Board index ‹ Bible

[Nosper]

My Christian family doesn't believe the stories or in the morals of the Old Testament. How do you know which parts of the Bible are real and which are stories?

I've been reading the bible and I want to ask what people think about the actual details about the flood story, the Binding of Isaac, Tower of Babel, Lot's Wife and Daughters, or Jacob's sons. The answer I commonly get is "they're not literal, they're allegories or simply fictional stories". My parents for example, fully believe in evolution and think the Bible doesn't interfere with science at all.

I suppose my real question is: where does it stop? Let's suppose I wanted to go back to the church and fully believe, how am I supposed to know what's the real part of the bible, which part is actually from god? If the stories in Exodus are just a fictional story to teach life lessons then can't the life story of Jesus also be a life lesson?

In fact, thinking about it, I've met Christians who have told me that it doesn't actually matter if the story of Jesus is real or not, because the message is still true and you can still get the same meaning and power of the religion. To me, if you take out Genesis, the entire thing falls on itself. If you admit that some of the Gospel is fabricated, then aren't you admitting that you're just believing in something that makes you feel good?

I don't mean to be adversarial, I just want to understand how people can still believe in a book, or think it was divinely inspired if they can be willing to throw out certain sections. Another example will be the entirety of Leviticus. It is extremely direct listing all the rituals and sacrifices one is supposed to make. However, a lot of Christians will reference a few vague lines in the New Testament that supposedly claim that Jesus created a New Covenant, taking away from the old. Matthew 5:17-20 even says that Jesus wasn't going to abolish the old Mosaic laws.

I'm just confused to what my Christian friends or my parents actually believe, if they aren't exactly following the word of the Bible.

[jimwalton]

We use our brains, we analyze, we study, we use all the resources at our disposal (science, history, literature, archaeology, etc.) and we determine as best we are able which are historic narrative and which are stories. As a result of my study:

- Noah's ark and the flood story: really happened, but lots of hyperbole. It wasn't a global flood, and the ark wasn't that big, but it was a real event.
- Binding of Isaac: really happened.
- Towel of Babel: really happened.
- Lot's wife, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: really happened
- Lot's daughters: really happened
- Exodus: really happened
- Jacob's sons: really happened
- Jesus: really historical, really happened. And it does matter.
- Gospels: really happened, though there are a lot of parables that Jesus told that are made up stories.
- Leviticus: Instructing the Israelites how to relate to God. We are not expected to obey Leviticus, since Jesus fulfilled the law. But the principles are still valid and worthy and speak to us.

I also believe in evolution and that the Bible doesn't interfere with science. Since God reveals himself in nature and reveals himself in Scripture, those revelations can't contradict. We can talk about Genesis 1 if you want.

> how am I supposed to know what's the real part of the bible, which part is actually from god?

I believe it's all actually from God. We'd have to talk about each individual piece if you want. It's too long to talk about them all in the same post.

So let's talk more. You can message me directly if you want to talk to me directly, keep posting on this forum to talk with many people about these subjects, or start new threads about each subject so there's room and time to talk about them.

[Stupid]

Sorry, but the bible and science are diametrically opposed.

Science requires demonstrable evidence and there is no such thing for anything in the bible.

The entire myth of christianity depends on the story of Adam and Eve being true, which of course it is not, as is proven by evolution.

So, evolution disproves Adam and Eve, without Adam and eve we have no original sin, therefore no need for a saviour, therefore Jesus was just a man, if he existed at all.

[jimwalton]

> Sorry, but the bible and science are diametrically opposed.

There is nothing in the Bible contrary to science. I'd be pleased to discuss whatever you wish. I love science and believe deeply in it. I also love the Bible and believe deeply in it. I find them to be perfectly compatible.

> Science requires demonstrable evidence and there is no such thing for anything in the bible.

I have to question both your research and your conclusion. We know a people group took over the high grounds of Canaan in the late 2nd millennium, just as the Bible says. We have evidence that biblical characters such as Hezekiah, Ashurbanipal, Tiglath-pilezer, Nabuchadnezzar, Caesar Augustus, Herod, Jesus, Paul, Peter, and a hundred others that the Bible tells us about actually existed. We have evidence of the the Assyrian conquest of northern Israel in 722 BC, the existence of Jerusalem during the monarchy, its destruction by Babylon in 586 BC, and a thousand other things. Your assertion that there is no demonstrable evidence for anything in the Bible is demonstrably false.

