How much Faith is one supposed to have to move a mountain?

Post Reply New Topic

The Bible* is either the complete and perfect Word of God, or it isn't. This is not "Black-and-White Thinking", because even one mistake makes anything imperfect, and even one omission makes it incomplete.

If only parts of the Bible* are to be considered literally truthful, and other parts are to be considered approximations or metaphorical parables, then which parts are which? Who decides?

If even one mistake can be found in the Bible*, then shouldn't that cast doubt upon the veracity of the rest of the Bible*?

* Also the Koran, the Tipitaka, the Rig-Veda, or any other writings considered "Holy".

Ah, but maybe the perfect bible isn't meant to be literally accurate. The errors are part of the design...

You don't seem to really know what the Bible is.


From a literalist perspective, the Bible would be said to interpret itself. You have to know what the Bible really is in order to understand that. And that means allowing for the time and context in which it was written. I mean, THE "Bible" didn't exist until a couple of centuries or so after Christ. The Bible as we know it today is a collection of the texts most frequently used and agreed upon as divinely inspired, accurate text. There are other gospels or epistles that ALMOST made it into the canon. They were rejected over time because of inconsistencies with other generally accepted texts, not to mention dubious sources. In the case of the gospels, you have writers either were one of the 12 or worked closely with them, not to mention the writings of Paul and others. The purpose of the gospels is to give a historical account of the teachings and acts of Jesus in the case of the Synoptics and to delve deeper into theological issues as with John. If you allow for idiomatic, expressive speech, or if you accept that a parable is a parable, then it's not all that hard to figure out what is meant metaphorically and what isn't. And often what you find is if there is a deeper meaning to a parable or some other expression, the writer follows up with an interpretation. Who decides? The Bible itself.

I realize that isn't ALWAYS the case. Eschatological writings aren't quite so clear-cut, except you go into reading those books KNOWING that they are rich in symbolism. The best explanation is ultimately that we'll only understand those things if/when we live to personally witness them. The cherubs riding on wheels covered with eyes in Daniel isn't self-interpreted, but the meaning is fairly obvious. God is sending a message to Daniel. The description of how the cherubs move and the characteristics of the wheels describe divine attributes--all-present, all-seeing. A great many symbols in Revelation are interpreted for us, and some remain anybody's guess. As a literalist, I would prefer to avoid adhering to any hard and fast interpretation of those things. What do they mean? I dunno. And I pray that I won't be around to find out!! !


Logical fallacy, even if it were true. Argumentum ad hominem by way of poisoning the well.

Most things, Biblical or otherwise, might be said to be true in one sense and untrue in another. "Mistakes" in the Bible that really are mistakes typically have to do with manuscript copying errors. Things like mistaking similar-looking letters of the Hebrew alphabet, errors involving numbers that would have been the ancient equivalent of misplaced decimals, and minor grammatical errors--and all of these representing less than 5% of the OT. Compared with other manuscripts of a comparable age, the Bible is remarkably well-copied, and there are plenty of source documents available to back that up. My preferred translation compares manuscripts as do many modern Bible translations. If it's clear something has been translated into a common English expression, usually a footnote is included to show a more literal translation of the original text. The errors can mostly be worked out by anyone who spends a little time reading the Bible and comparing texts, and not once do any of those have any bearing on any great theological truths from the Bible.

The only "error" I can't figure out has to do with the name and reign of one of the kings. We Christians wish we had all the answers, but sometimes we just don't. But that alone isn't enough to cast doubt on the veracity of the whole thing.


Good to know you're all "equal opportunity" when it comes to religious texts.

A collection of largely apocryphal stories handed down by illiterate desert nomads since the Early Bronze Age, and culminating in a series of hallucinogenic "visions" by a man who had allegedly been boiled in oil and exiled to a cold and drafty castle in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea for being a heretic.

None of which you can prove. A good study of the text itself seems to suggest otherwise.

Which just proves my point: You don't really know much if anything about the Bible.

That looks a bit like poisoning the well to me.

How much faith does it take to move a mountain? When you move the mountain through faith alone, you will know the answer to that.

Or, as Lazarus Long put it, "If you pray hard enough, you can make water run uphill. How hard? Why, hard enough to make water run uphill, of course!"