According to who? Which denomination believes that?
Well, for example, how long it took God to create the world. The Bible says it took six days. Now, your Biblical literalists will say, “it says six days, thus that means, 6, 24 hour days.” However, back during the early ages of the church, it was generally accepted that a day to us was about a second to God. The Church didn’t really believe that it was literally six days.
Nowadays, the Catholic Church accepts evolution as truth, (I’m not getting into all the details, because it would take too long – that’s a separate thread). But while they might believe God created the world, they don’t necessarily believe he did it in the way it was in the Bible.
(It’s a crude description, but that’s the one that immediately comes to mind)
The creation account doesnt even - begin - to approximate how the earth was actually formed so I really have no idea why you mention it in a conversation about the literal truth vs some other kind of “truth”
You personally. We have had enough “all atheists believe this or that” around here that I wouldn’t do that to anyone else.
And thanks for answering. However I may be more Christian than you. I think it rather more probable that Jesus was an actual person than a merging of several people. No direct contact with a non-existent god and no supernatural stuff, or course.
This is utter nonsense that specifically relies on a belief of Martin Luther first expressed in the early sixteenth century.
Since his belief in Sola Scriptura is not actually Scriptural, by embracing his (non-Scriptural) belief, you simply display the illogical nature of your own beliefs.
Genesis does not just say six days. Each day is separated by “it was evening, it was morning.” Plus there was the very direct analogy of the six day week and the seventh day of rest, the Sabbath. Which I know Christians disposed of.
I( actually got to read this passage in Hebrew in Hebrew School, and it is very clear, and very beautiful - far more than even good English translations.
That church fathers decided that words should mean what they wanted them to mean, not what was in the text, just points out the problem.
Were the writers of the Bible smart enough to create wonderful poetry but too dumb to make what they thought was an important point clear? My writing teacher would be all over them. Far more likely they transcribed a myth that was accepted the best way they could. Two, actually, given the contradictory versions of the story. The church fathers arguing over it is not much different from Tolkienists arguing over the creation story in the Simarillion.
And of course almost everyone believed in the Flood. Why wouldn’t they? Consider how many people do today and we know better. In most places saying the Bible was phony was a career-limiting move.
What you seriously doubt is not a particularly good guide to reality.
Literacy isn’t required for common sense, nor is scientific knowledge. Illiterate people can be every bit as skeptical of things they have no real reason to believe as literate scientific people. Look up the Piraha and the way they laughed at Everett, the linguist and missionary, when he tried to talk to them about Biblical miracles. They laughed at him precisely because their preliterate culture didn’t have room for abstract concepts like Christianity. I have no doubt that medieval Europe had its village skeptics as much as any other place and time, though of course they often had to keep quiet about their beliefs. (Though I’m not sure if doubting the historicity of Noah was ever a condemned heresy).
1- the difference between the Piraha and a French peasant is that the Piraha were being introduced to a completely foreign concept and the Peasant is dealing with something he had been hearing about his whole life
2- I would never make the claim that religious skeptics did not exist in medieval europe
Beliefs can be supported by extra-scriptural tradition. In fact, all scripture arose from traditional beliefs, not the other way around. Scripture is the writing down of already held beliefs.
You are certainly able to choose to not believe something, based on scripture, logic, competing scriptures, alternative evidence, or gut feelings.
However, your claim was not a rejection of some belief for one of those reasons, but the utterly silly claim that any belief not expressed in scripture had no validity. That claim is illogical nonsense.
An example of utter nonsense? Sure:
“But if they believe things about Jesus/Christianity that are not printed in the bible then those beliefs have no validity.”
I know of no Christian concepts that are proscribed in the bible.
For Christian beliefs that are not explicitly described in the bible, one may look at the sacraments, Augustinian Original Sin, the Rapture, and a number of others. Obviously, some of those beliefs are held by some Christians and not others, but to make a declaration that they “have no validity” because one has set up an arbitrary and non-scriptural definition of what may be believed is nonsense. No place in the bible does it say that “only things recorded here may be believed.”
1- how does Augustinian original sin differ from original sin, or, is it the same thing
2- so the rapture is just something that got made up. interesting. most christians operate as if it is actual christian doctrine.
Compare Jewish commentary on the Fall with Christian commentary on the Fall. Different beliefs based on a different understanding of the same scripture.
The Rapture was cobbled together in the nineteenth century. Most Christians do not believe in it. A large, loud plurality of American Christians believe in it.
1- I don’t really care what the christians where you live do or do not do
2- The discrepancy between OT doctrine and NT doctrine is not a selling point for the validity of your religion