What would it take?

[JairCrawford]

Justin was clearly more focused on the Gospel than the Pauline epistles. We can't say for sure whether he ignored them or didn't know them.

As for Marcion, that doesn't surprise me. He developed conflicting views from the Pauline perspective but it doesn't surprise me that he could have canonized the gospels early on.

This is one of the reasons I refuse to live according to a thousands-year-old document. What it says depends largely on which part is emphasized over others. It can spur people to charity. It can justify murder. Beyond that, the Bible is what it is because of its history; people in the Holy Roman Empire, the fathers of the Byzantine empire... these guys had political motivations to organize the canon in a certain way.

And even Paul... so many people read his words like they are flawless orchestrations of the truth. He was a guy with issues like anyone else. He put some inspiring poetics into the epistles, but they were there to serve a practical purpose; they were communiques to his various parishes. Its quite possible that if he would not want them included in the canon if he had any say in the matter (which he didn't).

Anyway, in light of its history and what is contained within its pages, I have a hard time accepting the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Your tradition presumably does, (or does it?) How do you feel about biblical inerrancy? Can you see why someone may doubt it? Doesn't it seem reasonable to doubt that the bible is perfect?

Actually, I agree with many of your points to a degree. The question is, what is innerancy? I prefer, Inspired. The issue is, it should be obvious even to the most fundamentalist Christians upon reading through the Bible, that you can't read through it literally front to back. It will just be confusing and contradictory. But many people in the faith insist that it MUST be read literally and you MUST know it's innerant and you dare not question it.

Here's the thing though, there is no verse in scripture that insists we must read it literally. There's no verse that forbids interpretation. No, it has been the church throughout the centuries that have taken verses out of context in order to fear monger (or even persecute) people into reading it one way and one way only.

So yes, there is a lot of truth to what you say. I'm just not compelled to throw the proverbial baby out with the proverbial bath water.