How do you decide what is True in the Bible?

This is a proposal for a topic that I have been thinking about for a few months now and it was brought to the front of my mind again today when I was chatting with Arach on another thread. Since then, a few other members have expressed an interest in the topic.This topic is really to do with the psychology of religion, and in particular how Christians that do not take the whole Bible literally decide what is True and what is something else (myth, symbolic, propaganda etc.)If you are a Christian who believes that the Bible contains certain claims that you believe cannot be true (talking trees, talking ass, the Conquest of Canaan, ‘insert your own example’) then how do you accept as true things that appear to be just as unlikely?How do you come to your conclusions about what you believe is true in the Bible?Brian.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

The conclusions come to me. I don't put much effort or investigating into it. I just go: *shrug* "yeah, I believe that" or *shake head* "nah, that doesn't seem right".I think a lot of the Old Testament in not literally true, and I think a lot of the New Testament is literally true. So one way to come to a conclusion is to look at which book it came from. But really, I don't do much to come to the conclusion, either I believe it or I don't. Sometimes I believe something but think that it would be impossible. Then I think that God could do the impossible.

Since I'm not that kind of Christian, I won't be contributing to this thread, but I'd like to see your question sharpened up because it's a question that has absorbed me also.Yes, how DO they decide? I'd put it this way myself: Then I'd hypothesize that what is accepted or rejected falls into categories that it could be the worthwhile objective of this thread to establish, such as for instance: [{EDIT: AND, in the case of c) above, are you going to let him get away with that or demand that he think about it to figure out just what he bases his conclusions on anyway, since everybody has reasons for their beliefs and he's just too lazy to try to figure out what his are.]There may be others. I look forward to seeing how neatly the applicable criteria for text validation/invalidation can be discovered and classified for our edification.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-12-2005 07:06 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-12-2005 07:12 PM

What does that mean?

American Heritage Dictionary

I would say the first question is whether or not it matters if ANYTHING in the Bible is true or not.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I know the definition of those words seprerately. They don't make since together in the context you used.I meant,what do you mean by guidlessly espoused?

wait, there's a bible study forum? when did this happen?

That's another subject. This topic is addressed to those like yourself who believe some of it and reject some of it, asking your basis for those decisions.

No, it's part of this subject. There is no reason to believe any of the Bible is true as far as religion or GOD are concerned.Once you acknowledge that as a fact you can then look at those parts that are proven to be false.Some examples:

• there is ample evidence that the world is billions of years old and that the universe is tens of billions of years old.
• there is ample evidence there was never a world-wide flood, or at least not in the last 600,000 years or so.
• there was no invasion of Canaan as described in the Bible.
  

So you can drop all the things that are known to be false.That still leaves a large body of material.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That's not how the topic was presented but I don't care if you want to include it. I want to know some answers to the question that WAS presented, which is how individuals who hold particular beliefs about what is true or false in the Bible arrived at those views. Clearly there is little consensus on this to judge from the many at EvC who take some of it as true and discard some as false. As I understand the topic of this thread, you may certainly present the above as your own criteria, but you can't speak for others who may have different criteria. They can agree or not with that list. It would be interesting to find out just how everybody here DOES decide as you all aren't in agreement about what to accept and what to reject. A large body that you yourself accept as true? Fine, that's a start.I have the impression that others, Arachnophilia for instance, find a LOT less of it true than you do if the above represents your views. Spelling out these differences would be interesting -- to me at least, which is why I'm being so pushy on this thread so far I guess.

No, not true. Not proven false. Big difference.The parts that remain may or may not be true.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

OK, but you have said, if I recall correctly, that you accept as true the resurrection of Christ? Is that all you accept as true, if you do?As I understand the idea here, it is to find out your CRITERIA for what you accept and what you reject of the Bible. If you accept none of it at all as true then that's interesting too, but it's to lay out the reasoning behind your decisions that I understand to be the objective here.

Well, it's hard to say why you believe something regarding faith. It's not reasonable or logical, subject to testing or confirmation.The basic process I went through in determining what I belive is:

• it must not be proven false.
• it must not be insulting to the intellect that GOD gave me.
• it must not be insulting to the concept of a GOD as creator.
  

There are some concepts that fail such a test. One example is the idea that you need to believe in GOD to be saved. It fails two of the three tests. So when you come across something like that, you disregard it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion