[Skybird]

Steve, I think it makes sense to make at least these differences regartding the bible: old versus new testament, and the gos0pels fopcussing on Jesus' teachings versus the rest. What for example Paul had to say on Jesus is not the same what the gospels report about what Jesus should have said, Paul was a self-exposer. The conception of Jesuus of what God is, imo is very different to the conception of a God as depicted in the old testament.

So, the Bible imo should be seen as being divided into differnt sections that imo also are of different ethical and intelecctual value. This is what mnakes the Bible very different to for example the Quran, which is quite like you said: monolithic and not leaving you the choice to pick what you like and dismiss what you do not like: its either all, or nothing at all. While there is a separation between suras deriving from the Mekkanese and the Medinese era of Muhammad'S life, these have soime consequences in lingual and prosaic exprerssion, but by ciontent are not so much of theological-ethical interest, but more of acadmeic, historical interest only. It is also impossible for the unknowing layman to distinct betwene the two, sicne suras fro both eras are wildy mixed in the Quran, and are not separated in different sections of the Quran. As you certainly know, the suras are not sported by their age, but by their length (with the exception of the first). - The internet offers some Quran versions where the suras are sorted by their correct timeline. That makes the sequences in which they are given, much more revealing and explanatory for the way Muhammad'S life and thinking unfolded, from initial social reform-orientation to growing radicalisation and racism, conquest, and megalomania.

However, the churches of course sell to the people the whole package, of course, and do not accept the idea that with Jesus a new conception of what God is entered the stage.