Why I'm Not a Biblical Literalist

[_Jason Bourne]

And I'm not sure why we can't factor in the idea that IF there is a God and; IF he chose to communicate with us and; IF one of those ways was through some set of sacred writing and; then why couldn't we rely on HIS protection of that set of sacred writing to some degree.

One would think so.

The level of protection is certainly debatable,

It is and the debate seems to indicate that the text of the Bible was poorly protected. Just consider one small problem. None of the original autographs exist. So how can we even tell for sure what we have is accurate. And that is just the tip of a rather large and probelmativ iceberg.

but we could make certain assumptions couldn't we?

What assumptions?

[_Hoops]

Phew, it's all getting clearer. Anyway, if you are questioning that God killed innocent people (I'm still kinda assuming that is what we are talking about) then we both probably have different views on what innocence is.

Since you are making the positive statement, you telll me. Innocent of what? What is innocence?

[_Hoops]

It is and the debate seems to indicate that the text of the Bible was poorly protected. Just consider one small problem. None of the original autographs exist. So how can we even tell for sure what we have is accurate. And that is just the tip of a rather large and probelmativ iceberg.

Poorly protected from what? What alleged changes (or whatever) are problematic for the Christian faith as it is expressed? And what evidence do you have of this?

[_Jason Bourne]

[/quote]Poorly protected from what? [/quote]

From corruption, from changed text, from lost text, from directing with some authority what should be included in the final book-it is clear that some texts were considered authorative and eventually not included in the Bible and some that were included were considered suspect by many at various times. From forgeries.

Where are the originals?

What alleged changes (or whatever) are problematic for the Christian faith as it is expressed?

Read any book by Erhman. You mention him above. I think he shows many problems. Mostly what really was authoritative and what was not. Why were some texts that seemed authoritative dismissed by the eventual winners as heretical? If the alleged heretics had won the debates what would the Bible look like today.

Add to all this there is the fact that we cannot even compare to the originals to determine what might not be there or what might be changed that could be a problem.

And what evidence do you have of this?

As noted check out Ehrman. Plenty of evidence there.

[_Fence Sitter]

Just where are these Bibles where these huge chasms of doctrinal divide are?

So you are comfortable with any Bible? Then I have a version that Joseph Smith translated that you might find interesting.

[_just me]

Phew, it's all getting clearer. Anyway, if you are questioning that God killed innocent people (I'm still kinda assuming that is what we are talking about) then we both probably have different views on what innocence is.

Since you are making the positive statement, you telll me. Innocent of what? What is innocence?

Innocent of crimes that carry the death penalty is probably the best and most accurate use of "innocence" for this discussion. That likely best represents what I mean.

[_Hoops]

Innocent of crimes that carry the death penalty is probably the best and most accurate use of "innocence" for this discussion. That likely best represents what I mean.

Okay. I would submit to you that as nations and cultures, that is exactly what they were guilty of.

[_Hoops]

Just where are these Bibles where these huge chasms of doctrinal divide are?

So you are comfortable with any Bible? Then I have a version that Joseph Smith translated that you might find interesting.

You didn't answer the question.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Read any book by Erhman. You mention him above. I think he shows many problems....As noted check out Ehrman. Plenty of evidence there.

The problem with citing Ehrman is that most people turn to his popular works and not his scholarly works. As it is, he did co-author the definitive guide to the text of the New Testament and Textual Criticism with Bruce Metzger, his Ph. D. advisor. Metzger was the best New Testament text critic in the English speaking world during the 20th century, no one else came close.

My point is this, read The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration to see how Ehrman the scholar compares to Ehrman the popularizer. It's not that Ehrman lies in his other books, it's just that the bigger picture gets left out. It's quite frankly utterly astonishing the wealth of textual manuscripts there are for the New Testament.

[Guest]

Innocent of crimes that carry the death penalty is probably the best and most accurate use of "innocence" for this discussion. That likely best represents what I mean.

Okay. I would submit to you that as nations and cultures, that is exactly what they were guilty of.

What is your evidence. Please cite the exact offenses and when and where these laws were laid out to these people in their own language.

by the way, I do not believe that a baby is guilty of the crimes commited by its parents or national leaders. Even if you were able to produce a scripture that says little children can be put to death for the crimes of the adults in their lives I would think it dispicable.

I also believe that laying waste to the Earth is reprehensible. What crime was the Earth guillty of? What crime were the trees, flowers, animals, insects, fish and birds guilty of?