[js1138]

I suppose you are correct, but it is rather common for FReepers to claim that the Bible text is without error. If it is in fact simply the recollections of witnesses, written down decades after the fact, by people who were not themselves eyewitnesses, that would explain a lot.

But claiming that would upset a lot of people.

[Skooz]

But claiming that would upset a lot of people.

As well as being complete speculation with no evidence to support it. :0)

[frgoff]

You'll get no argument from me on that. There are a lot of biblicists in Protestant circles. (A biblicist is a person who comes dangerously close to worshipping the Bible).

If you've ever seen a Willow Creek church service, they start with a prayer to their bibles.

The problem comes from a sola scriptura mentality. If you base your authority solely on the Bible, then it has to be a complete, inerrant work. If you base your authority on the papal tradition like Catholics, or on modern-day prophets like Mormons, then an incomplete Bible is not a stumbling block at all.

Catholic teaching maintains that the tradition of the church fills in the biblical gaps. Mormon teaching maintains that modern revelation fills in the gaps. In both viewpoints, the Bible is simply one MORE record of God's dealing with man, not the ONLY record and not the final word.

To my mind, those are the only two tenable positions, since the Bible is so obviously an incomplete work.