A Minimalist Bible

No, it's not.
It is, however, logically reasonable for someone to not believe in Jesus unless they are given some sort of verifiable indication that Jesus actually exists."Reasonable" doesn't mean "anything that can make sense in any minimalized context, no matter how restricted it is."
"Reasonable" means "consistent, logical analysis" as you defined at the beginning of this thread:

quote:

---

Does understanding of the Bible this way, based on the theistic assumptions that I outlined, reasonably fit with what we conclude through basic logic and reason.

---

You're talking about "basic logic and reason" here. That means consistent application of the logic in all contexts. Not just the one you choose to restrict yourself to.Yes, the phrase makes sense in colloquial terms... but then it doesn't answer the question you intended to ask. If you find this acceptable and would like to stop investigating how reasonable your ideas are at this point, just let me know... it will be easier that way.I can say "it's reasonable for me to drive my car if it's too far to walk."
But what if I'm 8 years old? Is this still "reasonable?"You can have the protected version of "reasonable" if you'd like... if you want to restrict your sense of context into a small area.
However, if you really want to answer the question as you stated it originally... then we need to investigate all aspects of the context. Not just the ones where you can make it sound good. Yes, we know that you are.
The question is whether or not it's reasonable to do so.
(That's logically reasonable... not just colloquially "reasonable"... I just don't feel like writing "logically..." all the time). Not at all.In the same sense that my powerful, unstoppable, reliable abilities at programming doesn't give any credibility to anything else I say. The other things I say need to be supported on their own. The fact that I said them even needs to be supported. If we're trying to be reasonable, anyway.We don't reasonably know if the message is from God, let alone that it was sent to Jesus, and again whether or not Jesus gave it to us.
it is not reasonable to believe any of this on the basis that "the message is a good one."You can believe these because your own personal experience compels you to... but it's just not logically reasonable. The point was simply to show you how logic and reason works. I don't know any of this for sure either.
But we're not talking about what's absolutely true.
We're talking about what's reasonable for us to conclude.And it's reasonable to come to conclusions based on the things we can verify around us.
It is unreasonable to come to conclusions that cannot be verified.This doesn't mean we have to be logically reasonable all the time, or whether or not it's even a good thing.But if you're going to ask the question about whether or not this idea is logically reasonable... I'll help you investigate the answer, if you'd like. This doesn't make sense.
I think the issue is that you seem to think everyone "needs an answer for everything."
It's perfectly easy to be objective and consistent all the time... you just have to be okay with not getting an answer for everything.The choice is yours:Do you want "an answer for everything" -and not be confident in any of your answers because the methodology is suspect?
(Basing worldview on faith and belief)ORDo you want "an answer for only some things" -but be very confident in all of the answers you're able to obtain?
(Basing worldview on scientific, logical methodology)Of course, it should also be pointed out that people are very flexible, and quite capable of using two (or more) different worldviews for two (or more) different situations. We're pretty awesome that way.

The KJV is less than 400 years old. But don't let that stop a good rant?

The KJV had its four hundredth birthday in 2011,And the God-inspired Bible is the original Greek and Hebrew.

Hi Faith ... "Inspired by God" is different than "Dictated by God". That difference allows the text to reflect the personalities and styles of the different authors. If it was all dictated by God, so as to be God's exact words, there would be much more consistency in style. Even the Gospels have significant differences in content and style, so much so that it is clear they have different authors. If the prophet says ""The WORD of the Lord came to me" then you can assume that the words he quotes are the words that God spoke to him, but otherwise how do you justify that God was dictating the rest of the narrative?Paul says in 1 Cor 7:12 - 14 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away..." (KJV, emphasis added)He explicitly states that his instruction was not from the Lord, so how can it also be dictated by the Lord? There are also other places where Paul explicitly states that he is giving his opinion, his advice, rather than receiving a command directly from God. Should these "uninspired" bits have been left out of an "inspired" Bible?I also noted something else in your comment. When you typed "WORD" you used all caps, but when you typed "Lord" you only capitalized the first letter. The convention is to use all caps for LORD and only capitalize the first letter in Word. You probably only did this for emphasis, but I think it illustrates the problem I have with inerrantists. They seem to worship the Bible, the Bible goes on a pedestal and is regarded as being absolutely without error, which is an attribute that belongs only to God. We should not worship the Bible. I am not saying you worship the Bible, but it bothers me when people elevate the Bible to such a position that only God should occupy.I am not sure about this, but it seems as if you are a King James only believer. Maybe it was because of this: This position is even more tenuous. The KJV was translated from the Vulgate (Latin) which was translated from the Septuagint (Greek OT) and 2nd or 3rd generation copies of the NT (ie. copies of copies, not the original documents). What is the Biblical support that all those translations were inerrantly copied?More recently, texts have been found that are a hundred years older than the oldest texts used to translate the Vulgate and have given us significant insight into some confusing passages. Also we have used Sumerian and other Ancient Near Eastern texts to clarify the meanings of uncertain words and phrases, none of which was available to medieval translators.How can you be so sure that the KJV is inerrant and other, newer translations (such as NASB, my personal preference) are corrupted?If you prefer the KJV version, that is just fine. But it is not really justified to suggest that those that use other translations are not "true Christians". (Don't think that you suggest that ? "Christianity requires an inerrant Bible ... all translations are corrupt except KJV ... " thus the implication is that you can't be a "true Christian" unless you use the KJV)HBD

HI GDR,I have to ask; can you point to a hypothetical observation that would falsify your reading?Mutate and Survive

