories you will believe what you want- whether there is proof or not. And also remember the essence of a miracle is that it is a miracle! it cannot be explained. It's up to you to accept and believe it. The work of God and salvation cannot be proven scientifically, that's not the way it works. yet there are millions and millions of us whose lives have been changed completely. It's something you feel and experience personally, and cannot be re-produced in a lab or some other experiment.
Trying to rationalize and reconcile all biblical events with science is in my opinion a waste of time and will usually get you nowhere.
  That's why it is impossible for "outside" readers of the bible to understand and accept it - without faith you cannot understand and accept the bible. Becos Jesus Himself said:
John 20:29
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
The element of faith is above all most important, without it don't waste your time trying to read and understand the bible.
  So no the bible is not a mythical book, if it were it would contradict everything God says He is and that is impossible. Hope this answers your questions! cheers again!

JeSoul:

did you say impossible? this forum and a large percentage of the world, including myself are "strict bible literalists" so I'm not sure how you formed that opinion.

I'm pretty sure you're not a strict literalist. How did I form that opinion? From knowing the Bible. Instances in the Bible, if read literally, not only contradict reality and misses the point - the purpose of the tale gets shrouded in attempts at historicism and revisionism, they also contradict other literally interpreted verses and chapters [b][i]in[/i[]/b] the Bible.

I believe every word, syllable, comma, full stop, impossible sounding, scandalous, incredible, beautiful, perfect, hopeful story in the bible. You wan try?

Okay, let's try just the one for now. Are you a geocentrist? That is, do you believe the Earth is stationary and evrything revolves around it? Based on your reply, we'd see if there's a necessity to point out other things that can't be taken literally.

And you're talking to a scientist here, I've heard it all in this field but I'll take my bible over any nobel prize winner textbook or thesis or theory any day! so don't say it's impossible at all.

What kind of scientist are you?

KAG:

I'm pretty sure you're not a strict literalist.

ah ah I'm telling you I believe the bible 100% and I'm the strictest of the strictest literalists n you're saying you're sure I'm not? 

How did I form that opinion? From knowing the Bible. Instances in the Bible, if read literally, not only contradict reality and misses the point - the purpose of the tale gets shrouded in attempts at historicism and revisionism, they also contradict other literally interpreted verses and chapters [i]in[/i[]/b] the Bible.

   Of course many bible stories defy understanding and contradict the norm or science or "reality" as you put it. That's why they were called miracles! Duh!

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
mir·a·cle Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mir-uh-kuhl]
–noun 1. [b]an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause. 

  If you now say you don't believe in miracles then there'll be nuthin left to discuss because that'll be the fundamental difference that makes any future conversation useless. plus every so-called "contradiction" in the bible is an illusion n can n has been refuted. Next. . .

Okay, let's try just the one for now. Are you a geocentrist? That is, do you believe the Earth is stationary and evrything revolves around it? Based on your reply, we'd see if there's a necessity to point out other things that can't be taken literally.

  I'm wary of taking this route you want to use.
Here let me make this clear. . . I believe pretty much everything that's been established in science and written in textbooks except where the science contradicts or doesn't support the biblical account. There I draw the line. Or in other words, the bible is my first book of reference and all other books must bow to it and agree with it or else never make it to my bookshelf,
 
  So no. I believe as science teaches, that the earth revolves around the sun.

What kind of scientist are you?

I like to retain complete anonymity but I shall oblige you this time, I'm in drug discovery/development, Process Sciences but mostly protein analytics.

plus every so-called "contradiction" in the bible is an illusion n can n has been refuted.

how sure are u of this. every??

except where the science contradicts or doesn't support the biblical account.

and why is this??

Jesoul can u pls explain the 4-legged grasshopper??

Lev.11:20-23
20* ¶ 'All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. 21* 'Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth. 22* 'These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds. 23 'But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.

does the moon give off it's own light??

Ezekiel 32:7
7 When I snuff you out, I will cover the heavens
and darken their stars;
I will cover the sun with a cloud,
and the moon will not give its light.

JeSoul:

ah ah I'm telling you I believe the bible 100% and I'm the strictest of the strictest literalists n you're saying you're sure I'm not?

