I thought God admitted to Noah that causing the flood was a mistake and that He also regretted creating Man.

Not a good example of omnicience - so either God makes mistakes or the book itself is flawed.

Otokonoko,

My questioning, (not baiting as you wrongfully call it), is hopefully getting people to analyse their religion and it's foundations, rather than their spirituality or faith.

Where I took the Bible out of context? That was a big statement, if you are referring to me, and now I ask you to prove it.

John 8:32 (NIV) ... and the truth will set you free."

That is what this questioning is about.

So far two Catholics are the only Christians (I think) to have mentioned that the Bible is probably fallible due to man. That is a massive start!

The simple point is - Churches can't claim it to be God's word if it isn't! Christians likewise can't either!

Once that is realised we can step outside the book and the crazy limitations that it places on us and as you stated in another thread "love one another".

The problem is the churches keep telling good Christians fibs about the bible. They preach this hellfire and damnation rubbish! Would a loving God create such a place?

What would Jesus want me to do?

It is the institutionalised, indoctrinated belief that the bible is inerrant, infallible and God's word, and the unintelligent God that it portrays that astounds me.

If God and Jesus exist then they would want us to tell the truth and get this right.

Imagine a world where all bigotry was dissolved.

Imagine a world where the fact that you were gay wasn't an issue.

Imagine a world where people loved each other in peace and harmony.

Imagine a world where a woman could rise to become the head in her Church or religion of choice. (not man's 1 Timothy 11-12)

Imagine a world where we treasured God's gift the planet.

Imagine a world where money was secondary to love!

Imagine a world where their were no poor, starving or disadvantaged people!

I can envisage such a world. If religions can't let go of old flawed documents to justify their rules - None of the above will happen!

What would Jesus want us to do?

The oldest known copy of the Bible is the Sinaiticus (the Sinai Bible), followed by the Alexandrinus (Alexandrian Bible) and then the Vaticanus (the Vatican Bible) which dates back to the sixth century. There are several other Bibles written in various languages during the fifth and sixth centuries, examples being the Syriacus, the Cantabrigiensis (Bezae), the Sarravianus and the Marchalianus.

When the New Testament in the Sinai Bible is compared with a modern-day New Testament there are 14,800 editorial alterations. The Sinaiticus also contains three Gospels since rejected: the Shepherd of Hermas), the Missive of Barnabas and the Odes of Solomon.

In the Gospel of Mark, the Sinaticus does not mention Mary or the resurrection and is 500 words shorter than other versions.

The Gospel of Luke mentions no resurrection, is 10,000 words shorter and a further 8,500 words were added in the 15th century.
Even the oldest Gospels of Luke omit all verses from 6:45 to 8:26, known in priesthood circles as "The Great Omission" - a total of 1,547 words.

Likewise, the resurrection in John does not appear in any Bibles until the sixth century.

In 1562, the Vatican established a special censoring office called Index Expurgatorius to prohibit publication of "erroneous passages of the early Church Fathers" that carried statements opposing modern-day doctrine.

Earliest versions are less accurate than newer versions?

In 1587, Pope Sixtus V established an official Vatican publishing division and said in his own words, "Church history will be now be established ... we shall seek to print our own account". Vatican records also reveal that Sixtus V spent 18 months of his life as Pope personally writing a new Bible and then introduced into Catholicism a "New Learning"

These are just a few examples (there are many more) but if this sort of serious editing can happen along the way, how can it be taken literally?

Is it the inerrant word of God, or something that is being constructed along the way?

The oldest version of the Bible was canonised in 90 CE by the Jewish Academy in Jabneh. Later the New Testament was added, and it has been downhill ever since.

Hmmm
So if you believe in it its true and if you dont believe in it its not true.
wow that was easy
its also complete bollocks

either it is or it isnt.
I still dont see anybody putting their hand up and saying that they personally believe it to be the true word of god. telling that is imo

The OT Bible is a collection of 39 writings by various authors reporting historical events, songs chanted, and warnings and hopes expressed by prophets.

The NT is the similar colection of 27 books reporting history, doctrine and expressing hopes and warnings of the future. In all it reflects the ideals and hopes that motivate man to seek spiritual truth in the ultimate intelligence - God. It is not a dictation from God, but a search by our forefathers for meaning and truth.

Somtimes it has cultural setting e.g. The story of Abraham who believed he was challenged by God to sacrifice his only son Isaac on an altar to God. The fact is Abram lived in a pagan culture that sacrificed children to their gods and he himself was surrounded by this pagan culture within his own relatives. (In fact that culture remained in some areas till Christian missionaries came in the 6th century after Christ). Remember his search as he moved from polytheism as practised by his father, to conclude there was only one God, and God would provide a substutionary sacrifice to atone for their sins and he would not have to sacrifice his son.