Is a literal reading of the Bible an insult to its authors?

So how do you explain that Bethlehem Ephrathah was a clan, it says that right there in the Bible.Also, surely you agree that IF this is a reference to a town then there's the problem of there never being thousands of towns/cities/vilages in Judah.PLUS, Jesus never ruled Israel.And there are very good reasons to suspect that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, the whole scenario surrounding the census is utterly ridiculous.Apart from the FACT that there was no census, the reasons given are just silly. Why on earth would Joseph have to travel to the place where David lived one thousand years earlier to register?Why would Mary, who must have been heavily pregnant, have to travel with him?Logically speaking, can you imagine everyone in the Roman Empire, stretching from Syria right over Europe all the way to Scotland, having to make their way to the birthplace of their ancestors? It would be utter chaos.It just isn't in the slightest bit believable.The author of Matthew believed that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, he had to invent a way for Jesus to be born there, so he invents this census nonsense to make Jesus born in Bethlehem.So, we have many reasons to doubt that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and the only reason to think that He was born there is the old circular reasoning again.Look at the facts. Jesus really could not have been the person mentined in Micah 5:2, nothing at all in the verse applies to Jesus, so why torture the text to make it fit. Why so many Christians come up with excuse after excuse to make OT verses apply to Jesus when they really don't?Do these huge problems never make you doubt the historicity of some Bible events, or do you ever stop to think that the authors of the Gospels try a wee bit too hard to make Jesus the Messiah, or are you not open to anything in the Bible being untrue?

So you agree that Micah 5:2 is about a clan and NOT the town of Bethlehem?

It is definitely prophetic.If the Messiah was to come from the clan then it doesn't follow that He needs to be born in Bethlehem. It certainly would explain why the big man was called Jesus of Nazareth.

Another point on the character of the author of Matthew is why did he misquote Micah 5:2?We have Micah 5:2 which says: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times. And we have Matthew 2:6'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel. I wonder why the author of Matthew decides to leave out 'Ephrathah' when quoting Micah.Was it because Jesus' genealogies were already in circulation and Bethelehem was not one of Jesus' ancestors?

You forgot to add in that you need the Holy Spirit with you to read the text properly.When you have the HS, then everything becomes clear apparently.It is very sad what religion can do peoples' minds.For me the best thing about this thread is that it is demonstrating to lurkers just how desperate some people can be to try and keep their delusions intact.We got a freakin man sitting inside a whale's head, a fishy kind of angel, and a fish that could have looked like a 3 man sub!Joking aside though, you bring up a good point about reinterpreting the text and/or trying to read it through the eyes of people 3000 plus years ago.This is one area where inerrantists insult the Bible because the Bible is a wonderful collection of texts, but many of the books, in particular the prehistory books, simply reflect contemporary ideas. There's numerous parallels between the Bible and contemporary societies, talking snakes, magical fruits, floods, flat earth, and enormous life-spans can all be found in other ancient texts.In many places the Bible relfects what was thought to be reality at the time of writing, it doesn't mean that 3000 years later people should make utter fools of themselves trying to prove that folk tales are 100% accurate.

Your evidence for this is what? Evidence? Evidence? Evidence? It's a nice feature of the Book of Jonah that God doesn't give a damn about free will. No, of course it isn't fable. 3 hour eclipses, graves opening and the dead walking the street, people being brought back to life, virgin birth, demons living in people, how can all that possibly be untrue?

And I was referring to the fact that there's no evidence to support anything you claimed about these men. You expect any rational person to believe that an invisible 3 hour eclipse was historical? You expect a rational person to believe in a virgin birth, or graves splitting open and the dead walking the street? These are not historical events Ian, these are just lies to try and make Jesus into something He clearly wasn't. The history of martyrs only shows how stupid some people can be.Dying for a fairytale isn't unique to Christianity, every faith has its martyrs, which should be sufficient to demonstrate the flaw in your reasoning.All those Muslim martyrs must mean that Allah is God, do you agree?

I been home for nearly 25 years, ever since I discovered the myth of Christ.

The point was that you were using the fact that the martyrs died for their beliefs somehow made any difference to the historicity of the NT. Surely God is God?

The way I read it was that I mentioned how 3 hour eclipses, dead walking about etc were not history, they were folk tales, in your reply you said 'If you don't want to consider the NT as history then the history of martyrs should be sufficient to demonstrate that insular point. Anything that the martyrs done has no bearing on the historical accuracy of the NT.