Obviously, I'm not alone,
when I look at those those who believe in a 'literal' Bible, and shake my head in disbelief. There was a time when uneducated people could be forgiven for belief in obvious myths, but that was long ago.
This article was in today's AOL.
Why do most modern scholars reject a reading of the Bible as history much less as literal fact?
1. In an age of science and technology, too much of the Bible is simply unbelievable to today's mind and turns people away from the underlying messages. From a scientific standpoint, many of the "facts" in the Bible are simply wrong. One of many examples: according to Genesis, the universe is just over 6000 years old. According to physics, the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago.
2. Many of the stories are also scientifically impossible, like the tale of Joshua stopping the sun moving across the sky. This story assumes (as was the thinking then) that the earth was flat and was at the center of the universe. We simply know this to be false. Second, for the sun to stop would mean that the earth would have to cease rotating on its axis -- an event which would destroy the planet.
The article then goes on and on, showing 'inconsistencies', throughout the Bible, and that's my problem. Why should I believe a book that has SO MANY glaring errors? True, there's some nice stories and 'love thy neighbor' stuff, but infallible? You gotta be kidding.
This article was in today's AOL.
Why do most modern scholars reject a reading of the Bible as history much less as literal fact?
1. In an age of science and technology, too much of the Bible is simply unbelievable to today's mind and turns people away from the underlying messages. From a scientific standpoint, many of the "facts" in the Bible are simply wrong. One of many examples: according to Genesis, the universe is just over 6000 years old. According to physics, the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago.
2. Many of the stories are also scientifically impossible, like the tale of Joshua stopping the sun moving across the sky. This story assumes (as was the thinking then) that the earth was flat and was at the center of the universe. We simply know this to be false. Second, for the sun to stop would mean that the earth would have to cease rotating on its axis -- an event which would destroy the planet.
The article then goes on and on, showing 'inconsistencies', throughout the Bible, and that's my problem. Why should I believe a book that has SO MANY glaring errors? True, there's some nice stories and 'love thy neighbor' stuff, but infallible? You gotta be kidding.
Comments
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth."
Now the Bible doesn't say how long God waited before he created the rest. And furthermore, TIME is totally different. The Scriptures point out that a day in God's eyes is like a thousand years.
Perry Stone, who is a pastor from Texas, believes that Heaven is located beyond the North Star. That's why is shines so brightly.
Just imagine what a volcano eruption would mean to the early believers or an earthquake? That's probably what caused Jericho to fall, not the trumpets blasts. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was no doubt from an volcanic eruption or earthquake. There are fault lines running throughout that area. Meteor showers, lunar eclipses, solar eclipses. All of these would be supernatural to early Jews Idol worshipers. Just as the plagues of Egypt could have been from the Volcano eruption of Santorini. I am not saying God didn't have a hand in it, but nature is part of God.