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

Hi, It is if you take the approach that you are taking, i.e. not even studying them. You mean exactly the way that Christian scribes done with the Old Testament? The NT authors have mutilated the Old Testament, they simply changed it. You may wish to actually think about what you are saying here. Yes it does, why don’t you try reading about other faiths instead of blindly trying to undermine them. Yes he did. I think the Qur’an proves how special Muhammad was. Here was a guy who couldn’t read or write yet he produced an amazing piece of literature, how could this happen without God’s assistance?Brian.

I would say that there is a great deal in the Bible we can trust. However, the spiritual claims can only ever be affirmed or denied, they are never proven or falsified.The only things we can really argue about the accuracy of in the Bible are the alleged historical events recorded in it, even then we have to recognise that the intention is not to record an accurate critical history in the post-renaissance sense of the term. The history in the Bible is ideological history, and it has to understood as such, therefore when trying to decide which parts are reliable and which aren’t, you need to employ the same approach that you would employ when examining any ancient text.Having said this, the Bible actually has a very poor track record as a reliable historical source, regardless of how many fundy websites tell you differently. I would say quite confidently that anything claimed historically in the Bible before King Omri needs to be viewed as improbable.So we can trust parts of the Bible, the parts that can be supported by external data, the rest of it has to be taken on faith or ignorance. The 'all or nothing guys' have never graduated beyond Sunday School.Brian.

Hi Custard, Yes they can be argued over, and I have participated in many such discussions, however, arguing is all you can do with these concepts, they cannot be verified or falsified in the same way that an alleged historical event can.People will be arguing over philosophical and moral points of the Bible for ever more, but many alleged historical events in the Bible have already been proven incorrect, and futhermore, the majority of Christian scholars have accepted this.So what I mean by 'we can only really argue' is that, if we want to arrive at a conclusion we need to discuss something that can be verified or falsified, anything else is meaningless. For example, to say that God created the universe, or that there is a heaven and hell are meaningless statements.Brian.

Many thanks Custard and others for correcting me here, I was obviously confused with the 'Night Journey' and 'Ascension' stories.It would have been very cool if Almeyda had corrected me Thanks again, I appreciate your clarification.Brian.