Who wrote the Bible?

The Methodists see revelation as deriving from a "quadrilateral" of sources - Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason. Scripture, of course is the primary source and the other forms of revelation must be measured against it. The tradition of the Church that has evolved from early Christian writings (Augustine, for ex.), continued through the reformers (Luther, Knox) and into Wesleyan theology are all given considerable weight. Reason is to be understood as the scientific and academic information available. Experience is expressed as both individual experiences of revelation and communal experiences of revelation. That must be couched, though, in the understanding that Methodism is not a pentacostal denomination, by and large.

All these parts interact in sort-of a dialog.

 

In my opinion, the latter half of your post answers the questions of the first half. People like Robertson, Swaggart, and others are specifically why "commentary" isn't viewed the same as Scripture in Christian doctrine. In Judaism, it is. In Mormonism, it is. If nothing else, just those two belief systems are examples of how far astray 'commentary' can lead a people from core doctrine.

 

What doctrine do they throw out? Is the doctrine substantiated in the bible?

 

More news from that "false Religion" It would be nice to get a copy of the teaching document

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html

Would this be reason enough to update the Bible?

 

Yes, it would.

No, I don't think so. The primary purpose of the Bible (even the OT) has never been to function as a scientific representation of natural history, and it still isn't. That it has been used as such historically isn't cause to amend it, IMO.

 

I'm not taking a side, but it is worthwhile to note that the Council of Nicea cobbled together what we now call the Bible out of a variety of writings. They chose which ones to accept and which ones to throw away while editing some of the included works.

 

True. By that time, several contradictory documents and doctrines were floating around (i.e. the gnostic gospels), and Christianity needed a unifying foundational collection of documents to keep true to its origins.

 

I don't know who wrote the bible but it seems to be edited, spun and intrepeted to suit the needs of the ruling class.

 

I don't believe this addresses the question of who actually wrote the books. The Gospels are generally accepted to have NOT been actually scribed by the Apostle they are named for. Most of the apostles would have been illiterate, and it is believed their Gospels were handed down verbally then actally written decades later by the followers of that apostle. In fact, the Gospel of Thomas, a Gnostic Gospel is believed to be the only written account of Jesus penned by an actual observer of these events. The Nicean Council did not include this Gospel in the canonization primarily because it paints a slightly different picture in some details than the other 4 gospels.

 

That's true, albeit a bit cynical. Much has been changed by translations (e.g. Greek to Hebrew to Latin)and interpretations. There were many reasons for variances and changes. Some were out and out mistakes and some "purposeful" changes.
[There was a UNC-CH professor, and a self-professed and happy atheist btw, on NPR a week or so ago. He was quite knowledgeable and presented the Bible in a factual manner. He had done extensive cross referencing that, IMHO, gave him as much credibility as anyone that I've heard.]