Hi GrannyAs far as my theistic beliefs are concerned I can't imagine that there is. IMHO theism makes so much more sense of the world than anything else but certainly that is a subjective view and it is simply belief.As far as Christianity is concerned it all hangs on the resurrection. If the resurrection is not an historical reality then Christianity as a religion is no more valid than any other set of beliefs and Jesus is simply a guy with a lot of good social ideals but no more special than Mahatma Ghandi but maybe a little more quirky. Edited by GDR, : typo

Hi StileI have to admit I'm getting a little bogged down in this. I think that the reason for that is that you have an education that I am lacking. My post-secondary education was extremely focused towards a specific career. I think that I am using the terms reasonable and logical in a more common parlance than what you are.Here was the question that I asked in the OP that you are addressing. [quote]Does understanding of the Bible this way, based on the theistic assumptions that I outlined, reasonably fit with what we conclude through basic logic and reason.[/qs]I am suggesting that what we know scientifically or even experientially on a collective basis conforms to understanding the Bible in the way that I have outlined. Another way to go at it is to ask if there is any evidence that suggests that method is wrong.

Actually, He engraved on tables of stone:

quote:

---

Exo 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

---

And when Moses broke the originals, God Himself wrote the replacements:

quote:

---

Exo 34:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

---

It's pretty clear that God makest a distinction between "written by" and "inspired by" even if fundies don't.Edited by ringo, : "Changed "makes" to "makest" because it's funnier.

A good example of that would be the Internet. Since it is reliable in some areas, it must be credible in other areas too.Or not?

OK in that technical sense, but to be dictated by God doesn't mean the personality of the prophet or scribe is eclipsed, at all, God doesn't use His instruments that way. They have God's Holy Spirit and they write through that Spirit as He works through their personalities. It's not like dictation on a Dictaphone. Yes if we're talking Dictaphone type dictation but we're not, we're talking God's Spirit working in harmony with God's prophet's personality, and we DO get God's exact words that way. God's sovereignty over all things guarantees that the words we read are His, as the prophet mediated them. See above. By His sovereignty over the work of the scribes who wrote it, and we have faith in this knowing that this IS His revelation to mankind as the Church has attested down the centuries. The idea that the exact words were dictated isn't as important as the message but there is no reason to think that the words weren't exactly dictated as well, in the sense I've been saying here. God is sovereign but we are independent nevertheless, He controlled what got said in His revelation to us but not the way you seem to be imagining it. If I acknowledge that this wasn't dictated by God in any sense that fits your idea of that, unbelievers will say then it's not God's word it's just the word of human beings, but that's not the case. Sorry if I can't get it said better than that. Probably Luther did or Calvin or Augustine or somebody back there. Nope, we are to obey our superiors and that includes Paul, unless they show themselves to be in violation of God's will. Yes, it was only for emphasis.God Himself "magnifies His word above His name" as it says in Psalm 138: The Bible is THE ONLY source of knowledge of God and His salvation through Christ. The idea that one "worships" the messenger instead of valuing it as this only source that cannot be lost or the knowledge of God will be lost, just misses the whole point. I've been following the controversy about these things for years and have my own blog about it, The Great Bible Hoax of 1881 about how the supposedly oldest Greek manuscripts from which all the modern Bibles were translated to one degree or another, are in fact corrupt. I make it clear there that I am not "King James Only" in the usual sense of considering the KJV as inspired in itself, but am really more "Textus Receptus Only," believing that the underlying Greek texts for the KJV are the authentic ones. I also think the KJV itself IS a superior translation compared to all the new ones, although it needs some minor corrections plus some updatings by now.The KJV was translated from Erasmus' Greek texts, not the Vulgate, although due to a lack of the original Greek in some places he did resort to back-translating the Vulgate. Overall his new Greek text was very different from the Vulgate. Luther used it and so did the KJV translators although they also had access to some newly available Greek mss as well and they compared their work with all the other translations in all the other languages they had access to.NOBODY has the original documents, they long since perished, but there are thousands of copies and fragments of the Greek mss available nevertheless. People who are expert in sorting out minor differences work on these all the time. The "new texts" that have been found are also questionable. I try to keep up with this but maybe I'm running too many blogs besides trying to bring down evolution at EvC, ha ha, so all I can say is that I'm following Chris Pinto who has been working on exposing a lot of fraud in the history of Bible manuscripts.The KJV translators used 95% pf Tyndale's translation and he was no "medieval" translator, who based his work on Erasmus' Greek text. I don't know where this idea that the Vulgate underlies all this comes from but it's a fraudulent claim. They also used other translations including many Middle Eastern translations. From what I've said above about what I've been following for some years. The NASB was recommended to me years ago as the most reliable, and apparently it is a good literal translation, but it uses the corrupted Greek texts. I hated it for some reason anyway without knowing that about it and just couldn't stick with it. Went to the New King James and liked it better but had problems with that too. Turns out that although it's based on the Textus Receptus it resorts to translation of some verses that are filtered through the Westcott and Hort revision of 1881. The problems I had with the old King James were also an interference but I finally got convinced it's the only really reliable one and am sticking to it. I certainly DON'T suggest that those who use the other translations are not true Christians, just about everybody I know disagrees with me about the KJV and I don't regard them as any less Christians for that. Christians can be deceived, that's all. We are all vulnerable to deception. I was deceived about the new versions for years and I consider myself to have been a Christian all that time. We can all improve in many ways. True Christians are a motley bunch with many faults, that's the sort of people the Lord chose, you know.AND most of the true text survives even in the corrupted versions, AND God will lead Christians to get the truth out of them in any case.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not so much eh.

Yes, that's my point. Reliability of the message doesn't imply credibility of the source.

But the internet was designed with the basic understanding that it would be unreliable and to be tolerant of unreliability.