What's the point of "liberal" Christianity?

Great Debates
81

Thanks for all the well thought-out responses. For those of you who find it hard to believe that I’m not more familiar with liberal Christianity - I just don’t know what to tell you. I’m being honest about my experience. I grew up in a radically conservative area, and in my early 20s I moved to a less conservative (but still very “red”) area, by which time I’d learned through experience not to be going out of my way to talk about religion.

As an example, during the 1988 election, our whole school had a mock election where we wore the button of the candidate we were “voting for”. I was the only kid in the entire school wearing a Dukakis button.

I did meet a Catholic once, in a philosophy class in college, but all he did was look pissed off the whole semester. I honestly thought Catholics were very conservative until recently because I remember reading reports in 2004 that despite Kerry being Catholic, the Catholic churches were telling their members to vote for Bush.

I might also suffer a little bit of subconscious No True Scotsman because I’d always had it hammered in my head that anyone who didn’t believe the bible was inerrant was not actually a Christian.

I never claimed that - in fact I think I mentioned that it could very well be wildly popular for all I know. People on this board seem to have a hard time reading and understanding phrases such as in my experience.

82

Sorry, Cisco; just wanted to highlight that, as you’re quite right that this should not be ignored if one wants to understand another’s pov without having to agree with it.

83

What??? Do you have a link to this information? They chose some rather strange bedfellows, didn’t they?

Cisco, I have experienced my own problems with fundamentalists even though I live in the city. Every year when I asked my executive principal for religious leave for Ash Wednesday and All Saints’ Day, I was put through hoops of fire. They knew and I knew that they had to grant it. But they gave me trouble about it. As one assistant principal told me, “I was told to ‘run inteference’ on this.”

I’m truly sorry that it has left a bad taste in your mouth. There are many fundamentalists who are dear souls like your grandfather. When I was growing up, I think there were more of them. These days people seem to be more frightened and a whole lot pushier. They may believe the Bible word for word, but they have forgotten the overall message it seems to me.

I can understand wanting to live like someone you admire. It sounds like you have chosen a good model.

David Simmons, you can let go of my leg now, you old heathen! Thanks for rescuing me for total humiliation, Tom.

To the Flying Dutchman:

Post #54 is a wonderful way to end one year and begin another! I will look for your posts in the year ahead.

I hope you enjoy your journey. It can be an amazing experience! Polycarp is always a good source for reading ideas and things to consider. And don’t forget to “Inquire Within.”

84

I find it odd that you make detailed requests about support for these assertions and yet show little interest in reading the book mentioned. I understand having a backlogged reading list but if you are sincerely curious rather than simply dismissive of the claims I still recommend the book. If you don’t want to buy it then try the library or borrow it. There is far too much detail to go into here but I’ll go over some high lights.

Much of Ehrmans book is simply factual. He specifically states when most scholars agree, or just some agree and offers various theories. I see this as an effort to present the facts as unbiased as he can.
In the book he says there are 5700 Greek manuscripts ranging from pieces the size of a credit card to full manuscripts. That doesn’t include Latin copies or other languages such as Coptic or Syrian. Do you have any reason to dispute that?
Ehrman maintains there are more variations in these documents than there are words in the NT

Most of the variations occurred in the first two centuries when those making hand written copies of what became the NT were non professional copyists with varied degrees of literacy. Keep in mind, 80 to 90% of the population was illiterate.
Most of the changes were innocent copy errors in spelling, misreading a word, or something like that. Others were well intentioned changes in order to clarify a particular passage. Still, they altered the text.
The third century church Father Origen
Wrote this complaint.

“The difference among the manuscripts has become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or,in the process of checking they make additions or deletions as they please.”

Plain enough isn’t it?

Even our earliest manuscripts come from the end of the 2nd or early in the third century. That’s about 150 years after they were written and are indeed copies of copies of copies. We have no originals to compare them too. I’m talking NT only here.

Examples of some significant changes

John 8:1-12, the story of the woman taken in adultery is widely accepted to have been added to the original text.

The last twelve verses of Mark are believed to be added at a later date. These contain

16"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
17"These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will (W)speak with new tongues;

fairly significant I’d say.
1 john 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

was altered to add support for the doctrine of the trinity.