Yup. The amount o mental gymnastics required to be a strict literalist is beyond any one.

Of course many bible stories defy understanding and contradict the norm or science or "reality" as you put it. That's why they were called miracles! Duh!

Oh no, I'm claiming at this point that there can't be miracles, but when the explanation to try to explain away the disreprancies is even more miraculous than the one reported in the Bible itself, then you know you have a problem. For instance, since the flood story has been mentioned, to explain how the flod could happen and how the evidence for it can be virtually non-existent, literalists of the flood account have to turn the Christian God into a shoddy, somewhat deceptive being. Their explanations have become so outrageous that the flodd as reported in the Bible is the least miraculous thing. I hope that makes sense.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
mir·a·cle Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mir-uh-kuhl]
–noun 1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

If you now say you don't believe in miracles then there'll be nuthin left to discuss because that'll be the fundamental difference that makes any future conversation useless.

I don't see why.

plus every so-called "contradiction" in the bible is an illusion n can n has been refuted. Next. . .

Not if you're a strict literalist. The contradictions are remarkably difficult to explain away when one isn't a literalist. They are impossible to explain when one sticks to literalism.

On occasion I've posted the Easter challenge (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-47997.0.html). To my knowledge, it has never been reconciled. Many attempts have been made using non-literalist methods. I don't see how literalism can fare.

Or, another example, the case of Judas. Two canonnical books report thus:


Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.


Matthew 27:

5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in.


Notice the disreprancies. How can they possibly be reconciled by a strict literalist? Notice also, that those verses aren't necessarily salvation issues if taken in a certain spirit.

I'm wary of taking this route you want to use.
Here let me make this clear. . . I believe pretty much everything that's been established in science and written in textbooks except where the science contradicts or doesn't support the biblical account. There I draw the line. Or in other words, the bible is my first book of reference and all other books must bow to it and agree with it or else never make it to my bookshelf,

So no. I believe as science teaches, that the earth revolves around the sun.

Then you are not a strict literalist. A strict reading of biblical instances like the sun going backwards for Hezekiah and references to an unmovable Earth strongly support geocentricism. There was a reason the Church pre- and after Galileo could support their view Biblically.

I like to retain complete anonymity but I shall oblige you this time, I'm in drug discovery/development, Process Sciences but mostly protein analytics.

Interesting. Thanks.

KAG:

Yup. The amount o mental gymnastics required to be a strict literalist is beyond any one.

  nope. No mental gymastics here brotha . . . faith faith and more faith! that's all I can say to you.

Oh no, I'm claiming at this point that there can't be miracles,

therefore any further discussion might not really be fruitful Becos we need a common ground to work off from. If you don't believe in miracles then there's no point in discussing how it might have happened in the first place or how science can justify it or anything else about it

but when the explanation to try to explain away the disreprancies is even more miraculous than the one reported in the Bible itself, then you know you have a problem. For instance, since the flood story has been mentioned, to explain how the flod could happen and how the evidence for it can be virtually non-existent, literalists of the flood account have to turn the Christian God into a shoddy, somewhat deceptive being. Their explanations have become so outrageous that the flodd as reported in the Bible is the least miraculous thing. I hope that makes sense.

  Kinda. Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you.
Like I'd mentioned to Tasma above, I think it is really pointless to try to reconcile science with some biblical events and those who go to the ends of the universe with wild theories to try and "validate" the scriptural account are wasting their time and those who listen to them. I'm not down with those outrageous claims as you say but simply take what I'm given in the bible as all I really needed to know about it. I mean who cares how the earth got flooded? or how we 'evolved' or whatever? I know I'm a science head and we like to figure out and investigate things but still I recognize when a search might be pointless and avoid it. Especially if it makes no difference in my 'practical' life.

   I simply hold that not all biblical events can be explained by science, but it doesn't make it any less believable to me that is.

Not if you're a strict literalist. The contradictions are remarkably difficult to explain away when one isn't a literalist. They are impossible to explain when one sticks to literalism.

On occasion I've posted the Easter challenge (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-47997.0.html). To my knowledge, it has never been reconciled. Many attempts have been made using non-literalist methods. I don't see how literalism can fare.

Or, another example, the case of Judas. Two canonnical books report thus:


Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

Matthew 27:
5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in.