> The entire myth of christianity depends on the story of Adam and Eve being true, which of course it is not, as is proven by evolution.

I can presume from this comment that you have not done much study about the Adam & Eve story. The Bible doesn't, of course, contend that Adam and Eve were necessarily the first man and woman. Many Christians believe in science and in evolution. The truth of evolution doesn't at all show the story of Adam and Eve to be false. It's very possible that Adam & Eve could have been the first homo sapiens in the evolutionary chain that were considered to be fully human and evolved far enough to be spiritually capable and morally culpable. They could have come far down the evolutionary chain, and even into "modern" history (10,000 BC or so), and still could have been considered to be "the first" in a new understanding of what "human" was. Perhaps we should have more discussion before you draw such firm conclusions.

> So, evolution disproves Adam and Eve, without Adam and Eve we have no original sin, therefore no need for a saviour, therefore Jesus was just a man, if he existed at all.

As I have already stated, evolution doesn't disprove Adam and Eve at all. But we can talk about this more. It is also fairly well established that Jesus was a historical figure. Again, research brings this out. We can talk about this as well.

[Nosper]

It seems to me, that you take a different approach than my family, and instead you simply claim that the Bible is a factual and historical document. Now we could start debating the merits or reasons for each story, but I want to start with one thing: Noah's Ark.

In your comment you say that it did actually happen, but it wasn't a global flood and the ark wasn't really that big. Doesn't removing the grand nature of the flood take away from the message?

Genesis 6:17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.

Genesis 7:23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

It seems that it states directly that everyone will die in the flood, not just a local event. It feels to me, that my changing the story and claiming that it was just a minor event, voids the idea that Noah is the new Adam. At the time that some Christians claim the Genesis Flood story happened (24th century BC), there were people living lives in Egyptian and China.

Going back to my reddit thread post, I will say that Genesis is not a historical document. My parents and friends defend these stories by telling me that they have moral lessons, and are comforting to read, are beautiful works of literature. I will state, for all the problems the Flood story has, the same issues can pop up with Exodus, as there is no documented evidence of 600,000 Male Israelite Slaves living within Egypt. My biggest issue is that it feels like a pile of dominoes. Once you knock down the first story as being untrue, it feels one have to admit the other stories can also be fabrications.

Sorry I've I've brought up too many concurrent topics. We can focus purely on Genesis right now.

[jimwalton]

Let's talk about the flood first. First of all, hyperbole is common in the Bible as a literary form. Second, God's judgment on evil could easily be confined to the guilty group, and a major wipeout of that group would speak loudly to other groups. In that sense, it's like what happened to Hitler and Germany in WWII should be a historical lesson for the ages. We call it a world war, but in actuality only about 1/3 of the world was involved in it. Regardless, it's an appropriate term. If most of civilization at the time was in the Middle East (and we don't even know when the flood was), wiping out a major portion of the Middle East would speak loudly to the point at hand: God's judgment of sin.

> Gen. 6.17; 7.23

Let's talk about the universality of language: "all" and "every". What does "all" mean? In Gn. 41.57 (same book, same author), we read that "all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph because the famine was severe in all the world." Was Brazil experiencing famine? Did the Australians come to Joseph? No. "All" means the countries of the immediate vicinity in the ancient Near East.

Also, Deut. 2.25 (same author): "I will put the...fear of you on all the nations under heaven." Did that include the Mayans? The people of Madagascar? I don't think anyone would argue that this refers to more than the nations of Canaan, and perhaps a few others.

There are plenty of other references like this throughout the Bible (Acts 17.6; 19.35; 24.5; Rom. 1.8). We have to give serious consideration that quite possibly "all" doesn't mean "global".

