Is the bible reliable?

But who gets to define scripture, neo?

Not sure what you mean. Post an example.

Uh Oh. Less than 10 minutes and it's up here in the featured area. That has been the death of many topics . . . but we'll see.

If you have the opportunity to do so, neologist, I'd recommend locating a copy of the Torah with the commentary by Rabbi Gunther Plaut.

His introduction/discussion of different perspectives of the origins of the Torah/Bible portions is thought-provoking, regardless on what you think you know about it.

Even within the various Christian bibles some books are included some are not, the Apocryphalia for example. What about the early scripture that was in use before Athanasius established his canonical list in 367? 2 Timothy is generally assumed to not have been written by Paul but attributed to him psudomyniously (is that a word?) around 100CE. Does that mean that only those texts written before 2 Timothy are accepted scripture. The debate about what constitutes canon continued for centuries.

If all scripture is inspired by God, then who gets to define what writings are to be considered scripture?

A course not . . . sheesh . . .

(insert appropriate rolly-eyed emoticon here)

For the sake of argument, may we concentrate on the 66 books common to such translations as the King James Bible?

If you wish to include a discussion of the apocryphal books, that's OK; but I, for one, won't attempt to champion their veracity.

I know you have expressed yourself well in other threads and feel this may be redundant, but would you be so kind as to summarize a few of your reasons here?

Re: Is the bible reliable?


Since I don't exactly consider myself a believer I will let you define it however you wish and butt out. My comment about other scripture is exactly why I disagree with this proposition.

The bobble is allegedly divinely inspired by your imaginary friend, and therefore is a product of poofism--that it would reliable is therefore not at issue, it cannot be. QED.

Re: Is the bible reliable?
Sorry to hear that you are quitting just because you decline to offer argument in favor of 'other scripture'.

Quitting with a wave of the hand? Not what I expected, boss.

No, I'm butting out because I reread you opening post and saw that you were looking for a discussion among believers.

On the contrary. I gotta go now but, heck; I was even trying to enlist Setanta until he chickened out.

The day I see Setanta "chicken out" is the day I cut my hair, wear a baseball cap and drink a martini.

Let me at 'im . . . let me at 'im . . .

how do you spell "martini"?

I'm just making an appearance to acknowledge I've seen this and will be back with some input later. LOL becoming featured kills a topic huh? And I can't believe you called Setanta a chicken neo! Personally speaking, I am one to pick my battles carefully. I doubt I'm the only one who does that. Talk to ya'll later!

Are you serious? If you had read the entire Bible (not just carefully selected bit and pieces) you would know that it has serious flaws when it comes to continuity. The Old Testament is a hodgepodge of myths, history, outmoded laws, wisdom, pseudoscience, tedious genealogies of God's Chosen People (even though they are no longer his favorites), details for building temples and sacrificing animals to God's exact specifications (including what to wear), violence, intolerance, immorality, philosophy, dreams, poetry, priestly rants, pleadings and praise - but it is clearly not an integrated text that reflects the Word of God.

The NT rejects most of the Laws that God gave to Moses and the Israelites, as well as the supposedly perpetual covenant God had made with them. New concepts are introduced (such as eternal life) and God no longer finds uncircumcised pork-eaters who violate the Sabbath and worship someone besides him to be an abomination. God gets a makeover from a vengeful egomaniac who kills peole for the slightest infraction of his Laws and children for the sins of their parents, into a loving deity who will welcome anyone who professes a belief in his Son into heaven. Paul, who never actually met Jesus, contradicted some of the things Jesus taught, such as the necessity for observing the Laws of Moses. I personally suspect that Paul made up a lot of stuff to achieve his own goals, but you've got to give him credit - without him, Jesus' message would most likely have faded away.