Notice the disreprancies. How can they possibly be reconciled by a strict literalist? Notice also, that those verses aren't necessarily salvation issues if taken in a certain spirit.

  I think most christians on this forum are usually suspicious of challenges because 99% of them are rarely honest one.
but brotha there is no contradiction because both can be true without contradicting each other! one verse does not exclude the possibility of the other one. Judas coulda hung himself, died, then his body fell and all that nastiness gushed out.
 

Then you are not a strict literalist. A strict reading of biblical instances like the sun going backwards for Hezekiah and references to an unmovable Earth strongly support geocentricism.

   I think the big thing you need to know is that I firmly believe God can do absolutely anything, anything. So if He chose that day to have the sun move instead of the earth, I believe it. If He chose to make the earth stop and become unmoveable - then it so be it. So saying I'm down with geocentrism might be kind of right  depending on the day and the miracle God chose to do.

JeSoul:

nope. No mental gymastics here brotha . . . faith faith and more faith! that's all I can say to you.

But already that inclination is seemingly noticeable.

therefore any further discussion might not really be fruitful Becos we need a common ground to work off from. If you don't believe in miracles then there's no point in discussing how it might have happened in the first place or how science can justify it or anything else about it

Since the emphasis here is on literalism, that should mean my views on miracles are irrelevant.

Kinda. Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you.
Like I'd mentioned to Tasma above, I think it is really pointless to try to reconcile science with some biblical events and those who go to the ends of the universe with wild theories to try and "validate" the scriptural account are wasting their time and those who listen to them. I'm not down with those outrageous claims as you say but simply take what I'm given in the bible as all I really needed to know about it. I mean who cares how the earth got flooded? or how we 'evolved' or whatever?

The problem isn't reconciling the Bible, its the reverse: reconciling a literal reading of certain texts with, in some cases, every facet of scientific findings.

I know I'm a science head and we like to figure out and investigate things but still I recognize when a search might be pointless and avoid it. Especially if it makes no difference in my 'practical' life.

I can respect that.

I simply hold that not all biblical events can be explained by science, but it doesn't make it any less believable to me that is.

That really hasn't been the point.

I think most christians on this forum are usually suspicious of challenges because 99% of them are rarely honest one.

Mine are.

but brotha there is no contradiction because both can be true without contradicting each other! one verse does not exclude the possibility of the other one. Judas coulda hung himself, died, then his body fell and all that nastiness gushed out.

Rather than point out that the explanation proffered is spurious IMO, I'll state instead that you're not being a strict literalist. Further, you haven't reconciled the purchase of the field.

I think the big thing you need to know is that I firmly believe God can do absolutely anything, anything. So if He chose that day to have the sun move instead of the earth, I believe it. If He chose to make the earth stop and become unmoveable - then it so be it. So saying I'm down with geocentrism might be kind of right depending on the day and the miracle God chose to do.

Like I said, when the explanation to try to explain away the disreprancies is even more miraculous than the one reported in the Bible itself, then you know you have a problem. That view seems awfully fraught with

KAG:

Since the emphasis here is on literalism, that should mean my views on miracles are irrelevant.

I don't think so. Tasma is asking if we believe all the miracles in the bible actually happened. If you don't believe in miracles then you've already answered no to that question.
Based on what I've said so far you've concluded I'm prob not a "strict literalist" - I'm not sure what you classify as a strict literalist but all I know is I believe everything written in the bible.

The problem isn't reconciling the Bible, its the reverse: reconciling a literal reading of certain texts with, in some cases, every facet of scientific findings.

You led me to my next point . . . like i said b4 there's no point in trying to reconcile some stories in the bible with known and accepted scientific principles. Becos the essence of a miracle is that it cannot be explained in the first place!

Rather than point out that the explanation proffered is spurious IMO,

lol. . . def in your opinion brotha. I think the fact that both verses can be true without contradicting the other should be more than sufficient an answer to ur challenge.

I'll state instead that you're not being a strict literalist. Further, you haven't reconciled the purchase of the field.