Mark 1: 2It is written in Isaiah the prophet:
“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way”
Is in the oldest and most original texts. The problem is that it is not written in Isaiah but in Exodus 23:20.
So scribes changed it to “in the prophets” which appears in the KJV.
This does not affect doctrine but what does it say about inspiration if scribes had to correct God?
Matt 24: 36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. NIV

Early scribes felt it was a mistake to indicate that Jesus, God incarnate, didn’t know so they left out “nor the son” and the KJV reads
36But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. KJV

the original text the Greek word is “who” rather than God which are very similar in Greek. Another change made , perhaps innocently, that supports a certain doctrine.
In verses like Luke 2:33 The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.NIV
The text was altered to
33And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. KJV
so that Joseph was not presented as Jesus father.
One fairly significant change is Mark 1:11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
One we’re all familiar with.
In some early texts it reads “Today have I begotten you”
Was Jesus begotten of God on the day he was baptized?
This verse may have been also changed to support certain doctrine.
those are merely the tip of the iceberg.

In some cases their is disagreement over which manuscript is the earliest or more correct version. In other cases most scholars agree. One thing that is fairly certain is that with all the undeniable variants and the decades between the writing and our earliest copies, we really can’t know what the original authors wrote.

Let’s call this the end of part one and I’ll post more tomorrow.

85

Sorry but I’m going to jump right over the rest of this thread because I’ve got to respond to this post. The notion that Jesus “changed stuff” is central to Christianity, and even more so to the various protestant denominations. I know nothing of your religious beliefs of level of education so will presume a minimum/nothing and work from there.

Before I can say anything about this I need to go back a step into the old testatment. If you ever run out of things to do on a rainy afternoon and want something to read, have a flick through it. If you look at the first five books (specifically exodus and leviticus) you will find a lot phrases that start with “thou shalt”. Some of these were quite high level, like the ten commandments with “thou shalt worship but one God and no other” and “thou shalt not kill”. There were also a lot less well known ones, like the prohibition against mixing fabrics when making clothes.

When Jesus Christ (in Hebrew “he saves”) appeared on the scene the Jews were effectively suffering under the weight of their own religion. The sheer number of prescriptions and proscriptions had reached a point where it was impossible for the ordinary person to obey the word of God (whether they were trying to or not) in day to day life. This wasn’t helped by a theocratic upper class in the form of the pharisees, sadducees and scribes who were quite happy to tell people that they were breaking the law of God for carrying a needle more than two thirds of a mile on the Sabbath if they were a tailor (because that then constituted work, which you were forbidden to do on the Sabbath) but weren’t too concerned with the whole compassion for humanity bit. Jesus makes his displeasure to this deep rooted hypocrisy quite clear in Luke in his “whoa unto you pharisees” etc speech, telling them they keep the outside of the cup clean but the inside dirty i.e. they were happy to follow the visible, physical laws, and condemn others for not doing so, but they had lost sight of what those commandments and rules were there to do - namely obey God. The God of the final years of the BC period was more akin to a ruthless judge supported by an unthinking or feeling police and court who saw no problem in sending someone to prison for life for theft because they stole a loaf of bread they were too poor to buy to feed their starving children. (I’m using an extended metaphor here, by the way.)

In the system of law set out by the old testament, the Mosaic Covenant, man had to follow the laws of the Torah and the later “secondary legislation” that came out of the religious classes. If he failed, they had to make a sacrifice to God according to the law broken (there are some quite detailed breakdowns of what sin requires what sacrifice in the old testament as well). All of these sacrifices had to be made at the Temple of Solomon - God’s own fine collection agency, if you will. Oddly enough there were some very successful businesses that operated in and around the Temple at the time, selling sacrifices and changing money for instance (Jesus wasn’t too thrilled with them either, profiting as they were on the suffering of the people).

