These are two very important questions so i will focus on them.

You need to think about the Bible as divided into Old Testament, Gospel, and Pauline letters for this to work. The Old Testament, as i have said before, is the Law. It tells you you have sinned. The Gospel tells you that you are free from that punishment of the law. The Pauline letters tell you why and how you are freed. Now since Christianity is focused on Christ, the Gospels are the focus of the entire Bible they are the most theologically important. Thus (and this part i hold and some protestants, but not all, so don't consider this universal Christian doctrine in anyway) the first standard of judgment is does it agree with the Gospel story? This works with Slavery. Yes the Old Testament says it is, But it does not agree with what Christ says about the Law being Justice (and really not with parts of the Old Testament). If Christ says it, it is inspired. I know thats going to sound a lot like that "God said, I believe it, thats it" thing in your signature, but He was the foundational figure of the religion so his word is authoritative. Now the second thing is that if the Bible says something in all three sections then it is most definitely theological truth (love thy neighbor is a good example of this). Now there is lots of interpretation from this point on. I say there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, for example, because there is no Christ centric passage that says it is wrong and if it was a sin Christ would have said so (he is usually fairly clear about what sinning is).

So did God inspire slavery then change his mind? no. Did the writer of Leviticus try to legitimatize or explain people owning slaves? probably. We dont have to take Leviticus 26 (the passage about slavery) as authoritative as John 1

Oh and remember the Abolitionists where also using the Bible to end slavery. I would argue thats Gods providence working out.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

It is actually tales of Jewish tribe, and their religion, added with later tales of Jesus,which is then written not in hebrew, but in ancient Greek.
In all, bible is just one mythology with truly remarkable desciptions of world of that time. Spiced up with real historical persons.
Three hunderd years after Jesus died, the bible was formed to be used as a tool for power, nothing more, nothing less.

well the title says "the Bible is ..." I was referring to the entire book. Now had it said "the Old Testament is..." or something like that i would have talked about Judaism, but since it said the Bible and since the Old Testament is still very authoritative for Christians I used the word Christian.

sorry that you feel that way about the book. those books were considered authoritative long before the Bible was fully organized.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

No offence intended, but my kin have their own religion, far older than young christianity.
I just can't see how religion originally of Jewish tribal worship transformed through assimilations should by religion of mine.

And the lack of respect towards the bible is the fact that it has been very carefully edited so that certain religious elements are met, and others left out.

I, for one, understand where your point of reference was. Just for clarification, however, when Jews refer to the Bible, they are referring to the Old Testament, only.

__________________
"artists use lies to tell the truth while politicians use them to cover the truth up" "V" in V for Vendetta

672 days to go.
http://www.backwardsbush.com/?gclid=...FRQxSgodT0dCxw

I want to say I'm trying to convert anybody here. If you have your religion thats fine with me. I am trying, though, to defend my religious beliefs. You say its editing, I say its God working things out. I respect others religious beliefs and often i find myself defending faith in general on this forum, not just Christianity.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

I respect faith, especially when one's faith isn't imposed on anyone else. But I do have to ask, if "it's [G-d] working things out, then how would you explain deficiencies in the translation from the original to English?

__________________
"artists use lies to tell the truth while politicians use them to cover the truth up" "V" in V for Vendetta

672 days to go.
http://www.backwardsbush.com/?gclid=...FRQxSgodT0dCxw

Well thats the nature of language. An example is that the ancient Greeks had four different words for love that each mean there own thing. When we translate it into English there is only one word so you have to put something in there to explain the idea. I also will say again that people are involved in this whole process so it is probable that some translator made a mistake.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

All true. But that does cause a problem for people who say they believe the bible is a "literal work", since the literal meanings change based on the translation.

__________________
"artists use lies to tell the truth while politicians use them to cover the truth up" "V" in V for Vendetta

672 days to go.
http://www.backwardsbush.com/?gclid=...FRQxSgodT0dCxw

No. I was asking this: Are you somehow equating beliefs and opinions with research?

True, but i don't agree at all with the people who view it as a literal work.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

So why don't we just edit the bible, take everything undesirable out, add some currently desirable things in it, and voila, we would have a much better book, inspired by a rational understanding of sociology, psychology, psychiatry, and empathy for our fellow human, not god. Why not take the bible (and its equivalent in islam and judaism) and remove any reference at all to things most sane people would consider crazy. Why preserve the fallibility of man as if it is divinely inspired.... seems like a lot of baggage to carry along throughout history for no reason.

Why make it so esoteric, why insist it says anything at all about rigid universal truth?

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Still awaiting a response, non. It's actually an interesting question - why not look for the viewpoint of those who wrote the book, long before the other aspects were brought in?

Please note - I do not attack your religion - in fact, I'm pleased we agree in some key areas.

__________________
And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, Jan. 29, 2007

why? there are lots of reasons. I trust the Bible more than i trust any person or book about reasoning, morals, or universal truth. If we make universal truth flexible it becomes subjective and i don't believe universal truth is subjective. The Bible encourages all those traits you just listed far more times than it even mentions violence. Empathy is part of the Christian life. I find comfort in the Bible more than any other book.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

I hadn't really looked into the history of how the modern Bible came to be what it is until a couple years ago. I found it interesting, but then I like history.

I find the phrase "better books about human knowledge and morals" amusing, particularly the "morals" part. "My morals are better then your morals...according to my morality..."

Anyway, I'm personally baffled as to why so many Christian's are adament about the divine authorship of the Bible. Not because of the lack of evidence (asking for evidence only makes sense if there is something you would count as evidence, and in this case I can't think of anything), but because the Bible itself makes no claim to be divinely authored, or even (taken as a whole) divinely "inspired".
As best I can tell, as a Christian, the doctrine of the divine authorship of the Bible isn't actually an important part of the religion.

I know other Christians would disagree, I've never quite understood why and would be interested to hear if any of them want to volenteer. I'd prefer not to hear the answer from someone who doesn't believe it though. People are notoriously bad at explaining the justification for beliefs they don't hold and usually use it only as an opportunity to be glib and sarcarstic, or so I've noticed.