Christians, feel free to correct me if\where I am wrong.

I have long been under the impression that the Christian (including evangelical) stance on the words and stories contained within the bible is that they were penned by regular, non-divine people such as the apostles and other mortal observers of Jesus. These folks may have been saintly, but they were as normal (and non-supernatural) as you or me.

This is in contrast to the Koran, where the religious line is that every single word was literally dictated from god to Muhammed, who wrote them down verbatim. In other words, it seems that Christians acknowledge that while the bible as a document is holy, the stories are basically the records of Jesus' work and philosophy.

To me, this seems to indicate that Christians should not be averse to studying the bible within the historical framework of the times in which it was written. For ideological reasons, of course, this does not seem to be a common appraoch of evangelicals. Personally, I think it does not take much stretch of the imagination to interpret what is written and get a very positive, non-supernatural view of Jesus that is not wholly opposed to Christian philosophy. Reading Jesus historically nonetheless calls into question traditional ideas about God, Sin, the afterlife, etc... so i'm not surprised that people of "Faith" aren't so hot on it.

Perhaps I'm wrong on the Christian perception of the written word. But I still think its an idea worth promoting.

was written down about 150 yrs after the Prophet's death.

The answer is that Christians are all over the map in their understanding and use of Scripture. Evangelicals, for the most part, believe in Biblical inerrancy; they believe that all Scripture was inspired by God, or that the Bible writers were sort of "possessed" by the Holy Spirit such that every word of the Bible is literally true. This doctrine is a relatively recent invention, from the early 20th century.

Catholics, though certainly not monolithic, tend to be fairly tolerant of allegorical interpretations of Scripture. They also tend to have a better notion of the historical development of the canon, doctrines and traditions that comprise modern Christianity. This historical consciousness is nearly completely missing from evangelicalism, in many cases deliberately excised in order to try to recover and return to the teachings of the first century church.

Historical criticism of the Bible began seriously about 150 years ago. Many progressive Christians do pay attention to the findings of Bible scholars, and indeed establishing a context for Jesus' life and the development of the Canon provides a perspective that can provide not only intellectual rigor, but a richness and deepness to inherited faith, just as a more nuanced, critical, and detailed understanding of American history can be a catalyst for patriotism through activism and participatory citizenship.

Christian docrines on this issue vary enormously, but since we're speaking in the context of evangelicals, I will say that most evangelicals subscribe to the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. I.e., God supernaturally directed the composition of the Bible, although it's not accurate to say that he dictated it, per se (inspiration); and the Bible, in its original text, is free of mistakes (inerrancy). Most evangelicals, particularly those who hold a more rigorous theological interest, do contextualize the Bible historically - in fact, one of the more important recent movements in evangelical theology is called the New Look on Paul, which essentially insists on a much more historicized conception of that apostle.

Regarding the use of history of de-spiritualize Jesus, well, many have tried to do precisely that. I fear quoting C.S. Lewis ad nauseum, but he has a particularly insightful point about the error of that line of thinking:

"...I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

-Lewis, Mere Christianity

"and the Bible, in its original text, is free of mistakes (inerrancy). "

And which text would that be exactly?

Evangel is from the Greek for "good story" or "good news". An evangelist is a partisan of the good news, who can be expected to spread it, and evangelical simply means pertaining to, or of, the good news. (NOTE: the English word, gospel, means "God's spell or story" or "good spell or story"--spell is an old word for "story") Apart from this, it's very hard to define evangelical sociologically. E.g., Luther called his work evangelical, and the Lutheran church in Germany is formally called The Evangelical Church. Lutherans in Germany are NOT called Lutherans. Every mainstream Christian community has an evangelism agenda, which might mean simply helping the poor (and not specifically preaching to them). Technically, all Christians are evangelical. They are "of the good news". Not all Christians, however, hold with Scriptural inerrancy. Scriptural literalism and inerrancy does not necessarily follow from evangelical. Rather, Scriptural literalism and inerrancy is a 18-19-20 century development, entirely UNKNOWN before this period. Partisans of Scriptural literalism and inerrancy are fundamentalists. (Fundamentalists have a broader agenda than simply promoting Scriptural literalism and inerrancy. Look them up in Wikipedia.) All fundamentalists are evangelicals, but not all evangelicals are fundamentalists. There is an almost 2000 year history of Biblical interpretation in Christianity, building on a much, much older Jewish tradition of Biblical interpretation. No non-Fundamentalist Christian believes Scripture fell from the sky like a rock, though she might be very evangelical and conservative.

Stop-truth-decay:

was written down about 150 yrs after the Prophet's death.

In other words, much the same as the Bible (at least in the form we know it)

MattW:

Catholics, though certainly not monolithic, tend to be fairly tolerant of allegorical interpretations of Scripture. They also tend to have a better notion of the historical development of the canon, doctrines and traditions that comprise modern Christianity. This historical consciousness is nearly completely missing from evangelicalism, in many cases deliberately excised in order to try to recover and return to the teachings of the first century church.

What a slap against Evangelicals. Since you know a lot about history, I suppose you heard about the Christian Reformation.

Quite deliberate. By Definition. Intentional. They tend to read the Bible more literally. That's their religion unlike the Catholics. And they do know how canons develop. (Goodness!!!)

To what value is Catholic doctrine and traditions to a Evangelical. I can't think of any. Catholics have their own religion. I suppose that's why they are Catholics.

Best evidence indicates that parts of the New Testament date from the AD 60's (Mark probably about AD 62, pre Masada and destruction of the Temple), and the lastest probably about 90 AD. The OT is another matter...

and not believe every word is LITERALLY true. Take the example of Herod being refered to as a "fox." I am quite sure he was not some species of Canus.

The real issue is when the liberals take the Bible and put such a twist on it that the plain meaning disappears. Conservatives/evangelicals also believe in the perspecuity of the Bible--i.e., since this is a revelation from God, the essential meaning is clear. Knowing the historical and cultural background may make the message more vivid or add nuance, but not change the fundamental message.

And you are basing that on what version exactly? I mean really, can you read archaic Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin and Greek? I sincerely doubt it. And considering that the xtanis purposly rewrote and mistranslated portions to suit their own agendas you cannot say now that the results are the actual mythology. That has absolutly nothing to do with whether one is a left or a right. It is simple fact. Again, as with the other thread are you claiming that a deity signed off on the final draft of the kjv? /sarcasm

That is unless you believe biblical scholars who have studied the origin of the bible are all liars. Sure there may be discrepancies between theories, but the basic idea that the Bible (and we're really talking new testament here, right?) is a cobbled together piece of work. Hello? Each of the books of the apostles had differing stories about Jesus and his life. What about the council of Nicaea where they decided Christian dogma in a piecemeal fashion?

I have no problem with people being Christian. But you should at least know where your religion came from, on what it was based. Or perhaps, like Sherri Shepherd you also believe that the world is flat....

Umm Deduction, follow the threaded view. I think the whole thing is bunk.