Jesus changed all this by declaring there would be a New Covenant - God recognised that people could no longer obey his word despite their best efforts, and that the fat cats of the time weren’t helping. Thus, in his infinite compassion for humanity, he incarnated himself as a human (his son) to be the ultimate sacrifice. Jesus was to be the lamb of God, akin to the actual lambs that were sacrified at the temple for serious crimes. He was to be perfect, born without sin (through immaculate conception, and therefore unsullied by original sin) and he would live a life of perfect virtue. Also, more importantly, he would know that even though he was sinless, he was to be sacrificed to atone for all the sins of man. Skipping ahead, in the Passion narratives, Christ is seen willingly giving himself over to the Roman authorities, denied by his followers, cast down and physically and mentally degraded and then sentenced to be executed. He dies on the cross, giving himself up as the last sacrifice for every sin ever committed, or ever to be committed. From Luke 24:

[44] And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
[45] Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
[46] And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
[47] And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
[48] And ye are witnesses of these things.

The old covenant was broken, and the new one began. After Christ had died anyone who believed in him, believed that God had sent his only son as a sacrifice for mankind’s benefit, and asked for forgiveness for any sin (whatever it was) would be given it. The whole point of Christianity was the rejection of the legalistic Jewish texts and way of life, and a new church comprised of people who believed, wanted to be good people and do as Jesus commanded - love your fellow man. As such they experienced their own persecution by the Jews (who saw them as “heretics”) and the Romans (who saw them as dissenters). Fair dos, thought the members of the original church, Christ suffered horribly and hadn’t even done anything to deserve it, so what we’re going through is nothing. AND we get to go to Heaven for ever afterwards because of his sacrifice, so I love Jesus and God no matter what happens to me, even if I die. Hence the New Testament, full as it is of stories of matrydom in the face of persecution. In the decades following Jesus’s death the disciples and the early church began to commit what they had seen and heard from Jesus to writing as they were drawing to the end of their lives and wouldn’t be able to pass on their stories to new members - hence the written gospels.

Flash forward two thousand years and we have a (fundamentalist) religous class damning to Hell all those who will not follow the literal word of God as found in the Bible (ever letter of every word of it divine and straight from God, don’t you know) and saying “forget this whole hugging each other and being nice crap, if we have to kill every gay out there to make sure marriage remains sacred then I say ‘Bring me my sword and I will bathe this world in blood in the name of the Lord!’”. The same people are also not too hot with people questioning them or anything they say, and shouting down anyone who says the Bible (including the whole redundant Old Testament) isn’t a literal intruction manual for true believers to follow. They’re also quite clear that the book of Leviticus should be followed in its entirety - no masturbation, no adultery, no divorce, no laying with another man as you would with a woman…

Southern Baptist Preacher: “What? Yes I know it says you can’t eat shellfish on Friday in there but we can ignore that because that’s just silly, now get out there and collect some tithes!”

Funny how history repeats itself…

Hopefully that makes clear what Jesus changed, and why.

86

Triskadecamus - I would definitely agree that (based on what I know of Christianity) your description of yourself as funamentalist is more accurate in the proper sense of the word than the more frequently used one to describe a lot of the hatemongering Christians out there.

I’d be interested to know what your views are on issues that typically are treated conservatively by what are generally considered fundamentalists, namely homosexuality, divorce, adultery, pre-marital sex, feminism etc. I’m genuinely interested in your take on them, given that you’ve said you have God’s love as your main tennet and you try and work what to think of things based on that. I’d like to know what that tranlates into for you. Hopefully you’re willing to share it with me (either here or by email).

87

Not meaning to hijack but:

the raindog said:

Would Mr/Ms Raindog please point out the clear bible texts about abortion? Thank you. M

88

I appologize for not being able to digg upp a site until I get back from the boondocks in a few days.

However, you seem to have missed my point. I am not saying that the intent of the bible has been irrevocably muddled by translation, I am saying that the literal word of the bible might have been.

Meaning that if you cling to the litteral word of a much-translated work rather than looking at its intent, you will probably miss that intent.

The inherent intent of the bible, as I see it, is simply “Be nice to each other, and believe in God”.

Anything conflicting with that is wrong, and anything in addition to that optional. (note how many of the ten comandments can be covered by “be nice”)

89

Illuminatiprimus, maybe you should get a job at the Guardian? :stuck_out_tongue:

While your post does convey, (perhaps accurately), the beliefs of some groups of Christians, it is not exactly a testament to “facts are sacred.”