Also, the flood didn't have to be global to accomplish God's purposes. God was dealing with Canaan and the surrounding neighbors. God was dealing with Noah's context. A flood in South America would be totally inexplicable to the people there, as well as patently unfair (which the Bible teaches that God is not). Noah was a preacher of righteousness, but not to the people of Africa, China, Australia, and the Americas. The language of the Noah story is normal for Scripture, describing everyday matters from the narrator's vantage point and within the customary frame of reference of his readers.

But what about "covering the mountains"? Again, a little detective work (rather than superficial reading) can be of value. First of all, the high mountains were not generally considered mountains, but pillars holding up the firmament. When they talk about mountains, they are referring to the local geological shapes, not the Alps and Himalayas. And what does "cover" mean? The Hebrew root is *ksh*, and is used in a wide variety of nuances:

* A people so vast they "cover" the land (Num. 22.11)
* Weeds "cover" the land (Prov. 24.31)
* clothing (1 Ki. 1.1)
* Overshadowed (2 Chr. 5.8; Ps. 147.8)

In Job 38.34; Jer. 46.8; Mal. 2.13, "covered" is figurative. If Gn. 7.19 is read in the same way, it suggests that the mountains were drenched with water or coursing with flash floods, but it doesn't demand they were submerged.

What about "15 cubits above" (Gn. 7.20)? The Hebrew reads "15 cubits *from above* (*milme'la*) rose the waters, and the mountains were covered." It is therefore not at all clear that it is suggesting the waters rose 15 cubits higher than the mountains. It can mean "above"; it can mean "upward" or “upstream". If this were the case in Genesis, it would suggest that the water reached 15 cubits upward from the plain, covering at least some part of the mountains.

What about all the animals dying? Again, we have to define "all", but based on what I previously said, it could easily refer to "all" the ones within the scope of the flood, not necessarily global destruction. Again, look at Gn. 2.13, where the river "winds through all (same word as Gn. 7.21) the land of Cush." Does it mean every square inch of it? Not likely.

Genesis 7.22 says, "Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died." I know this could have been expressed in multiple ways, but I don't fault the writer to choosing what he did. "All" not only denotes the scope of the physical flood for the intended population, but it can also connote the completeness of the judgment. If he had said something like "as far as the eye could see" it might be assumed that the judgment was less than accomplished. That wording would have been less adequate for the situation, in my opinion. to point was to express the completeness of the judgment on the target audience, and "all" expresses that, though it obviously leads to other misunderstandings as well. We do have to entertain the thought that the ancients understood quite well the intent of the text, but through the millennia it got lost in "Enlightenment literalism", and we are the victims of the misunderstanding. It's time to get back to seeing the event through ancient eyes.

Besides, we have to look at a few other things.

1. A global flood is totally out of character with all of God's other miracles in the Bible. It's not His m.o.. It's not the way he does things, and it doesn't fit His pattern of working.

2. A global flood is unjust, and God is not unjust. What fits the Biblical description of God is that God judged the people who were worthy of judgment, who had been warned, and who had adequate opportunities to change their ways. A global flood doesn't fit this picture.

I hope that helps.

> I will say that Genesis is not a historical document.

I obviously think Genesis is a historical document. Though they have a clear moral lesson, they could have really happened. We are learning a real moral lesson from having Donald Trump as President, but it's really happening.

> The Exodus

Though there is no direct evidence proving the Exodus, there has been zero evidence to contradict it. And we know that a lack of evidence speaks neither for nor against a proposition. Logically it leaves it neutral. There are, however, about 15-20 evidences from the text itself that speak to the historical accuracy of what is written. The text itself leads us to believe that it is meant to be historical narrative, and it correctly mentions many things that could only have been known at the time (i.e., could not have been written centuries later). We can talk about this more if you want.

> 600,000 Israelites in Egypt.

