St. Paul was the only human who lived in the first and second centuries AD

[Valmy]

To me, that's the first sign a particular Christian is not worth engaging in debate with: if they insist the Bible is the literal word of God, they have either a) not bothered to read most of it, or b) are incapable of analyzing what they've read to any meaningful degree.

Anybody who claims this should next be asked if they have, in fact, read the bible.

Even in basic things...like when Jesus was born or what town he was from...they differ for inexplicable reasons and not all of them can be true.

[crazy canuck]

On the other hand, you see extremely intellgent people doing what is, IMO, basically the same thing, but doing so under the guise of "scholarship". So you see the creation of this incredible complex theology, this creation of an entire realm of study that people spend their lives tweaking, studying, understanding, revising, all based on this fundamentally irrational premise.

Speaking as someone who has spent years trying to find some meaning in it all, even though in the end I came to the same conclusion as you, I found the intellectual exercise to be worth while.  I dont think I would have been satisfied if I had not spent a great deal of time studying the issue.  In part I suppose that is because we still live in a culture heavily dominated by Christianity and I was essentially proving a negative to myself.  Never an easy thing to do.

[alfred russel]

It is like watching some apologist explain how the two Genesis stories really can work together...

To be fair, from very early on those stories were treated symbolically (though not universally of course). Augustine viewed them as highly symbolic truths that didn't describe how the world literally came into being. He hypothosized god created the world instantaneously.

Sure, why not? That is a standard response to those things in the Bible that simply do not make any damn sense at all. It is just another example of the need to square the circle that is biblical apologism.

Although you still see plenty of people insist that no such symbolism cop out is needed, and in fact Genesis is not only literal truth, but both contradictory versions are in fact literal truth.

I agree that there are large tracts of the bible that are simply literally incorrect and don't have symbolic meanings to get them out of the jam. But the creation stories aren't those type of stories: at least one leading theologian of the church taught that in the early years, and pointed to their probably non-symbolic falseness, so that isn't a post darwin rationalization.

Just because some groups developed a fetish for the literal truth of the bible doesn't make those stories the best targets for a general discrediting of the consistency of the bible. I'd say the listing of incredibly longed lived individuals with no apparent message behind them does a much better job of that.

[Valmy]

This is my day for disagreeing with you.

Just compare the resurrection stories.  Look at who sees Jesus first, who was with them etc.  a small example but all the stories conflict.

I once wrote a long post on a number of areas in which the Gospels conflict but that was on the old site and I dont think I could reproduce it now.

Bingo.

[Caliga]

This is my day for disagreeing with you.

Just compare the resurrection stories.  Look at who sees Jesus first, who was with them etc.  a small example but all the stories conflict.

I once wrote a long post on a number of areas in which the Gospels conflict but that was on the old site and I dont think I could reproduce it now.

I meant on a higher level, as in Matthew claims Jesus was beheaded, while Mark claims Jesus was burned at the stake, etc.  I mean that I don't understand why the early Church fathers only included one Gospel and edited it to their liking.  I guess there must have been some disagreement over which Gospel was the "most correct" and thus as a compromise all four were included.

[Malthus]

How many groups actually believe in the literal truth of everything in the Bible?

[Caliga]

Anybody who claims this should next be asked if they have, in fact, read the bible.

Even in basic things...like when Jesus was born or what town he was from...they differ for inexplicable reasons and not all of them can be true.

I don't know if your first line is a dig at me

But if it is, in my defense I've never claimed to anyone that I have memorized large tracts of the Bible, and in fact there are portions of the OT I've probably never read and/or have long since forgotten.  The difference is that, since I have no emotional investment in the Bible whatsoever, I don't feel a need to read it repeatedly so I have it fresh in my head.  My view is that the Bible is not a great piece of literature, but simultaneously and ironically the single most important book ever written in human history.  So to me it's more like a reference book than some great work of art worth memorizing.

That said, Christians or ex-devout Christians obviously have a leg up on me in any sort of debate where I lack handy references.  Personally, ever since I can remember I've never believed in God (even when I was going to Church).  I used to not pay attention during sermons and instead intently study the maps of the Middle East included in the back of the RSV

[Caliga]

How many groups actually believe in the literal truth of everything in the Bible?

I don't know how many do.  Ironically, I think the official SBC position on the Bible is that the inerrancy of scripture is up to an individual to decide, but people in Princesca's family who are Southern Baptists do believe it to be the literal Word of God.

[Valmy]

I don't know if your first line is a dig at me

No it is a dig at the people who believe the Bible is literally true.

[crazy canuck]

I meant on a higher level, as in Matthew claims Jesus was beheaded, while Mark claims Jesus was burned at the stake, etc.  I mean that I don't understand why the early Church fathers only included one Gospel and edited it to their liking.  I guess there must have been some disagreement over which Gospel was the "most correct" and thus as a compromise all four were included.

This takes us into how the Bible actually came to be.  By the time a centralized Church had enough authority to start compiling a list of what would be accepted and what rejected (a process which itself took a long time) there was a multitude of writings to choose from.  These four Gospels had the strongest backers and it is doubtful that any one of them would have had enough support to have the other three removed.

Remeber there was no one authority to guide the development of the early Christian Theology.  The person who comes closest to that is Paul but there were a number of "churches" scattered throughout the Mediterranean and each of them had various views and writings as we can see from the letter of Paul himself. I bring us back to the point I made before that there were not just four gospels but many.   The four we have in the Bible are just the ones the won out over the others.

[Valmy]

How many groups actually believe in the literal truth of everything in the Bible?

Orthodox Jews (at least the first 2/3rds or so)

[Caliga]

I don't know if your first line is a dig at me

No it is a dig at the people who believe the Bible is literally true.

Oh. 

[crazy canuck]

How many groups actually believe in the literal truth of everything in the Bible?

Good question.  Certainly the Born again Christian movement in North America does.

I wonder about outside North America though.

[Caliga]

Remeber there was no one authority to guide the development of the early Christian Theology.  The person who comes closest to that is Paul but there were a number of "churches" scattered throughout the Mediterranean and each of them had various views and writings as we can see from the letter of Paul himself. I bring us back to the point I made before that there were not just four gospels but many.   The four we have in the Bible are just the ones the won out over the others.

Yeah, I know... I've read nearly all of the apocryphal gospels that are available to us today.

I have little personal interest in most of the OT, but I find the life of Jesus to be extremely interesting.

[Valmy]

Good question.  Certainly the Born again Christian movement in North America does.

I wonder about outside North America though.

You think South American Catholics don't believe in the Bible?