[ Niggling detail]:

First: it ain’t Hebrew. That name, provided in that way, is Greek.
Jesus is the Greek rendering of the Aramaic Yeshu’a which was a shortening of the Hebrew Yehoshu’a which meant “YHWH is salvation.”
Christ is the anglicized rendering of the Greek word christos ([symbol]cristos[/symbol]) which means “anointed,” roughly translating the Hebrew mashiach (my transliteration is weak, here) which also means “anointed” although it had, in the construction Ha-Mashiach, taken on the character of a title for the person who appeard in Jewish prophecy as the agent of God who would restore the Jewish people and the world to the state of harmony with God.

So, while your “translation” is in the ballpark, it is not really close enough to have been inserted in the way that you did.
[ /detail ]

More seriously:
The notion that the Jewish people of the first century were “effectively suffering under the weight of their own religion” is popular among some Christian groups, but really has no basis in fact. There is no evidence that the Jewish people were “suffering” or that it was due to the “weight” of any laws. In fact, the Pharisees, were the reformers of their time, appealing to the spirit of Moses in defiance of the literal legalism of the Sadducees who were the supporters of the Temple priests. After a brief period of success around seventy years before the birth of Jesus, the Pharisees had lost power and were relegated to the position of the (sometimes) “loyal opposition.” The actions and attitudes against which Jesus preached were not those of the ideals of the movement, but the ways in which power had corrupted some of the leaders of the movement, (just as the Sadducees’ hierarchy were condemned for going along with Roman occupation so that they could maintian their priestly authority).

Jesus rightly condemned the hypocrisy with which some highly placed members of the Pharisees carried out their religion, but it was exactly their reliance upon observance–with the idea that they were maintaining their Covenant with God, as sealed under the guidance of Moses–that (from a sociological perspective) probably enabled the Jewish people to survive successive Roman (and, eventually, multiple Christian) persecutions.
It should be noted that most of the Talmud, with its extensive discussion of the Law, was written after the time of Jesus and embraced by those same people whom you claim were suffering under the weight of the Law.

Note that on those occasions when Jesus and the Pharisees are reported to have clashed, it was always in the realm of discussion. Each criticized the other, but there was no weight of authority crushing the behavior of Jesus and his followers, so there is simply no reason to believe that the typical Jew-on-the-street or Jew-in-the-field was being crushed by that abusive power, either. And, given that the Pharisees were out of power, they were hardly in a position to enforce their ideals and, given that the Pharisees were not being persecuted by the Sadducees, it is unlikely that the Sadducees were crushing the people, either.

The attitudes against which Jesus preached were not those of the ideals of the Pharisees, but the public displays to which some of the wealthier and more highly placed Pharisees resorted that turned their own religious reform on its head.

While your presentation of (one variant of) Christian theology is OK, you should probably avoid writing history that is not supported by facts.

90

Har har :wink:

Yes, I fully admit to channeling my A-level theology teacher when I posted that and it’s quite heavy on pith and not so much on peel. I admit I don’t have the authority (or the education) to post particularly authoratively on this issue and should really have made that clearer. Thanks for correcting me on the facts and detail whilst (ultimately) not disagreeing with the essence of what I was saying.

I know full well that Judaism now exists under just as “heavy” a religious legal system as those living in Christ’s time did (in fact you could probably argue it’s even harder to be Jew now, people in the 1st century BC didn’t have to worry about the rightness of a life without the Temple of Solomon in it, for example). An ex-colleague of mine was an orthodox Jew and he described to me his time in “Jewish law school” (I’m sure there’s a proper name for it but I don’t know what it is), learning the basis of Talmudic law and all the thinking that has been generated since to come to an understanding of how to live as a Jew in the modern world. His description of the reasoning used to conclude that to turn a light switch on or off constituted work for the purposes of observing the Sabbath was quite impressive! I can actually accept the Jewish approach to a legalistic religion, as they have in place an intellectual community and doctrinal and educational process that helps people understand what it really means and how to live by it. When I said the people at the time were being crushed by the weight of their religion I was, as you demonstrate, exagerating somewhat. I suppose to put it more objectively would be to say that the the “spiritual means” which the religious law of the time was supposed to be had reached a point where it was getting in the way of the “spiritual end”, hence the need for a new system (or so Christ said in Luke who was appealing to primarily gentiles, it was spun a bit differently by Mark and Matthew who were more interested in converting existing Jews). And I knew Jesus was Yeshua so why did I say it was Hebrew - doh! :smack:

