As a former Christian coming of age in the early 2000s there was a popular IP called "Left Behind" about the Rapture. I always thought the concept of the anti-christ was ridiculously absurd. That someone could convince Christ's followers to basically believe the opposite of the Gospel. After witnessing the rise of 45/7 and the complete bamboozling of my deeply Christian extended family I no longer consider it ridiculous.
All that to say I'm not sure it really matters what exactly was written in the Bible because clearly a lot of the supposed followers of Christ never read it.
> All that to say I'm not sure it really matters what exactly was written in the Bible because clearly a lot of the supposed followers of Christ never read it.
It’d be wild if they had. It’s a harder read than lots of books that the median reader struggles to understand, let alone enjoy enough to actually make it through. Most folks lack basically all historical context for the tales in it, and the book itself, so it reads as this unmoored set of confusingly-arranged-and-selected stories that have no hope of really making sense to them without a pile of reference books open alongside (what proportion of people are comfortable with and willing to engage in that style of reading?)
On the other hand, it’s also wild that more haven’t—one would think it’d be way up their list of life priorities. I take it as a sign they’re not really, under the veneer and trappings, convinced about the eternal (!!!) ramifications of the whole deal. “Well sure my eternal soul is on the line and I ‘believe’ I’m holding the literal word of the creator of the universe… but it’s haaaard and boring.” LOL.
> It’s a harder read than lots of books that the median reader struggles to understand, let alone enjoy enough to actually make it through. [...] Most folks lack basically all historical context for the tales in it, and the book itself
This is why the Catholic Church speaks of both tradition and scripture. You need the lens of unbroken tradition to interpret scripture, as tradition is the cumulative knowledge over millennia (including period context) that allows for the possibility for grounded interpretation (never mind interpreting from bad translations). Indeed, tradition precedes canonical scripture historically: consider that the biblical canon was only established at the Council of Rome in 382, which means Christians had existed without a biblical canon for three centuries.
Compare this with sola scriptura which leads to either incoherence or the demotion of biblical scripture to the level of some stuff some guys wrote that you can read however you want [0]. The tacit doctrine at play is often that of perspicuity, which, given the endless proliferation of Protestant sects, would seems at the very least highly suspect.
It does not have to be that tradition - purely secular history and cultural context will get you a long way.
> consider that the biblical canon was only established at the Council of Rome in 382, which means Christians had existed without a biblical canon for three centuries.
Yes, but the older testament was already well established, and the documents of the new testament were available. The Council made a firm decision of which ones were canon, but they were all documents which were already widely read.
There are other Biblical canons and they do not, in themselves, greatly change the doctrine.
> Compare this with sola scriptura which leads to either incoherence or the demotion of biblical scripture to the level of some stuff some guys wrote that you can read however you want [0].
A lot of protestant churches are prima scriptura, not sola scriptura.
Also, I think its clear that some of this predates modern American evangelical Christianity, and some lies in secular values.
> That someone could convince Christ's followers to basically believe the opposite of the Gospel.
There are a number of historical examples. Most recently prosperity gospel and Positive Christianity?
> All that to say I'm not sure it really matters what exactly was written in the Bible because clearly a lot of the supposed followers of Christ never read it.
Often the ones who place the most importance on the Bible alone, and the most likely to be literalists! I think that is the root of it, because read as a "book" rather than a collection of documents, that exists in multiple versions, subject to disputes about wording and translation, each document written within a cultural (sometimes even personal) context, you can make it mean whatever you want to.
Literalists are almost always members of churches that are Biblical literalists. Almost all those I have met are members of churches in the American evangelical tradition (mostly not American themselves, but in countries I have lived in, but in that tradition and sometimes members of American churches).
I think it is fair to say they are in conflict with the broader church (i.e. the body of all Christians) or Christian tradition, but not fair to say they are in conflict with their own church.
Intellectual property. Here referencing the body of work starting with books, falling with a TV series and movies. Referring to it as the "IP" abstracts across those forms.
All that to say I'm not sure it really matters what exactly was written in the Bible because clearly a lot of the supposed followers of Christ never read it.