Are you talking about the ‘it’ in my #3? If so, that is about the clarification you provided about how God communicates with you.
I do not dis-believe the Bible as a whole, just the parts that I have read that are not believable;
- Revelation, about a dragon
- burning bushes and talking animals
- the flood and the whole Noah story with the animals
- Jonah
- virgin birth
- the Resurrection
- the forgiveness of sins
- water into wine and other miracles
- the guys that got tied up and thrown in the fire by a king
- the story of Adam and Eve
- the existence of hell
- walking on water
- the Trinity
- the creation story
- sin
- parting of the Red Sea
- demons
- satan
- the need for salvation
there’s probably more, but I haven’t read the entire book. To me these are some of the unbelievable things in the bible. I do not believe any of it happened so to me, it’s unbelievable.
The parts about people begatting and wars and names and lineages, stuff like that are believable. These are things that happen on a regular basis throughout history.
While I believe that all things are possible with God, I do not know if that is actually true.
How could I prompt you for what your "it" was if you had not made clear what the impersonal neuter pronoun was referring to? This shows that your description was ambiguous, and defied interpretation without greater definition. Don't expect that you are communicating without exercising greater precision. The question you just asked in the first sentence above implies that I already did know or suspect what "it" was when I told you plainly and clearly that I did not! You finally gave up the critical information in the second sentence above, that finally defined what "it" was in your mind, but was not previously known to anyone else.
I do not dis-believe the Bible as a whole, just the parts that I have read that are not believable;
Thank you for taking the time to list these areas that are written about things that are commonly thought incredible. In this you are coming forth with communication that sounds as though you are not playing a cat-and-mouse or hide-and-seek game with others. I can grasp your point of view when you give a little more depth to your perceptions, and when you confirm you have understood what the other person was trying to project to you.
That brings me to comment what I have observed, and said many times to others -- that if a person cannot believe Genesis 1:1 (and that is what I read between the lines in your note here) that person is not going to believe the rest of the Bible. That's my point of asking.
A second point is that you seem to have accepted that the New Testament/Covenant, that was said to have been initiated by the Jesus of Nazareth, is also a valid part of the Bible. Is that so to your understanding?