Still, the same can’t really be said of literal followers of the Bible who’ll advocate death for gays but not for masturbators (despite the penalty being the same in exactly the same book of the Bible). Yes I made my point in a bit of a florid way but I think it still stands. I also think I gave a fairly decent description of what the new covenant was about too, so tell me if you don’t think so (you’ve clearly got a better education of the theology than I have so I’d appreciate a grade on my assignment :slight_smile: .

91

Nah. Grading theology generally requires comparing it to one’s own, and I generally refrain from pushing my personal beliefs on the internet. I will stick to trying to ensure that poster A does not incorrectly describe the beliefs of Poster B rather than taking the sides of either Poster A or Poster B as to who “got it right.”

92

That would depend to some degree on what you’re reading for. The other issue is from the evidence we have even are best versions contain plenty of errors. I did a study some years ago about contradictions in the Bible. There are plenty. None of them alter the thrust of the message Jesus brought us but it did alter my view on the nature of inspiration. The goal isn’t to discredit the Bible but to see it honestly for what it is and what it isn’t and to not accept tradition to eagerly without examining it.

I’ve done a little of that already. BTW 1 John 5:7-8 in NIV has a more accurate translation “7For there are three that testify: 8the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement”

It isn’t just studying the manuscripts but also studying the period in which the Bible was formed. The letters from early church fathers and the society of the era. In the years following Christ there were several groups who had different interpretations of the nature of Jesus and his message. Constantine had a lot to do with which group got the official government nod. This “official” church also was the group that decided which books would be accepted into the Bible. Other unofficial doctrines were outlawed and persecuted. It’s interesting to see that 2000 years later we see varied groups and beliefs again and what became “official” Christian doctrine is still just as questioned as it was then.

Some changes in text were done to support or remove support for certain doctrines that contended at the time.

In some ancient Greek and Latin manuscripts Luke 22:17-19 reads “After taking a cup, giving thanks , he said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves, for I say to you that I will not drink from the fruit of the vine from now on, until the kingdom of God comes.” And taking bread, he broke it and gave it to them saying, This is my body, but behold , the hand of the one who betrays me is with me at the table.”

The most well known English translations include, “which has been given for you, do this in remembrance of me” and later “this cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for you” is also suspect. If these were added how might they influence doctrine? Why else would they be added?

Some changes and additions had social connotations. There was disagreement about women’s role in the church.

1 Cor 14:34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

was likely added by a scribe. In several version these two passages are shuffled around and appear in different places. Considering that earlier in 1 Cor. 11 Paul had given specific instructions on how women should speak in church it’s unlikely he would tell them to be silent a few chapters later.

In Romans 16:7 Paul refers to Junia , a female apostle. In several English translations that is changed to Junias in an attempt to change the gender of this person.

There were also changes made because of anti Jewish feelings which I won’t go into.

Not at all. I have great reverence for the book and what I perceive as the teachings of Christ. The big question for me is what is the Bible’s role in our spiritual life. IMO it is man’s tradition that has elevated the Bible to an incorrect role of the primary authority for seeking God’s will. It starts with the assumption that it was God’s plan that these particular books and that they and only they be our primary guide. That’s a tradition and assumption that has no support within the very writings held as sacred. As a side note; I think it renders useless claiming to know God’s will on social issues such as abortion and Gay rights. People will have to take personal responsibility for those beliefs without that bit of justification.
What the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt is that the texts were altered and heavily influenced by men with their own ideas and agendas. The fact that sections could be added and/or subtracted at will means we can longer look at the Bible and believe we have the original inspired words of the authors. In my mind it raised a serious question as to if that particular tradition was ever God’s plan or intention rather than a widely held traditional belief.

93

Fair enough. :slight_smile:

Although I should make the point that given I’m not a Christian and don’t have a personal theology I was looking more for your take on my factual accuracy than the “rightness” of my post.