Okay maybe I'm not a strict literalist according to you, really makes no difference to me as long as what I believe and stand for is pretty clear.
The purchase of the field is also the same, one doesn't contradict the other and it is also one you need to have read another part of the bible to solve.
We're told in John 12 that Judas was a theif and frequently stole from the disciples "no intrest-savings account" (okay my words)

4But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5"Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." 6He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because [b]he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

The verse in Acts 1 says "With the reward he got for his wickedness (or the reward of iniquity), Judas bought a field". With the money he stole he bought a field. . .it doesn't say the money he got from the Pharisees! It simply says with the reward/money he had gotten thru his wickedness, obviously thru his stealing he used to buy a field. Since we're already told he was a theif and frequently stole from the other disciples/Jesus. This should sufficiently answer ur question.

Like I said, when the explanation to try to explain away the disreprancies is even more miraculous than the one reported in the Bible itself, then you know you have a problem. That view seems awfully fraught with

I really don't see how any of the explanations I've shown amount to being more incredible than the story itself. It seems pretty straightforward, there's no manipulation whatsoever, just plain logic.
If both can be true without contradicting the other, then where's the beef?

JeSoul:

I don't think so. Tasma is asking if we believe all the miracles in the bible actually happened. If you don't believe in miracles then you've already answered no to that question.

Yes, but my beliefs are irrelevant to the validity or invalidity of literally interpreting every part of the Bible.

Based on what I've said so far you've concluded I'm prob not a "strict literalist" - I'm not sure what you classify as a strict literalist but all I know is I believe everything written in the bible.

A strict literalist would be someone that interprets every part of the Bible literally. Qualify what you mean by "believe".

You led me to my next point . . . like i said before there's no point in trying to reconcile some stories in the bible with known and accepted scientific principles. Becos the essence of a miracle is that it cannot be explained in the first place!

It's not so much the miracle as the absence of any thing showing that an event has occured. Let's go back to the flood. The problem isn't so much that the event couldn't have occured, but that the evidence that it occured is suspiciously lacking. That is, cultures, history and gelogic features and happenings carried on unperturbed. To then make a literal reading of Noah's flood work, it becomes necessary to claim that perhaps the Judeo-Christian God cleaned up afterwards and then proceded to make it appear like nothing happened by implanting false memories and supplanting the environment. Like I said, it presents a shoddy and deceptive entity.

lol. . . def in your opinion brotha. I think the fact that both verses can be true without contradicting the other should be more than sufficient an answer to your challenge.

Um, you had to implant your own external notions into both texts to make your version seem feasible to you.

Okay maybe I'm not a strict literalist according to you, really makes no difference to me as long as what I believe and stand for is pretty clear.

Which is kind of the point, isn't it?

The purchase of the field is also the same, one doesn't contradict the other and it is also one you need to have read another part of the bible to solve.
We're told in John 12 that Judas was a theif and frequently stole from the disciples "no intrest-savings account" (okay my words)

4But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5"Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." 6He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because [b]he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

The verse in Acts 1 says "With the reward he got for his wickedness (or the reward of iniquity), Judas bought a field". With the money he stole he bought a field. . .it doesn't say the money he got from the Pharisees! It simply says with the reward/money he had gotten through his wickedness, obviously through his stealing he used to buy a field. Since we're already told he was a theif and frequently stole from the other disciples/Jesus. This should sufficiently answer your question.

Um. no, not even close. Notice again that you aren't being literalist in your interpretation. The field purchased was the same field: "the field of blood. It got its name in the Matthew account from from the sale involving the pieces of silver given to Judas to betray Jesus, and in Acts because Judas died in it.

I really don't see how any of the explanations I've shown amount to being more incredible than the story itself. It seems pretty straightforward, there's no manipulation whatsoever, just plain logic.
If both can be true without contradicting the other, then where's the beef?

Your post:

"I think the big thing you need to know is that I firmly believe God can do absolutely anything, anything. So if He chose that day to have the sun move instead of the earth, I believe it. If He chose to make the earth stop and become unmoveable - then it so be it. So saying I'm down with geocentrism might be kind of right Wink depending on the day and the miracle God chose to do. "

To make that possible, the forces governing motion will have to be shoddily reworked. More importantly, though, yet again, the memories of everyone else on Earth would have to be tampered with, their envionments too would need reworking in such a way as to make the original miracle both unnecessary and unbelievable.

