Replies

"If the Bible is accurate, archaeologists should be able to dig into the tel, the dirt mound, at the site of Old Testament Jericho and find a large collapsed wall associated with a burn layer. Sure enough, archaeologists do find a large wall at Jericho, which is partially collapsed and associated with a deep burn layer indicating great destruction, not just a small fire. However, because of the way most modern archaeologists misdate the various layers, they claim when Joshua arrived, Jericho was either a deserted city or a small settlement. They say the wall was destroyed and the city burned before Joshua arrived, and Joshua simply took credit for what others had done by writing the story that now appears in the Bible."

To me the arrogance of worldly man in this statement is breathtaking. The scientists find Jericho. As they dig, all the objective details of the Bible story are verified, right where they should be. The Bible works like a literal map. The human archaeologist adds one thing into the mix, his speculation on the date and since this conflicts with the Bible he concludes it must mean the Bible is wrong. Incredible.

The Bible is most certainly a book of history. The first 17 books of the Old Testament are classically referred to as the "historical books". They are written, in the most part, as historical narratives with innumerable geographic and chronological markers for us to verify the events. In the New Testament, the Gospels are all written as historical narrative and should be treated as such. In fact, in the introduction to the book of Luke, the author Luke tells us directly that he is writing as a historian to give a written and orderly account of real things as they really happened by interviewing real, first hand witnesses, and researching everything else that's been written already. Thus the Bible certainly contains a whole lot of history. For the time period covered it is the most extensive source of eyewitness history we have. As history it should be read literally.

The question of whether to read the Bible literally or figuratively is dictated by genre and context. Different genres are interpreted differently. The genre of historical narrative is to be interpreted literally unless dictated otherwise by the context. These books purport to report what happened and are written to taken at their word. The genres of poetry (psalms, song of Solomon, etc) and prophecy (Isaiah, Daniel, Revelation) are to be taken more figuratively or symbolically. Every time a passage is a parable Jesus or the narrator tells us ("And then he told them a parable...",) - we don't have to guess what is being used as a parable, the text tells us every time. Most people telling you that you can't trust or understand the Bible have never read the Bible cover to cover. Do not listen to these people. It was written for all man to hear, understand and use as an infallible guide. It is God's greatest gift to us. No one is too dumb or ignorant to understand, use and be blessed by the wisdom of scripture but, alas, many are too smart to do so.