In The Bible Among the Myths, Oswalt states, “If the historical basis on which the supposed revelation [the Bible] rested was false, then why should we give any special credence to the ideas resting on that basis” (p. 31). Please post a 400-word response to Oswalt’s statement. Seek to answer whether or not one could trust a historically false document to be theologically accurate? If not, why? If so, how? While sources are not required, you may support your answer from the Bible, your textbooks, or other sources as you see fit.
When I hear the word “myth,” I cannot associate it with the Bible in any given way. My definition of the word has always agreed with Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, which defines myth as "A person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence; an unfounded or false notion" . The Bible is in no way that. It is the inspired and only infallible word of God and to prove that any part of it is false or a myth would shake the very foundation of Christianity. Its beginning has no association with human wisdom or any devices associated with it. Through the Bible, the Holy Spirit teaches and imparts wisdom and knowledge to us. 1st Corinthians 2:13 says “This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.”  In essence, in order for someone to understand the spiritual truths in the Bible, one has to have God’s spirit inside of them. Scientists and those out to prove that the Bible is full of myths are carnal minded people and will not understand the truths that come from it. Scholars and theologians claim that the Old Testament is full of stories. They also believe that the Bible has been discredited, but the facts and discoveries of history and archeology confirm the contents of the Bible to be true. The fact that Israel became a nation after leaving Egypt validates truth in the Bible. History also shows that Jesus was a...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document