[Alex Murphy]

I agree, ksen! If it is "not all", as Invincibly has suggested by stating "Why does it have to be all or nothing? ", then which one of you will tell me "authoritatively" that what I am reading is the "word of God".

I'll go one step further than that. By what standard do detractors determine which portions are true (or correctly translated, or contain the "true events", etc etc etc), and which are false/mistranslated/made up? How do those standards hold up when applied to more ancient manuscripts of the same works?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I'll go one step further than that. By what standard do detractors determine which portions are true (or correctly translated, or contain the "true events", etc etc etc), and which are false/mistranslated/made up? How do those standards hold up when applied to more ancient manuscripts of the same works?

See number 24.

[RnMomof7]

I'll go one step further than that. By what standard do detractors determine which portions are true (or correctly translated, or contain the "true events", etc etc etc), and which are false/mistranslated/made up? How do those standards hold up when applied to more ancient manuscripts of the same works?

Exactly

We see an attack on the credibility of scripture from all the lost. That is WHY they are lost.