If it is possible for you Christians to be a literal believer in the Bible,then you Christians should be able to explain to us How a serpent can talk?

Genesis 3:1:: King James Version (KJV) - “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And[b] he said [/b]unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”

“. . . And he (the serpent) said unto the woman . . .What Christians do not realise is that There are no species of snake that can speak, and no species of reptile have a larynx in order to hold a conversation.

Right JeSoul,
I said a lot of the Biblical stories don't seem credible and you are saying that they simply must be accepted as they are. That one must apply enough faith to nollify the need for any critical, scientific analysis of any Biblical story. In that sense I'm not sure if we are really discussing the topic of the post reasonably. Why? Well because you have simply gotten us to the point that says believe everything in the Bible because it is the Bible and thus does not need to be explained reasonably.

I've always found that stand a bit curious, that stand means any other religious group may claim their ways are "the way" because their knowledge is divinely inspired and thus cannot be questioned by anyone. Funny enough if God created us with critical minds to help us survive in a changing natural environment, isn't it strangely worrying that He would actually want us to shelf our reasoning faculties when it comes to understanding him and his nature?

Thanks for the comments from everyone so far.

Is there anyone that can give some insight into the question asked? Thanks.

If you beleive there is nothing impossible for God. Then; your question is answered.

@ Topic (Tasma)
You are not the only one that is confused. The problem with the Bible is that the part you understand most is the part that confused you the most. The Bible with is various doctrine are meant to be beyond the grasp of human reason. You are expected to believe in the doctrines only by one’s heart and mind. You have no choice of even questioning the practicability of all the inconceivable dogmas.

You should ask your self:

Is the Bible the book which Jesus wrote as a scripture revealed by God?
Did Jesus order or desire at any time in his life to write anything on his behalf?
Was the Bible written during the life of Jesus?
Was the Bible written immediately after the departure of Jesus?
The answer to all four questions is NO.

That’s why it is called the WORLD BESTSELLER

@ Dafid,

Assuming I believe God is capable of doing anything and apply this to literal belief of the Bible. That would mean that I believe God would allow THE book that sends his word to man to be full of contradictions and incredulous stories, also he would expect me to believe this stories even if there is no real evidence to support them. This post is not so much about whether God has done miraculous things in the past, but the fact that somehow there has been so much effort to make sure there is no physical evidence to back the miracles. I wonder why this is so. The only way to accept the Bible fully is simply to say "it doesn't make reasonable sense, I don't understand it, but it must all be true because the Bible says it and the Bible is God's word".

If that's the case then belief in the Bible can only be a spiritual thing and not something that one can back up with reason or logic.

Am of the opinion dat d bible was written by men trying to describe sometins they had little or no knowledge of and had to describe experiences which they were ill equipped to appropriately describe especially with the level of development at dat time both scientifically n grammatically. This will explain why some reported accounts look a bit too fantastic for us far removed from the actual events.

Another thing is dat at our stage of development we may not have the tools to adequately verify the actuality or not of these recorded events.

Another thing is that at our stage of development we may not have the tools to adequately verify the actuality or not of these recorded events.

why read or utilize the bible if it's beyond our intellect then. why pick up a quantum physics book if u haven't studied general physics yet??

KAG:

It's not so much the miracle as the absence of any thing showing that an event has occured.Let's go back to the flood. The problem isn't so much that the event couldn't have occured, but that the evidence that it occured is suspiciously lacking. That is, cultures, history and gelogic features and happenings carried on unperturbed. To then make a literal reading of Noah's flood work, it becomes necessary to claim that perhaps the Judeo-Christian God cleaned up afterwards and then proceded to make it appear like nothing happened by implanting false memories and supplanting the environment. Like I said, it presents a shoddy and deceptive entity.

You're still beating around the same bush KAG. They're multitudes of scientists both christian and non-christian who've put forth theories that either show the flood could or could not have happened. A lot of the time it comes down to their personal opinion. And it comes down to you or anyone one else, you'll either believe the biblical account or not whether there is proof or not.

Um, you had to implant your own external notions into both texts to make your version seem feasible to you.