No, no. This is probably a misinterpretation of the Masoretic text. In Moses, the word for "thousand" was vocalized "elep" but was written "lp" (Gn. 20.16). But a similar word vocalized "alup" (meaning clan, or troop, or chief) was also written "lp" (Gn. 36.15; Judges 6.15). In other words, suppose the author meant "alup"? That would tell us, for instance, that Reuben consisted of 46 clans, not 46,000. Quite a difference. And if we look at it logically, Egypt at the time had an army of 20,000. If there were 600K Israelite soldier, why would they be afraid (Ex. 14.10)? Israel crossed the Red Sea in one night—impossible for 2.6 million people. That many people would create a line over 100 miles long. Water from a rock would have to be the size of a very large lake to water them all. Jericho is only 4 miles from the Jordan. There just isn't room for 2.6 million campers between the Jordan and Jericho. The total population of Canaan was less than 1 million. It wouldn't have even been a war but instead a swarming over. There are a dozen more of these. It just doesn't make sense.

Instead, if we take the word as "clan," we do the math and end up with a total population for Israel of about 25,000—a much more reasonable number without having to twist the text.

There are so many things like this. People seem to think we can just read the Bible superficially, but there are parts of it that take some research. The stories aren't fabricated, but need to be studied.

I'd be glad to talk more if you want.

[Stupid]

Sorry, but these desperate attempts to retcon the “meaning” of the bible in order to try and reconcile it with the actual facts is pathetic.

Do you honestly believe that before we learned the facts about evolution and the history of the universe that the creation myth in genesis wasn’t considered by the church to be the literal truth?

This kind of post-hoc rationalization is a perfect example of the intellectual dishonesty that is rampant in apologetics.

When I refer to science being at odds with the bible, I’m not talking about some of the historical events that are documented therein, I’m talking about the obviously made up supernatural bullshit that is used as evidence for the existence of god.

There is zero empirical evidence for the existence of anything supernatural, or for a god, and no amount of third-party anecdotes, written down by anonymous authors who heard it from someone 30+ years after the fact is going to change that.

[jimwalton]

> Sorry, but these desperate attempts to retcon the “meaning” of the bible in order to try and reconcile it with the actual facts is pathetic.

And I'm sorry that you've entered a conversation where you're not open to dialogue and to consider perspectives you've never before heard. I was hoping we could have a conversation.

> Do you honestly believe that before we learned the facts about evolution and the history of the universe that the creation myth in genesis wasn’t considered by the church to be the literal truth?

It depends what you mean by "the literal truth". It has always been considered the truth. There have been many Christians throughout history who did not believe in 6-day creation. Augustine was one of them. The Catholic Church, as far as I know, has always subscribed to evolution. It is only really in the past several centuries that a broad width of the Protestant Church has espoused 6-day creation, to the extent that other voices were muted. Now with the new knowledge brought to us by archaeology, we are able to leapfrog over millennia of learning and get back to what the authors meant by what they wrote. And we are learning that the conservative Church of the past 3 centuries has been mistaken, and we need to return to the roots of what the Bible always taught.

> When I refer to science being at odds with the bible, I’m not talking about some of the historical events that are documented therein, I’m talking about the obviously made up supernatural bullshit that is used as evidence for the existence of god.

Science can't begin to prove that God doesn't exist because metaphysics are outside of its parameters. Science is great for learning about the natural world, but it can't possibly encompass all knowledge. There are things like law, literature, mathematics, philosophy, and theology that are beyond the scope of what science can comment on. If the supernatural happened, science would not be able to study it. If it were true that Jesus walked on the water (and I believe it is), it's not like he left footprints for us to see or that science can now do an experiment to see how he did it. So it's the miracles you object to?

If miracles are nonpredictable, nonrecurring events, how are they able to be studied by science? We should realize that science cannot prove that miracles are impossible. After all, science can only speak to what is within the purview of scientific observation and the study of nature. Anything outside of that ballpark is outside of its scope. Science can’t prove to us whether entities exist outside of nature, and whether or not those entities could possibly have an influence in our natural world.

There is no philosophical argument or scientific experiment that conclusively disproves the possibility of miracles. Scientifically speaking, the odds of certain miracles occurring (such as the resurrection) may be infinity to one, but theologically speaking they are x:x (unknown to unknown). Miracles are outside of the scope of probability calculations. But realistically, the question is not so much “Can they occur?” but “Do they occur?” Anyone will admit that scientists exclude the miraculous from their scientific work, which they are entitled to do. But that’s because if a scientist tried to offer a miraculous explanation for something, he or she would no longer be doing science, but something else, like theology or philosophy. Miracles are inadmissible as scientific evidence because they are unpredictable, not able to be compared with a control group, and unrepeatable for confirmatory studies.

