How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true?

[Zelduck]

This is really a question for Christians, but since it doesn't assume the validity of the Bible, I think it belongs here rather than in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma section.

There have been multiple canons of Scripture. Books have been accepted and rejected for various reasons throughout Christian history. Books have lied about their authorship. Passages have been added and removed. Books were written in different times and different places by different authors and for different reasons.

So how can I have confidence in any particular verse, chapter, or book, that what I am reading is the inspired work of the Holy Spirit, and not the work of a man, no matter how pious?

What method ought I use to reliably determine what is and is not the Word of God? Has someone already done this for me, and if so, how can I tell if they didn't make a mistake?

[Korah]

.

Too weird for comment.

If something appears to you to be "too weird for comment", make no comment.

Actually, my quoted comment is absent from my present Post #67 text. I noticed that I actually had commented on that very remark in my earlier post #64. Had I not noticed that I was contradicting myself, I would have left it in.
So I did deserve to be modded on that, even though the final text does not show it.
(Raises the issue though, did you "mod" me (deservedly, as I admit) on your first read through my post, even before anyone reported me? (Lame attempt at humor.))

[Korah]

[Replying to post 70 by Divine Insight]
I think I said exactly all that in my Post #67. I followed exactly what you quoted with my acknowledgement that as a Christian myself I "DO believe that eyewitness story about the seven miracles.

I'm rather a Rationalist (Descartes-style, that is) and I find Christianity (suitably analyzed and interpreted to be quite Rational.

[Korah]

Would you be so kind as to list which parts of scripture are likely true and which are not?

That's asking a lot and is asking me virtually to play God. But I'll play along.
First, in this thread (and in Post #26 in "Bible Hierarchy" in "Theology, Doctrine and Dogma") in Post #26 I listed the readings typically used on Sundays in the churches I have attached myself to over the last 45 years, the Roman Catholic, the Episcopal, and the Lutheran (the old traditional readings they share from over 500 year ago). They exclude almost all the Old Testament, but my own reconstruction of my belief included the major prophets and Amos. I was never much into the Psalms, but they are very popular. But then they don't even claim to be from God, just a man's plea or prayer TO God. I never liked the Torah, but later I theorized (without much more than my own ingenuity) that the five books go back to sort of a Bible in Stone in which Joseph's scribes and Aaron's sons wrote down the parts that are multiply attested in Genesis, Exodus and Numbers by the Documentary Hypothesis. But even that includes a lot of "bad" stuff (and excludes the Priestly Source and Creation).

For the New Testament my focus has always been on the gospels. I refer you again to my list in Post #26 and add on all the eyewitness portions from the seven written eyewitness records of Jesus at the link (and complete set of posts there) I have provided here in Posts #43, 59, and 62 to Christian Forums and EarlyChristianWritings (where I go as elsewhere like Theology Web under the name of "Adam", since my last name is Adams).(At EarlyChristianWritings the attached name for the one gathered post is "Peter Kirby", but he is the site-owner who kindly copied over my writings with the caption "THESE ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT MY IDEAS".)

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 70 by Divine Insight]
I think I said exactly all that in my Post #67. I followed exactly what you quoted with my acknowledgement that as a Christian myself I "DO believe that eyewitness story about the seven miracles.

I'm rather a Rationalist (Descartes-style, that is) and I find Christianity (suitably analyzed and interpreted to be quite Rational.

But this doesn't establish how to determine which parts of scripture are true.

All you are doing here is proclaiming a personal belief. And basically declaring a personal exclusive interpretation, An exclusive interpretation because you appear to be excluding large parts of the scriptures as being untrustworthy.

As Zzyzx states in a sig line:

Don't tell us what the bible "really means" or which words are mistranslated. We can read and understand standard English text. If it doesn't mean what it says and say what it means, shame on bible writers, translators, editors, revisers, etc (supposedly "inspired by god") who cannot be trusted to communicate ideas effectively in the written form -- OR perhaps what they wrote about didn't make any sense to start with.

In short Korah you are suggesting that the God of the Bible allowed his message to become extremely corrupt, so much so, that we would now need to turn to people like you do weed out the untrustworthy parts for us.

That would only confirm my claim that this is an extremely inept God.

Just look at how many "Christians" there are who would disagree with you.

And guess what? According to your reasoning this would be entirely God's fault.

This God could never blame anyone for not taking the Bible seriously.