Your opinion and I respect but vehemently disagree with it.
To me its plain logic and accepted everywhere: If one statement can be true without the other being wrong/both true without excluding the possiblity of the other, then I really don't get what the hassle is all about This is plain logic.

Um. no, not even close. Notice again that you aren't being literalist in your interpretation. The field purchased was the same field: "the field of blood. It got its name in the Matthew account from from the sale involving the pieces of silver given to Judas to betray Jesus, and in Acts because Judas died in it.

I gave you one possiblity, another many people have put forth is that the pharisees took the money and bought the field like it says in the text, but the author in acts attributed the purchase of the field to Judas becos it was his money, though the pharisees bought it. Another possibility. I don't know which is the right one and will not pretend to.

But if you or anyone else is going to discredit the bible based on this one so-called contradiction that many theories have been put forth to answer, I think that is highly disingenious. The bible is 66books long, and the only evidence to say it's not trustworthy is this lil' query with Judas?

To make that possible, the forces governing motion will have to be shoddily reworked. More importantly, though, yet again, the memories of everyone else on Earth would have to be tampered with, their envionments too would need reworking in such a way as to make the original miracle both unnecessary and unbelievable.

Could not disagree more.
Again you're saying this evidence of the sun going backward is absent. . .what kind of evidence would you be looking for to prove this did or didn't happen?
Like I said before there's tons of work already done of this supporting or attempting to disprove this possiblity and I don't really have anything new to add to them. . .each person will believe what they want. I'm not going to pretend like I have all the answers and can explain everything, no way. And some things I cannot prove or disprove. And the sad thing is all these miracles are not even close to the primary message of the bible, that's not what is important and God is not intrested in proving His existence or supremacy or sovereignty to man.

But relying on "proof" and "evidence" in order for you to believe in the bible is pointless. It really is. Faith puts your heart in a position to be receptive and learn what really is true. Using your mere intellect with prove frustrating nd get you nowhere.

Tasma:

Right JeSoul,
I said a lot of the Biblical stories don't seem credible and you are saying that they simply must be accepted as they are. That one must apply enough faith to nollify the need for any critical, scientific analysis of any Biblical story.

  yes yes yes! you're getting the point Tasma. Though I kinda suspect you already knew this

In that sense I'm not sure if we are really discussing the topic of the post reasonably. Why? Well because you have simply gotten us to the point that says believe everything in the Bible because it is the Bible and thus does not need to be explained reasonably.

  You're kind of right. I'll tell you right now there is no christian on earth that can explain to you everything in the bible, it's just so in-depth and complicated sometimes. And trying to reason out or rationalize faith and Christ and God based principles with your human brain will result in a headache. A lot of the times biblical principles can only be understood with the help of the holy spirit. That's why I keep saying for non-christians trying to understand the bible from a secular point of view will be very frustrating and unproductive.
  But it is the word of God, and because of that simple fact, it cannot be questioned and doubted.

I've always found that stand a bit curious, that stand means any other religious group may claim their ways are "the way" because their knowledge is divinely inspired and thus cannot be questioned by anyone. Funny enough if God created us with critical minds to help us survive in a changing natural environment, isn't it strangely worrying that He would actually want us to shelf our reasoning faculties when it comes to understanding him and his nature?

  You are also onto something here and I totally get your point
  Yes God did give us minds and brains to think and reason out the world around us, like I said before I myself am a scientist. BUT there is a limit to what our minds can discover and comprehend and the wise man is one who knows what this limit is and knows when to let faith take over.
 
Thanks Tasma for providing a topic where we can engage in good discussion! 

bawomolo:


Another thing is that at our stage of development we may not have the tools to adequately verify the actuality or not of these recorded events.

why read or utilize the bible if it's beyond our intellect then.  why pick up a quantum physics book if u haven't studied general physics yet??

The human mind can grasp higher concepts than is currently verified if not how did we progress? We progressed because we 'believed'. From our beliefs came the tools to verify these higher concepts. For example Leonardo Da Vinci designed heavier than air flying craft but was unable to realise his 'belief' in the concept because he did not have the tools. The bible may very well be in this league so instead of trying to ignore it we should work from a scientifically objective position and design tools that will prove or this prove the concepts/events within the bible.

It is the way of human progress to search for higher concepts can the bible not be an example?