Why do so many young, smart, educated people on this sight read the Bible as literal history?

Question

It's 2007. Real Biblical scholarship, by real Theologians, Archaelogists,Historians,Linguists, etc. have studied the Bible for over 100 years armed with the knowledge that these ancient stories were not intended to be read literally. That the authors were much more interested in explaining and illuminating important theological concepts. And they did so using allegory, metaphor, etc. That historical,linguistic, scientific inconstistancies where irrelevant because they weren't recording history. They were recording their myths and belief systems in highly symbolic language.Yet these bright, questioning minds are totally hung up on the complete impossibility that the universe was created in 7 days.Historical Writing as we know it didn't exist. The author was trying to express his belief in an all-powerful creator god and through in an explaination as to why there are 7 days in a week.He was not attempting to give an historical description. He was not a scientist.Just one example. WHY?

True about the 7 days. But this is one of many instances when a storyteller of one religion religion incorporates elements of another, or of physical reality into his own rendition. Like the story of Gilgamesh and the Flood. This is exactly what I am talking about! The author was explaining his own worldview, choosing various elements. The same can be said about the Creation Myths of the Eskimos to the Oneida cornhusk doll myth. Bogged down on details without asking the important theological questions.

MamaMia: I AM a Theologian who has taught Theology and Biblical Criticism for years. And no, scientists don't just try to prove everything in the Bible as false. The crearly lablelled parables are only one part of the Bible. Jewish historians, like Hillel, are a completely different issue. Real Theologians,from real universites,make the assertion that biblical texts were not recorded as literal History, unless certain sections are identified as such. This does not, however, mean that certain aspects aren't heavily based on historical happenings.Or that they don't use historical backdrops to express their point,or that they don't, within the text, recount actual historical fact. The point is:Almost all of the text is written not as history as it's primary objective, but as belief stories. Yes, there is genealogies, historical recounting, poetry, letters, etc. But yes, a literal reading of theCreationstory misses the whole point of the story.Take a class,just one.U CAN still find faith

Answer 1

I have never read the bible if I want to read fiction, I'll grab a Dean Koontz book.

Answer 2

As a believer and a scientist, I can tell you a part of why this happens.
The same theologians, archealogists, Historians, and Linguists have researched the Bible and have proven that 99% of the factual events actually happened.
To the common reader, he is taught in Church and Sunday School, by teachers that don't understand the history, that every story is true, so they carry that belief through their life.

As a believer and a scientist (I have studied History, a bit of geology, a bit of paleoarcheology, as well as biology and astronomy,) I do not believe that the earth was created in seven actual days. If, as the Bible says, each day is *as* a thousand years, when you are with God, then that would be 6 thousand years. I believe that even that is too young a date on the world. The Pyramids themselves are many thousands of years old. I actually believe that "days" refers to era's or Millenia. (Millions of Years)

Most people just need the historical perspective behind the Bible, and should really be told that the Creation story is taken from a poem and isn't really what happened.

The Bible is the beginning of a Christian's Education, not the end of it. I believe that if you take the lessons it teaches, about faith, honesty, love, and freindships, as well as the sacrifices that people made to save other people, and use it as a guide on how to live your life, that's all you need.

Answer 3

1. You will not find a THEOLOGIAN to corroborate these statements. Scientists, yes, but not theologians. Scientists for the most part are looking for something, anything to disprove the facts of the Bible, and even skew facts to do so.

2. When the Bible is using a 'story' to get a point across, a 'parable', it is always clarified as such. These stories are separate from the historical accounts. And there are many different authors, over many years, not one author as you allege- all inspired by God to write.

3. Historical writing has existed in many cultures, especially in Hebrew and by the Jewish, who are known for their meticulous record-keeping.

4. Because you choose not to believe something, you obviously have chosen not to do any of your own research. I would suggest that you do that before trying to disprove something you don't really know about.

Answer 4

I find it ironic that jeeen used the phrase "gospel truth" when describing the bible as not 100 percent true. The phrase, "gospel truth" comes from believing that the gospels are true! (The Gospels being the books of the Bible, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.)

gos·pel (gŏs'pəl)
n.
1. often Gospel The proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles, which is the central content of Christian revelation.