94

Well, from that perspective, I would say that your presentation does a decent job of portraying the views of a number of Fundamentalist or Evangelical Christian groups.

95

Wonderful posts, Illuminatiprimus, and thank you for keeping the historical details and such in check, tom. I think the spirit of what IP said can still stand in light of the factual corrections you made (though I’d like to know if you disagree with that.)

96

Thanks tom (and much obliged cicsco).

As I said I was channelling my A-level theology teacher, and she never went anywhere without her guitar (if you know what I mean).

97

I was asking how liberal Xians can reconcile their “certainty” in any reading of a holy text with a willingness to review and revise that reading. If you’re willing to revise your interpretation, wouldn’t that tend to undermine your core beliefs that you say are not susceptible to challenge (like God’s existence, or his love for you)?

It’s not science, where any assumption is always up for grabs. If you can show me that gravity is an illusion, I’ll say, “Okay, show me.” There’s nothing in science where the importance of my belief outweighs the truth, but it seems to me you’re unwilling to abandon certain principles while claiming to be open-minded about others. Why apply reason to something that is, at its heart, not subject to reason anyway?

98

I have a question: If literal/strict interpretation of the bible is a recent thing (last 150-200 years), why was Galileo put on house arrest (400 years ago)?

99

Well, the premise has been expressed a bit sloppily, (and I have probably been guilty of doing that, myself).

A more nuanced statement would be that it has not been the belief of scholars through the centuries or the official pronouncement of Christian religious authorities that the bible must be held to be a literally true and factual recounting of history any more than similar presentations of history through those periods.
It is unlikely, for example, that anyone in Rome actually believed Virgil when he claimed that the ancestor of Rome (and the Julius clan, in particular), had been a Trojan (thus explaining the Roman conflict with the Greeks) who wooed and abandoned the woman who founded Carthage, (thus establishing a basis for the Punic Wars). It is extremely unlikely that any literate person in Britain actually believed Geoffery of Monmouth’s claim that Arthur had swept acrtoss the whole of Northern Europe and down into Italy, eventually subduing Rome and demanding fealty of all whom he had conquered.

What arose in the last couple of hundred years was a movement in which the leaders proposed taking scripture as a literal documant.

Clearly, it was against such attitudes that Augustine of Hippo was reacting in his text that I quoted in Post #32. However, just as Augustine had to point things out to some people at the cusp of the third and fourth centuries, so, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, we found ourselves dealing with it once more. Galileo was not battling (on that topioc) with the Jesuits who were joining him in buliding telescopes and searching the skies. He got in trouble with some of the lesser lights of the hierarchy. Even then, it took three tries before they could persuade the church courts to take any action against Galileo in 1616 (when he was found innocent) and the reason for his conviction in 1632 was not based on an examination of his work, but in the discovery of a letter in his file from 1616 ordering him to not publish certain ideas–a letter that may have been written without the knowledge of the court and surreptitiously placed in his file by a person looking to sandbag him.

100

Well, in many of the forms of what for lack of a better word I’ll call “Classical Christianity”, it is accepted that the “core element”, the “kernel” if you will, of belief in God and his love does NOT proceed from the* text * of the Bible, but is part of the fundamental teaching of the Church, in its greater sense of the Universal Body of Believers, revealed by the Holy Spirit. The books in the Canon of the Bible are those who were judged “inspired” by the churches because their contents included the core truths (Just so, they also include much that is confusing, conflictive and sometimes plain wrong (pi=3??), but the “classical churches” don’t expect Joe Layman to do his own exegesis, they have professionals for that*) The churches could persist in teaching that “God Exists and Loves You; he only wants you to do Justice, love Mercy and walk gently by His side”, if every scroll and codex evaporated in a puff of smoke. However, parts of the system outside the “core kernel” are subject to patches and updates in order to allow it to interface better with the World out there.

(BTW, even in Literalist churches, since nobody is BORN with the skill of reading comprehension, or believing in Christianity, it still takes some actual preacher, be s/he ordained or lay, to teach the convert/young believer “the right way” to read the Bible. Someone facing a Bible tabula rasa, w/o* any ** cultural referent or orientation as to its source or authority, would have no special reason to think it a divine message.)