Therefore it can't possibly be important for anyone to believe in the Bible or in Jesus. But ironically this would then mean that sending Jesus to this fate would have been a totally useless and futile thing for this God to have done. Which actually makes sense with the rest of the Bible because there is nothing this God has done throughout the whole Bible that hasn't been totally useless and futile.

In short, if the Bible is true, then our creator is an absolute idiot.

Therefore, I hold that it is not rational to believe in the Bible.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 74 by Divine Insight]
Why are you and Z so hung up on the literal Bible as a whole?
For 2000 years Christians have heard and believed what priests and preachers told them, much from outside the Bible (which I admit we can largely dismiss), but from the Bible mostly wholesome stories from the OT and mostly wholesome ethics and uplifting theology from the NT. Now, I for one regard Paul and other epistles as what I call Pastoral Theology. It's good stuff to teach people how to live their lives and relate to God, but not necessarily philosophically objective truth. But that's in portions outside the selected texts in my Posts #26.

I never liked Paul as a preacher, but other people do. That's fine, there's nothing he says that I don't regard as utilitarian uplift and/or direction. Like many people I don't agree with his downgrading of women. Women to me seem superior to men, but not as superior as I used to think before I married one. And I still do regard (pace D. I.) adolescent men as terrible! There is no excuse for how badly young men abuse the emotions and vulnerable sexuality of young women by lying to them.
(How did I get to talking about this?)

[Divine Insight]

For 2000 years Christians have heard and believed what priests and preachers told them, much from outside the Bible

That just goes to show how truly gullible people are.

We know that the vast majority of religious people are indeed religious because they were born into their religion as a child. They basically believed what their parents told them as well as what the clergy and adults at their church told them. Many even went to Bible schools at the churches as small children. And of course even as young adults many when to Christians schools and even Christian Colleges.

Almost nobody believes in Christianity simply because they read the Bible as an adult without having already been indoctrinated into the religion. There are a few exceptions to this, but even those people were most likely exposed to a belief in the religion just from standard sources. I mean you can hardly see a movie that doesn't have some reference to Christian beliefs and superstitions somewhere in it.

Your arguments are not impressive precisely because you yourself confess that you need to dismiss large parts of the Bible. Even you find much of it objectionable.

So why would you believe that some God had his own corrupt priests crucify his only begotten son to supposedly make some sort of point to humanity?

And then why allow this point to become so totally contaminated in corrupt with superstitions and absurdities?

What would be the point to all of that. This would be a God who sends extremely mixed and confused messages to humanity.

Like I say, who could this God blame if someone just rejects it out of hand as being absurd?

This God could not blame anyone but himself.

Yet the whole idea behind Christianity is that we must believe in Jesus lest we will be damned.

What would be the point to such a religion?

I don't see where it has a leg to stand on. And so yes, I absolutely voice my concerns that people are being convinced to believe and follow something that is utterly absurd.

And following absurdities under the belief that it's God's Word can be extremely dangerous. And we have seen countless examples of this throughout history right up to, and including, the world we live in to this very day.

So it's a "cancer" that is worth snuffing out.

That's my position.

It serves no good purpose.

[Zzyzx]

.

Why are you and Z so hung up on the literal Bible as a whole?

I do not regard the bible as literal at all (excluding an occasional mention of a real person or place). However, Theists often insist that at least SOME parts of stories are literally true while acknowledging (grudgingly perhaps) that other parts are not literal (usually when irrational parts are challenged).

If (since) some parts are claimed to be literal and others are not, I ASK for a means by which anyone can determine which parts are literal and which are not " and reach at least similar conclusions as others applying the same method.

To date no one has supplied any means to make the distinction of literal vs not literal " other than purely subjective OPINION. When you (generic term) say words to the effect "My analysis (or some other people / person's) indicates that such and such is literal, others (who may be Christian scholars and theologians) express a contrary opinion.

Who is right? How can any bible reader (believer or not) make that determination?

It appears as though the answer is something like "Believe whatever you prefer."

Those who maintain that "you must be a believer to understand the meaning of the bible" acknowledge that emotion rather than reason is the deciding factor. Some of us prefer to base decisions on reasoning and evidence over emotion.

For 2000 years Christians have heard and believed what priests and preachers told them, much from outside the Bible

The advent of printing and increased public literacy broke the clerical stranglehold on the bible and associated "religious knowledge" that was once exploited by the priest class.

Now, I for one regard Paul and other epistles as what I call Pastoral Theology. It's good stuff to teach people how to live their lives and relate to God, but not necessarily philosophically objective truth.

