So basically you are saying parts of the bible are true and others are NOT true? That does not make any sense because the bible is said to be all true. If the bible were only believed by a few people in the world those people would be considered insane.
Does it really make sense that there was a virgin birth? does it really make sense that someone could walk on water or part the red sea? Really? How about snakes talking? someone being turned into a pillar of salt for looking back at a town that was being destroyed? come on... How does a person decide what is "true" and what is simply symbolic?
As we begin to understand the world more and things that were said that happened in the bible (or any other holy text) are disproven with science, it becomes increasingly pathetic if not scary that people still believe in god as written in any holy text. Why do "miracles" on the scale they happened in the bible no longer happen today. Why are people not parting seas,turning water into wine, walking on water....?
Thus ends my rant. This was not directed at anyone, just getting off my chest how scary it would be for me to have someone operating on me that honestly believed some of these things.
In general, the creation stories and the first half or so of Genesis, I would take symbolically; they were still divinely inspired to convey the idea that God personally took care of the creation of the universe but was put in terms that humans could understand some 3000 years ago. Aside from that, there are numerous books in the old testament that historians tend to recognize as fictional stories intended to teach the Jewish people religious values. New testament scholars commonly accept that the Gospel writers introduced their own biases and agendas into their gospels. Roughly half of the letters in the new testament attributed to Paul are now regularly acknowledged to have been written falsely under his name, and neither of the letters attributed to Peter were actually written by the first Pope.
I (and many others) would argue that these inconsistencies do not necessarily mean that the Bible is any less divinely inspired. The fact is that it was still physically penned by humans, and we're bound to get some stuff wrong, embellish certain parts, or inject our personal biases. So if you want me to give you a detailed list of which miracles recorded in the Bible happened and which ones should be taken symbolically, I can't answer that question. The most important part is the overarching message.
In general, outside of the first half of Genesis, I accept that any of the miracles that happen in the Bible
could have happened, and I believe in the central parts of the Jesus story (the virgin birth, the teaching to the people, the crucifixion as the payment for sin, and the resurrection) and I believe that any of his miracles spoken of in the gospels
could have happened. But considering how the texts were written by humans thousands of years ago and were not delivered directly from the mouth of God, I accept that there are probably some mistakes in the translation, so the important thing to me is the central message- specifically, that there is a loving God who created and is in control of the universe, and who sent his son Jesus to teach us how to live in accordance with God's will and to atone for humanity's sins. I do not see any reason why these beliefs cannot be reconciled to current scientific knowledge.
As for why miracles don't seem to happen on the scale that they did 2000 years ago, 1) my personal response is to wonder why God would feel any need to "prove" himself after already sending his son; what more could he possibly do to prove himself? and 2) to this day, there are still pilgrimage sites where pilgrims claim to come into contact with Jesus or the Virgin Mary, some even within the U.S. You won't hear about it because any reporter who reported on it would get laughed out of their career out of hand.
Again, let me stress I'm not demonizing anyone who disagrees and doesn't believe in the existence of God; although I will disagree with their interpretation of the world until the day I die, I will always respect their stance, as I can see where they're coming from and why they have come to the conclusion they have. All I ask is that in return that my position be respected as well; my religious beliefs in no way make me illogical, unqualified to be a physician, or a "quack."
And he tells me about how he read a study that a large portion of psychiatrists are atheists (I had mentioned being interested in the specialty). He was right! Just found this... kind of a fascinating study:
