Bible_Student

Charizard.

Some. The historical books were not wholly made up - in some cases, they brush against other records we have of the time. However, they are a biased, deeply theological, and extremely selective in what and how they represent.

The primeval history (up to and including the "Conquest" of Canaan) probably has almost no basis in what actually happened. What is important is how the Israelites' history represents how they understood themselves and their origins (not to mention their constantly being conquered and oppressed).

The prophets write at a turbulent time in ancient Palestine. Probably they are responding (in their own theological way) to actual events. These mostly aren't narratives anyway).

The New Testament? Probably most of the characters were real people. The narrative portions are very literarily crafted, so there's some fictionalization going on there.

Depends. Educated adults I respect and talk to often? Yes, I'm not ashamed of it. Little old ladies in their Sunday best or the kindergarten class? I don't go out of my way to bother them with it.

We're a very academic community (there are several colleges in town and a lot of students / professors attend, including representatives from several branches of the humanities who understand an "unknowable" sort of epistemology. That said, I'm usually called on to teach about academic or ethical matters - not to preach the Sunday morning sermon. Which is fine with me.

Well, just as atheists are selective in the texts they choose to taunt Christians with, Christians are selective in the texts they choose to listen to. And different Christians do this differently.

For example, Christians who have absolutely no problem with homosexuality would either ignore texts from both the Old and the New Testaments that condemn it, or choose to believe A) that it was a cultural thing or B) the principle of God's love overrules the letter of the law.

I mentioned somewhere on here that the Bible can be dangerous. It can. In the hands of some people, it is incredible destructive to peoples' lives. However, there are ways to redeem it, to make it serve the community.

In Matthew's sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7), Jesus does "re-write" the law on some points, he just doesn't do it comprehensively. Someone could (and people have) take this principle and extend it to other things as well.

He certainly avoided giving point-blank questions like that. Hence the Christological controversies of the early centuries. The ambiguous texts that the issue hinges upon act like a Rorschach test - they reflect what you already believe about it.

Well, King Saul dies in 2 different ways at the end of 1st Samuel. That's something. The Conquest of Canaan doesn't conform to what we known about Egypt and the archaelogy of that area....