If some parts of the Bible can't be trusted how can any of it?

The New and Old Testaments of the Christian bible are a selection from an array of books and also a selection from an array of versions or copies of those books.This is not meant as a conclusive argument and I anticpate that those who claim inerrancy will simply say that the books that entered the canon were the ones chosen by God. But once the Roman church settled on a dogma and a bible and began suppressing views they didn't agree with they reached a point where they offered a single viewpoint of history. Coming into contact with the religion at this point one finds a straightforward and fairly simple story.The problem as I see it is that when the church lost the power to basically kill or threaten to kill anyone who disagreed with it and we began to study history we can't find much that fits the church's story of how things happened.The bible is not a single book. It is a selection of books and versions of books from a much larger number. The state of the manuscripts vary. It just strikes me as odd that had an all powerful God wishing to equip humanity with an official manual that this divinity would allow it to be treated in the manner that it has been treated.The church through persuassion and propaganda and force has brought about a false impression of the bible for it's own political ends. And it has been very effective. Of course those who seek a simple absolute view of life are content not to examine the teachings and dogma given them because they want what is being offered. But if it was the word of God rather than the word of men why wouldn't it have been done perfectly, like say for example ... gravity?peace,
nelf

Reality!? And what is that? And even more important how do you know what it is? or that it is?lfen

Brian,Reading that I flashed on Homer being blind, so he was even more amazing than Mohammed who was only illiterate whereas Homer was illiterate and blind! Pretty amazing, huh?lfen

Whaaaaat? Newton prophesied what where? His writings are not part of the Bible.You were talking about bibical prophesy correct? Citing something about Newton has no relationship to Jar's premise. If you can show that it does then please do so explicitly. A bald statement that the premise is false and citing a non sequiter does nothing to help your case.lfen

Thank you for your reply.I went to the idolphin site in your link. That site seemed to be saying Jesus was to return in 1996 or 98. Did he?lfen

Jar,Your example is datable. Do you mean that as a requirement? I understand Christians to believe Christ will return. Do you think that a simple statement "Christ will come again" qualifies as prophesy? I'm just trying to clarify how to determine what is and what is not a prophesy by your definition.Thanks,
lfen

There is a corresponding Hopi prophecy: I've read reports but don't have a citation that the Dalai Lama was observed meeting the Hopi Elders.lfenediting to add: It's been decades but IIRC the book BLACK ELK SPEAKS contains a prophecy about the demise of the Native Americans. However that could also be regarded as a contemporaneous observaton as the tribal peoples were being everywhere defeated by the europeans. (was it only non christians stealing their land and massacring them? You do know how badly the natives fared in the christians schools where out of Christian love families were torn apart and the children forbidden to speak their language. Given a choice I'm sure they would have chosen to be spared the christian love.)lfenThis message has been edited by lfen, 09-06-2004 03:08 AMThis message has been edited by lfen, 09-06-2004 03:41 AM

You've read creationist apologetics. Have you studied biology, genetics, and the Theory of evolution? Research in biology, cosmology, and possibly humanistic thinking (not sure what subject you mean by that) is ongoing and producing results whatever your sources opinion.Disagreement is part of the process of science. I'm not sure how to weight your criticism. I guess the total agreement of Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist, etc. churches has led to your expectation that scientist should emulate christians?lfenedited to say: This was supposed to be a reply to 173. I'm not sure how I got it be a reply to 182, but I'm going to bed as tiredness seems to have been partially responsible.This message has been edited by lfen, 09-06-2004 03:42 AM