2.
a.Gospel Bible. One of the first four New Testament books, describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and recording his teaching.
a.A similar narrative.
3.often Gospel from any of the first four New Testament books included as part of a religious service.
4.A teaching or doctrine of a religious teacher.
5.Music. Gospel music.
6.Something, such as an idea or principle, accepted as unquestionably true: My parents' rules were gospel.

adj.

often Gospel Of or in accordance with the Gospel; evangelical.
Of or relating to gospel music.


I fully realise that the word can be used in many ways, as per the definition above. I just find it ironic. It gave me a chuckle.

And jeeen, I'm certainly not trying to be divisive. I know that you are a believer, so please don't be offended by my comment. Like I said it just gave me a chuckle. :D

Answer 5

Close, but no cigar.


The concept of a week derives from the lunary cycle, and the author of Genesis 1 knew this. The week for creation was designed to justify *celebrating* the 1/4 lunar cycle, in order to justify the Jewish religion (largely based on the moon) over the Babylonian religion.



Edit: Yeah, you're basically right, but I felt like addressing that one detail. The Bible is *quite* useful when read critically. That's why I don't agree with fellow atheists who say the Bible is only good for toilet paper and such. There is a lot of good history buried in the Bible, though it's not the history the Christians claim it is.

Answer 6

I've answered several versions of this Q. See sites below for info by scientists, theologians etc as to why the HISTORICAL sections of the Bible (including Gen. Chapters 1-11) are correct:

http://www.christiananswers.net/

http://www.christiananswers.net/menu-at1.html

http://www.wps6.co.uk/~dev_lfld/view_page.asp?page_id=168§ion_id=1&menu_id=223

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp

http://abr.christiananswers.net/articles/contents.html

Incidentally, the scientist Christian who thinks 'days' refers to aeons is misinformed, and has merely twisted Scripture to fit with his own pre-conceived notions, indoctrinated into him in school to such a degree that he now thinks fallible humans, not seeking God, are more trustworthy than (equally fallible) humans who were given knowledge by God Almighty. Funny how 'one day is as a thousand years' is never accompanied by the rest of that verse, where 'a thousand years is as one day' (2 Pet. 3:8). The scientist should also note that the sun, moon and stars were not created until day 4: where would they get all the heat and light to sustain life for the plants prior to this, without massive ice ages etc, before these things were created, if they weren't literal days? Likewise, there was no death prior to the Fall, yet we see evidence of death and violence everywhere; fosils mean nothing so much as that death is real. The unwillingness to believe in a literal, globe-covering Flood, with its attendant catastrophic carving out of the canyons and massive erosion of earth, rock etc, led to the belief in uniformitarianism -- a little change over a lot of time, rather massive change over a (relatively) little time -- being the religion of Lyell, Darwin, Dawkins et al.

Try looking at the sites I've listed, as they'll give answers to your Q's.
May God bless you if you search for Him.

Answer 7

Atheists mostly ignore what you are referring to as well. Muddies up their point, don't you know. Atheists love to use literal quotations from the Bible (usually old testament) in their arguments, and disregard the point you make about theologians continuing study of the scriptures. They find it unfathomable that someone could study the scriptures in depth, with a "scientific" fervour, and still believe in a god.

And if a creationist God exists, why would he be bound by human concepts of time and space and what a "day" is ?

Answer 8

Greetings! I see you have bought into modernity. Science has a place but it is not a replacement for faith and God. Many scholars poo poo it and I can honestly speak on this topic as someone who is university educated that God exists and everything in the bible is true. The difference is, is that they have been enlightened and you haven't. You can call them ignorant or foolish but that is the bottom line.

Answer 9

They manage to skip right over the phrase "fable" or "parable" when reading. It would be the same often as reading Aesop's Fables as truth. Morality stories are to be read as examples, not as fact. Maybe, if they stamped the title page "based on a true story" like they do with other historical re-creations, people would get it. Until then, we will continue to watch people tear down others based on fairy tales.

Answer 10

These are desperately complicated times and many people seek the simplicity of utter acceptance of superstition.

It's easier than facing the hard truths of the modern world.

I have no respect for these people. I have learned that many of them claim the utter truth of the Book, and actually, when pressed, have never actually read it. Now that's abandoning personal responsibility!

Answer 11

Who told you that the Bible isn't History? Evidence and records from secular history, that's the History that they teach you in school for those that don't know, that agree with if not prove that the Bible is True and therefore an account of history. They just can't tall you that because God was pushed out of school by the government years ago.