Religious Background

[JackRussell]

I never said everything requires interpretation. What I said is there are 2 options for the Bible:
1) literal (and that can't be true based on what we know about the universe, earth, and life)
2) interpretation, but with no objective standard to weigh one's interpretation against (and no evidence to substantiate your interpretation) you're left with a series of unverifiable beliefs that are indistinguishable from fiction/mythology. Considering how other mythologies work, Christianity fit it to the lowercase t (that's a crucifixion pun)


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

1. If your hangup is on the first three chapters of Genesis, then you have to realize that many many Christians do not take the story to be literal. Augustine 1700 years ago did not think that the creation account was literal. There are good reasons to think the six days were not really six days.

a. not written in the same Hebrew as the rest of the book of Genesis--but in an older Hebrew.
b. poetic formulation of the versus
c. how it is clearly not meant to be in order because even by ancient reasoning, day and evening don't come before creating the sun.
d. How it very likely was the story passed down in order to draw a healthy distinction between other creation myths, where nature is endowed with spiritual qualities, to the correct view that the universe is an orderly thing not to be worshiped.

2. You are over-stating your case about interpretation. The core theology is quite easy to ascertain from the NT. Common sense and a little reading for context usually takes care of the rest. Perhaps give an example?? 

3. Since there are good reasons to believe the NT is true, the events described there are indeed distinguishable from mythology.

Only 3. Good reasons to believe the NT is true, well it does refer to some places that we know existed at the time, for the rest, moot, please provide the evidence and then I will introduce you to Min.