recoverer,

I would say "no" but let me illustrate a way in which I think you raise a valid issue.  The Genesis story of the 7 days of creation (1:1-2:4) is a piece of poetry designed for liturgical worship in the Jerusalem Temple.  The Hebrew word for "day" can mean "an age".  The sun is not created until the 4th "day."  That in itself rules out the notion of 24-hour days of creation.   Each of the first 6 days concludes with the liturgical phrase, "Even came, morning followed--the first (second, etc.) day."  But this phrase is omitted from the 7th day, the Sabbath rest.   This implies that we are still in the 7th day of creation.  So Genesis makes the valid point that creation proceeds in stages, but not necessarily exactly 7 stages.   The number 7 is used here to justify the Jewish practice of Sabbath rest on the 7th day.  

Also, consider this.  In the ancient Near East, it was widely believed that the stars are affixed to a dome which separates the waters above from the waters below.   So they imagine "waters" to fill what we know to be outer space.  God does not interfere with their scientific naivite.  But notice how Genesis reads if we read "outer space" where the Bible places waters.  "And the wind of God moved over the waters (= outer space).  Then God said, `Let there be light (Genesis 1:2-3).'"  Wind in outers pace implies an explosion resulting in light--a poetic image of the Big Bang.   Notice also that God does not simply speak vegation and animal life into being.  Instead, we are told, "Then God said, Let the earth bring forth (1:11, 24)" vegetation and animal life.  This image assumes the Near Eastern image of the Earth Mother, the ancient equivalent of Mother Nature.  Thus, in a sense, God steps aside and let's Mother Nature evolve life.  Also, notice that. like modern evolutionary theory, Genesis teaches that life begins in the sea and proceeds through birds, mammals, and finally humans. The creation of humanity in God's image (1: 26-27) is a poetic way of saying that "we are destined to "participate in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) and in that sense we can be considered sparks of divinity.  

In Proverbs 8:30, Wisdom (an equivalent of Mother Nature) speaks poetically about its role in creation:

"I was beside the master craftsman, delighting Him day after day, ever at play in His presence, at play everywhere on His earth."

The word "play" here implies a pointlessness or randomness that can be understood as functionally equivalent to the evolutionary principle of random selection.  In a poetic prophetic text, God reveals to Isaiah that the earth is a "circle" (Isaiah 40:22).  Profound scientific insights can be detected in biblical creation theology as long as we take it poetically rather than literally.  The story of Adam and Eve (2:4b- 3:24) is a totally separate creation myth designed to teach the essence of good and evil but absurd if taken as literal history.    

Moses leads the Israelites across the divided sea of reeds, a lake near their place of captivity, not the Red Sea.  The Hebrew literally means 'sea of reeds" and there are countless reeds by the lake in question, but none by the Red Sea.  This lake divides about once a century through a combination of wind and tide.  The miracle is the synchronicity of this rare event happening just when the fleeing Israelites need it to escape the Egyptian army.   Thereafter, "sea" (including the Sea of Galilee in the Gospels) becomes a symbol of the forces of chaos in our lives.  The Israelites are forced to survive decades in the Sinai wilderness.  Wllderness later becomes a biblical symbol for the dry periods of our spiritual quest or for what Catholic mystics call "the dark night of the soul."  

The Gospels document real miracles performed by Jesus, but not to provide historically accurate information about the "stunts" Jesus performed.   Rather, details of Jesus' miracles are preserved that  allow these true stories to function like parables.  For example, when Jesus' heals the  blind, the story is shaped to make a point about spiritual blindness.  

Don

Don:

Thank you for the answer.

[jbb:] "Most of the Bible has to be symbolic and not literal. If literal then one must accept that every word in the Bible is true. If so, how are contradictions like this possible?"

(1) II Kings tells us that Jehoiachin became king when he was eighteen while II Chronicles alleged that he became King at age eight.
__________________________

Wrong!   Your googled false claim is based on inferior manuscript attestation.  The best critical texts of the Old Testament agree that 2 Chronicles agrees with 2 Kings 24:8 that "Jehoiachin was 18 [not 8] years old when he became king."  This insight is recognized by the best modern translations (e.g. the New International Version, the New Living Translation. and the New Jerusalem Bible).  This reading is supported by an important ancient Hebrew manuscript as well as ancient Syriac and Greek manuscripts. 

(2) "And Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people of the King: in Israel there were 800,000 VALIANT men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were 500.000 (1 Samuel 24:9)."

Versus

"And Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to David. In all Israel there were 1,100,000 men who drew the sword, and in Judah 470.000 who drew the sword (I Chronicles 21:5)."
__________________________________

Wrong again!  Your googled source  overlooks the significance of "valiant" in 1 Samuel 24:9.  There were 1,100,000 Israelite swordsmen, 800,000 of whom were "valiant" in the sense of veteran or battle-hardened swordsmen with 300,000 more inexperienced reserves.  Similarly, there were 500,000 veteran swordsmen from Judah and 30,000 reserves.  No contradiction!

Over the years, New Agers have posted several alleged Bible contradictions on this site that are in fact harmonious.  The errors usually arise from a ghetto mentality that googles incompetent online sources without consulting expert scholars.   That is not to say there are no errors in the Bible.   The Bible can be understood literally and still contain the errors typical of human documentation.  The Bible never claims to be inerrant.

Don

Both of your initial statements (quoted below) are irrationally and prematurely dogmatic:  

"Most of the Bible HAS TO BE symbolic and not literal. If literal then one MUST accept that every word in the Bible is true."

In my view, one of the biggest problems with the spiritual quest of many New Agers is their failure to rigorously distinguish what they know from what they don't know.   Inattention to this crucial line prevents them from being open to the best spiritual insights from both tradtional and nontraditional sources.  As a result, they get prematurely stuck in ghetto-based belief systems.  My response ot you would have been excruciatingly polite if you had not been so dogmatic about a subject about which you have little knowledge.   Change your dogmatic tone and I'll abandon my blunt retorts.

The Christian Bible cannot comment on its own divine inspiration for a very simple reason.   None of the New Testament authors knew they were writing Scripture that would later be canonized.   Indeed, there is no widespread consensus about which 27 works should be set apart for special reverence until around 200 AD and even then these works were not yet canonized as Scripture.
 
Individual writers like Paul and John (of Revelation) claim divine inspiration.  But biblical authority really stands or falls on whether the God inspiring the writers is available today to mystically commune and guide us as He did the prophets and apostles.  In other words, biblical miracles become far more plausible if one's prayers to the biblical God have been marvelously answered.  If one has had no spiritual experiences, then skepticism is the most rational response to Scripture.   In my view, we should think in terms of inspired saints rather than inspired texts.  We should also acknowledge that biblical revelation is incomplete and limited in important ways to the time of its disclosure.  

Some misconceptions of biblical writers lead to thrilling insights about what actually happened.  One of the best examples of this are the apparently inconsistent details of the resurrection narratives of the 4 Gospels.  A little detective work can synthesize these details and create a coherent narrative of these foundational events that is vitually unknown.  If you're interested in this, I can start a new thread laying out the problems and my proposed solution to this awesome puzzle.

Don