How do you decide which parts of the Bible are true and which are not?
.
I think that it was harder for the Protestants than for Catholics. During the reformation, the thinking arose, that if we can't trust the Catholic church, then we will have to trust the bible only, so
solo scriptura developed quickly.
That is why you will find that the Catholic interpretation, in the main, says that Daniel was written in 169-4 BC and is about Antiochus IV. Then you look at secular works and they say the same thing. If you then look at the Protestant belief - it is not so.
I prefer to learn for myself, and so read widely, from secular writers to see what they think. I don't want to be cowed by Protestant fundamentalism.
The information is absorbed, so now when I read Daniel again, I think - 'this is about Antiochus IV, and is not about a future antichrist'.
But it is a hard one to solve, as Jesus was trying to clarify the Law, and made it even stricter in some cases -
I think that it is a case of being guided by the Holy Spirit, combined with learning with an open mind.
Solo scriptura didn't seem to ground the Protestant church in the truth, as they latched onto Copernicus like it was going out of fashion. They dumped Genesis 1 and accepted heliocentricm. Then Darwin came along and they went with Darwin in the main, and only objected to Darwinism as it was so contrary to the bible -
I go back to the bible and Genesis 1 and consider it to be the truth. Then people will come along and say that I cannot hold my opinions that I have, and yet they are all in the main heliocentrists and scoff at people like me, so who is the orthodox one?
I can understand the thinking of the reformation - they had to guard against heresy.