Perhaps SOME of the writings of Paul/Saul and other bible writers is "good stuff to teach people how to live their lives" but much or most of their "advice" is worthless in modern society. "How to relate to God" may be important to those who choose to worship that god among thousands.

I never liked Paul as a preacher, but other people do. That's fine, there's nothing he says that I don't regard as utilitarian uplift and/or direction. Like many people I don't agree with his downgrading of women.

Some regard Paul/Saul as a usurper who feigned knowledge of Jesus through a claimed "vision" and made the developing splinter group religion to his own preferences (an effective hijack). Far more of the NT reflects Paul/Saul's thinking / teaching / preaching than that attributed to Jesus.

Women to me seem superior to men, but not as superior as I used to think before I married one.

SOME people of either gender are "superior" to those of other genders by SOME measure. A blanket statement in either direction is likely to be untrue.

Gender stereotyping appears to be a holdover from more male chauvinistic times and influences (including religions).

One of my ex-wives ran a chainsaw and split firewood much more competently than most men (and looked far better in a short skirt) " and I teach women to grocery shop economically and wisely and to cook healthy meals (and also run a chainsaw and splitting maul " but don't wear short skirts " maybe shorts instead).

Perhaps it is most appropriate to avoid gender stereotypes and allow people to EARN respect by their actions.

And I still do regard (pace D. I.) adolescent men as terrible! There is no excuse for how badly young men abuse the emotions and vulnerable sexuality of young women by lying to them.

Adolescence is an awkward and uncomfortable stage of maturation for most people of any gender " past childhood but still well short of adulthood (in terms of capabilities, experience, judgment, knowledge, etc). I see no difference in overall "lying" or misrepresentation / deception between males and females. Motivations may differ somewhat between genders with males perhaps emphasizing sexual encounters and females emphasizing commitment relationships (?).

[Korah]

Why are you and Z so hung up on the literal Bible as a whole?

For 2000 years Christians have heard and believed what priests and preachers told them, much from outside the Bible

The advent of printing and increased public literacy broke the clerical stranglehold on the bible and associated "religious knowledge" that was once exploited by the priest class.

While it is true that among (predominantly) Protestant Christians that many read the Bible in its entirety, it is still true that even the better part of them have been Anglicans or Lutherans whose main encounter with the authority of the Bible is what they heard read as the Gospel and Epistle upon which the pastor based his sermon. Even many non-liturgical Protestants depended upon Bible readings selected by their pastors which almost always excluded the "bad stuff". Prescribed Sunday readings usually included some Psalm or other, but this could be considered as expressive of individual congregant's reach for God. Yes, many pastors went outside these bounds to threaten hell-fire for whomever might not believe in Genesis 1-11, but this is a clear misuse of Scripture.

Which brings us back to my suggestions about truthful Scripture. Notice that my bounds leave much of Matthew outside as only singly attested and as not among Sunday readings.

[Divine Insight]

If (since) some parts are claimed to be literal and others are not, I ASK for a means by which anyone can determine which parts are literal and which are not " and reach at least similar conclusions as others applying the same method.

This whole topic about whether or not the Bible should be taken literally or not seems to be to actually be a moot point.

Considering the following literature:

Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water.
Jack fell down and broke his crown and Jill came tumbling after.

So should this literature be taken literally?

What does that even mean? Are we being asked if there really was a Jack and Jill who went up some hill somewhere to actually fetch a pail of water. And that this trip actually ended in disaster with Jack actually breaking his crown and Jill also falling down too?

Does it really matter whether the story represents a real event, or whether it's just describing a parable to convey a moral idea?

Either way the story is literally the same. The story starts out with some people heading off to fetch a pail of water and the trip ends in disaster.

Asking whether it should be taken literal or not is meaningless. The literal meaning is the same whether it actually happened or not.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 76 by Divine Insight]
True, I currently put little stock in most of the Bible. That doesn't mean that preachers and others cannot make wholesome use of most of it.

That's my current position. However, from 1969 to 1992 I fervently accepted the whole Bible (all 73 books) in conjunction with my baptism in and commitment to Roman Catholicism. That could have been still my position today if I had not become convinced that Judges 20 proves that the scholars (like Sellin-Fohrer) are right that Judges 17 to 21 do not belong in the Bible because they were mistakenly added back in after the Deuteronomist had properly excluded then. However, Roman Catholic definition by the 16th Century Council of Trent does not allow this exception, so I left the Catholic Church. Even now I could return to an acceptance of the "whole" Bible (whether 66 or 73 books) without these "rogue" chapters, but I don't see much virtue in all the allegorization necessary.