Hi,
I'm interested in examining reasons for believing that the Bible is the literal truth. I'd be interested in any comments people have around this subject, but I have particular questions and assumptions I'd like to describe here.
My assumptions for the discussion are;
(1) There are many writings about the subjects covered in the old and new testaments. We have copies of around twenty gospels, several apolcalypses, other epistles to early christian churches, other books of anceint hebrew history, pseudopygrapha, apocrypha, other books of new-testament-era history, etc.
(2) The bible is an anthology of 66 books selected from the many writings mentioned above.
(3) Some Christians ('literalists') claim the bible is true; this is a shorthand for the 66 claims, one for each book, of the form "This book is literally true".
(4) Literalists do not claim the same truth for the other writings, such as the Book of Enoch, the Gospel of Thomas, or the writings of Josephus. That is, for each other writing, you can only say "This book _may_ be true, in parts."
Given these assumptions (and I'm hoping there's nothing controvertial so far) I am wondering how literalists reason about these claims.
So, to start the ball rolling; I'd like to present a hypothetical situation, which is no doubt similar to that experienced by early Christians.
Esaias, a literate greek living around 150AD, has heard a little about a holy man called Jesus, and decides to learn more about him. He talks to other people in his city. One, Ioannis, tells him that he has heard the good news, has been visited by the holy spirit, and in fact has the written story. His tale starts "In the beginning was the word." Another man, Jude, makes the same claims: visited by the holy spirit, accepted the good news, has a written story. His book starts "These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded." Both men lend him a copy of their texts.
If this man is to read correct scripture, he must conclude two things;
(a) The first book (the gospel of John) is utterly true.
(b) The second book (the gospel of Thomas) could be true, in parts, but is not utterly true. It may be misguided or a total fabrication.
How can Esaias come to these conclusions?
(For the record, I am an atheist, and I am interested in understanding Christianity on it's own terms.)
Edited by attssyf, : (edited just to provide signature and get email notification)
And you shall know the truth,
and the truth will set you free.
-- John 8:32
™ Version 4.2