Let’s talk a little bit about Newtonian physics and miracles. People's main problem with miracles is that they mess with what people know about science, while at the same time requiring them (if accepted) to subscribe to metaphysical realities like spirits and spiritual forces. But if we are honest philosophers and scientists, we have to be open to reputable questions (as any scientist would ask): Why can't the causal continuum be interfered with by supernatural and transcendent powers? Why are miracles necessarily incompatible with modern science? A little probing will reveal that they are not. They are only incompatible if it can be proved that nature is a closed continuum of cause and effect, and closed to any intervention from outside that continuum. Classical (Newtonian) science is nowhere near sufficient for anti-interventionism. Newton himself believed that the laws he observed reflected the nature of what God had created. According to Newton, natural law describes how the world works when, or provided that, the world is a closed system, subject to no meddling. The Newtonian laws of physics only apply to isolated or closed systems, but there is nothing in them to say there is or can be no God who can intervene in such a system to make change to the matter or energy in question. Furthermore, it is not part of Newtonian mechanics or classical science generally to declare that the material universe is a closed system— because that claim isn’t scientific, but theological, philosophical, or metaphysical. The laws don’t tell us how things have to go, or even how they always go, but only how they go when no outside agency acts on them.

Interestingly, quantum mechanics offers even less of a problem for special divine action than classical science, since quantum mechanics is characterized by (among other things) indeterminism: a spectrum of probabilities to the possible outcomes. Quantum mechanics doesn’t by necessity prohibit any answers to prayer, raising the dead, or walking on the water.

> There is zero empirical evidence for the existence of anything supernatural

It depends what you consider to be evidence.

[Stupid]

Ok, this is just getting ridiculous

No need to disprove something that cannot be proven, until something is proven to be true it is necessarily false.

Empirical evidence is the only evidence that matters when you are discussing the existence of a thing

“god” is not an idea, the debate over whether it exists is not a philosophical one. “God” is supposed to be a thing, an entity that acts and reacts with its own imperatives.

So either provide some empirical evidence that there is anything close to something that can fit the description of a god, or anything supernatural at all and then you have a leg to stand on.

Until then you are just parroting illogical bullshit from an old book that has zero claims to any truth

[jimwalton]

> No need to disprove something that cannot be proven, until something is proven to be true it is necessarily false.

Of course God cannot be proved. We can only weigh logic and evidences and deal in probability. The idea that "until something is proven to be true it is necessarily false" is a logical fallacy called "appeal to ignorance." Its premises are: Nobody has proved that X is true. Therefore X is false." It's a fallacy of weak induction.

> Empirical evidence is the only evidence that matters when you are discussing the existence of a thing

This is patently untrue. There are many realities not subject to empirical evidence. Our view of science as the ultimate authority of knowledge causes us to talk about material things as existence but non-material things as simply our opinions or beliefs. Kant says that the moral law within us exists just as surely as the stars. Time itself is a "thing," but it is immaterial and not subject to empirical evidence. Past, present, and future don't exist in physics but instead only in our experience. Principles of physics are delimited for the sake of objectivity, but physics can't and doesn't cover the whole of reality. Metaphysics have always existed alongside of physics and are needed to fill in the totality of reality. Never in history were these things seen as in opposition. Belief and knowledge together make up the totality of reality; science and empirical evidence cannot have ultimate authority because it is only one slice of reality.

> “god” is not an idea, the debate over whether it exists is not a philosophical one. “God” is supposed to be a thing, an entity that acts and reacts with its own imperatives

Right. God is subject not only to logical analyses, but also to philosophical science consideration (things like the reasoning in the arguments about fine tuning, purpose, and design). In "Where the Conflict Really Lies," Dr. Alvin Plantinga argues quite convincingly that "There is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and theistic belief, but superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism."

And, of course, when God is actively revealing himself (as in the days of Moses and Jesus), there is plenty of empirical evidence. We're not in one of those kinds of eras right now.