GUEST, there is an aspect about the Bible—which includes what Jesus allegedly said—that is more than just a little "iffy." Which is why I do not regard it as "the inerrant Word of God," contrary to the beliefs of our fundamentalist confreres.

First of all, although I don't regard myself as a Bible scholar, I have done something that most people who use the Bible as a sort of "Boy Scout Manual" rarely do. And that is, I have actually read it. Not a verse here and verse there, but in large chunks, as if it were an anthology of novellas, short-stories, and poetry.

In college, I took a class in the English Lit department called "The Bible as Literature." It was made abundantly clear at the beginning of the class that we would not be discussing religion, we would be discussing literature, and reading the Bible as a literary work. Any attempts by anyone to veer into realms of religious discussion would be shortstopped.

In addition to the literary aspects of the Bible, the prof went into a bit of history about the book. It started as a disconnected accumulation of manuscripts and scrolls, which, over a period of time various religious councils argued and discussed which were "valid theologically" and which were not, rejected many, and assembled the ones they selected into a single anthology which we now call "The Bible" (which simple means "book" or "papyrus"). These manuscripts and scrolls were translated from Hebrew, Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke, incidentally), Greek, and a few other Near Eastern and Eastern European languages into Latin. Without printing presses, the only method of reproducing the book was to have it done by copyists. And these were usually young monks in monasteries.

Not all Bibles came out the same. Because, all too often, the head honcho in any given monastery, or someone else, like the local bishop, priest, or, for that matter, even the copyist himself (and a lot of them did this!) would edit certain passages to reflect their own beliefs or prejudices!

And that included some of the alleged quotations of Jesus!

Then, of course, there were the politicized bits of "editorializing." For example, in the Lord's Prayer, in which, initially (as far as anyone knows) the phrase was "forgive us our debts," the translators who produced the King James version (standard for many churches) changed it to read, "forgive us our trespasses." Why? Because of a plague of trespassers and poachers on the lands of the local lord or landowner. The intent was to convey the idea that such trespassing was a sin!

So—is it any wonder I don't take the Bible literally? And look askance at those who insist that "The Bible is the Inerrant Word of God?"

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not the only Gospels. And there are a number of groups of theologians who are combing through the four Gospels, plus other gospels (one of which is presumably written by James, Jesus' brother) in and effort to find out what Jesus actually said. This includes graded lists of quotations, with such divisions as "Probably did say," through a spectrum of potential authenticity to "Definitely did NOT say!" based on such things as:   inner consistency with other things Jesus is presumed to have said, and how many times had this particular gospel or presumed statement been "folk processed" before it was writen down by this particular scribe?

So—even a "red-letter" edition of the Bible should be taken with a grain of salt!

Little Hawk has written some very good stuff above.

There is no one on this earth more dangerous than the ideologue who is absolutely certain that he or she is right.

Don Firth

P. S. "Could I politely point out that this is not what most religions want a person to do? They all have quite rigid rules and a way of viewing the world that believers MUST (or at least should)hold."

Sorry, GUEST,Pastinaken, but not "all." I remember the pastor at the local Lutheran church holding up a copy of the Bible and saying, "This is not the Boy Scout Manual. It does not contain answers. It contains questions!"

Statements like "all religious" do this, that, or something else all too often say more about the prejudices of those who make the statements than it does about the religion.

P. P. S. One of the local evening news television weathermen (now retired) always closed his weather reports with the same statement—which ought to apply to all questions of religion as well.

"When in doubt, do the friendliest thing."