the bible and the question of truth

Human beings could be just a fluke of nature. Like the dinosaurs and just like all things on this planet. They come into being and then dissolve. Religion comes out of a high density of people trying to answer questions that are not answerable. Why are we here? What is the point of life? What happens when we die?  These are very unsettling questions. All kinds of civilizations have come up with answers to these: Greek Mythology, Egyptians, Native Americans, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Indigenous people before they get imperialized, Hindus, and Buddhists. If all these people have come up with different answers to these very questions then it is proof that religion is invented. Where would all these answers come from if it was not invented? A specific religion can put to rest where they came from simply by saying they came from God. Can we really trust the word of people 2,000 years ago? Not to say these people are not trustworthy, but instead that we just do not know what happened back then. Parts of stories get left out. History books are written by victors. Things happen.

I have a really simple question, was the bible read literally before science came about? 

The people who were Christians/Protestans/Catholics or any specific sector of Christianity during the time when no science knowledge was made available (like feudal times Europe or during the early ages of America) - did they read the bible LITERALLY? 

I’m talking generally about the commoner or the rich who had apparently no education in science. 

Thanks!

This thread is an expansion of the conversation I’ve been having with Peter Wilkinson.  We have been engaged in the typical left v. right debate of biblical interpretation (non-literal v. literal). Can we find a purple (red+blue) view of God.

The reason I’m pushing this is because I feel our Christian metaphors are a stumbling block to spreading Jesus’ message.  I think that the key for an open source theology would be to figure out how speak theology without metaphors or at a minimum with different metaphors.  I’m not sure it is possible but I wonder what theology would look like if we could make that adjustment.   I have a feeling that often the rejection of Christian theology may be a rejection of the metaphors rather than the actual message.  Maybe letting go of our attachment to these particular metaphors could be the key to an explosion in the Christian movement.

Upon immersing myself in a new found joy of NT scholarship, in particular the Synoptic Problem, I cant but help notice one thing - the way scholars would describe the texts makes feel that the infallibilty of the scriptures are totally ignored.

For example, in trying to demonstrate Matthew and Luke used Mark in the Triple Traditions, scholars appeal to evidence called “Editorial Fatigue”, I assume readers know what I mean, yet I will explain it, when copying from Mark, the redactor makes errors that results from the repetiveness of the task, specific quotations will not be mentioned here though.

Okay, a forum topic in its simplest form - questions.  Namely, two:

1) What is the Word of God?

——and——

2) How do you know?

Although to some these may seem to be very easily answered, I expect there to be some very in depth commentary.  I am very interested in seeing posts from people of various different backgrounds and affilations.  Enjoy!

It makes sense to continue the conversation with Danutz about the scripture and the supernatural in a separate thread.

Why would anyone write a gospel of Jesus and not have it line up with the prophecy that everyone was familiar with?

I am looking for input from others out there about what the criteria are for determining the TRUE Word of God, from all other voices out there. What is the catch? You can’t use an already established canon, from any religion to argue your point. I am looking for the "Non-Canon-Based" canon. Please come and give your input.

In recent years I have felt increasingly dissatisfied with the evangelical acceptance of the Protestant canon. I have canvassed the opinions of many evangelicals (as well as Roman Catholics, liberal Protestants, and even some Eastern Orthodox) about this and I detect a tendency among evangelicals to just accept the traditional Protestant canon and to assume that God invisibly supervised its collation to ensure that the right books got included/excluded.