"God's Word" - revised a few times.

How the "Bible" changed in the early years (and also later):

"...It was well into the 2nd century before a number of these ‘testimonies’ were collected together and bound into a single volume. From the mass of available material ecclesiastical editors selected what would and what would not be included in the Good Book. But of course different editors made different choices.

Search the Bible in vain for the gospels of Thomas, Matthaias or the ‘The Twelve’; for the Acts of Andrew or Acts of John; for the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache; for the Shepherd of Hermas or the Apocalypse of Peter. Yet for the first two centuries of Christianity all of these were holy scripture, the revealed Word of God.

On the other hand rejected by the early church fathers were Paul’s letter to Philemon, the second and third letters of John, the second letter of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude, all part of the canon after Christianity became the state religion!

Clearly the Big Guy had had a major rethink. Roman bibles after the fourth century hedged their bets and included ‘doubtful’ and previously rejected material at the end as ‘Apocrypha’ (‘hidden&rsquo😉. Clearly this was God’s rough draft, not really meant for publication. Luther kept the apocrypha in his bible whereas Calvin and most other Protestant reformers excluded them."


http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/wordofgod.htm

Originally posted by Taoman
How the "Bible" changed in the early years (and also later):

"...It was well into the 2nd century before a number of these ‘testimonies’ were collected together and bound into a single volume. From the mass of available material ecclesiastical editors selected what would and what would not be included in the Good Book. But of course different editors made ...[text shortened]... her Protestant reformers excluded them."


http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/wordofgod.htm

And of the stuff that is in the modern Bible, some is forged and/or tacked on (B. Ehrman). For example, the story of Jesus saving the adulterous woman from stoning is thought to be a later addition (apocryphal).

Originally posted by Taoman
How the "Bible" changed in the early years (and also later):

"...It was well into the 2nd century before a number of these ‘testimonies’ were collected together and bound into a single volume. From the mass of available material ecclesiastical editors selected what would and what would not be included in the Good Book. But of course different editors made ...[text shortened]... her Protestant reformers excluded them."


http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/wordofgod.htm

I'm currently reading 'Lost Christianities - The battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew', by Bart Ehrman. Very interesting and very readable for those who would like to delve a little deeper into this topic.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm currently reading 'Lost Christianities - The battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew', by Bart Ehrman. Very interesting and very readable for those who would like to delve a little deeper into this topic.

Be careful about believing anyone that comes along. He may not be a Holy Spirit inspired teacher. I don't want you to be lead astray by an agent of Satan. Search the approved scriptures to see if these teachings are so.

Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
(Acts 17:10-11 NKJV)

Originally posted by RJHinds
Be careful about believing anyone that comes along. He may not be a Holy Spirit inspired teacher. I don't want you to be lead astray by an agent of Satan. Search the approved scriptures to see if these teachings are so.

[b]Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Je ...[text shortened]... arched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
(Acts 17:10-11 NKJV)[/b]

😴

Originally posted by Proper Knob
😴

Your mind going to sleep already?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your mind going to sleep already?

I've told you before, i have no interest in anything you have to say.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I've told you before, i have no interest in anything you have to say.

Well, we can be friends, can't we?

Thanks, (and to SG) I hadn't come across him. Another former fundamentalist Christian who recognized he was up the proverbial without a paddle. Ehrman's a prominent author. Probably won't read it, but I'll keep an eye out for reviews. Always encouraging to see sense and intellectual integrity continue to come out.

The syncretic godman myth is so reflective of its time, so many around then. Poetically, it can have deeper meanings.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm currently reading 'Lost Christianities - The battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew', by Bart Ehrman. Very interesting and very readable for those who would like to delve a little deeper into this topic.

The book has a number of positive reviews from different sources including an islamic site, whose review emphasizes that the author is a historian and not promoting any religious point of view, certainly not seeking to undermine one, but just asking people to appreciate the diversity of early Christian beliefs:

http://www.alislam.org/egazette/articles/Lost-Christianities-Review.pdf

It seems to me important to recognize the social process by which the religious beliefs of orthodox Christians were compiled and eventually made firm. It is a corrective to those seeking a rigid, only one opinion is correct, approach to religion. These are not tablets of stone.

It is not enough to believe. It is desirable to know why you believe.

Originally posted by Taoman
Search the Bible in vain for the gospels of Thomas, Matthaias or the ‘The Twelve’; for the Acts of Andrew or Acts of John; for the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache; for the Shepherd of Hermas or the Apocalypse of Peter. Yet for the first two centuries of Christianity all of these were holy scripture, the revealed Word of God.

I find it unlikely that many of the letters currently in the Bible were considered 'the revealed word of God' until they were made official cannon and declared as such. This may even be true for the gospels and other writings.

Originally posted by Taoman
How the "Bible" changed in the early years (and also later):

"...It was well into the 2nd century before a number of these ‘testimonies’ were collected together and bound into a single volume. From the mass of available material ecclesiastical editors selected what would and what would not be included in the Good Book. But of course different editors made ...[text shortened]... her Protestant reformers excluded them."


http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/wordofgod.htm

Yes I agree to a point, but God has preserved enough of the bible where anyone can understand enough to be saved from destruction and have a relationship with Him.
What I know is that all chapter headings and punctuation has been added and the KJV is one of the bibles where it is in italics when a word or even whole sentences were added. Sometimes they help and sometimes they don't.
Having said this, I believe that by study and research, it is possible to get close to the original.
An example of splitting a sentence incorrectly is found in the gospel of John chapter 7
John 7:53

53 And everyone went to his own house.
NKJV
Chapter 9 is next where the flow of thought should have been continued, it starts out as such...
John 8:1

8 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
NKJV
It would have made more sense to start chapter 9 at verse 2...
In some cases there are added words and sentences put there by a scribe with a bias, namely the Trinity.
2Timothy is an interesting verse that says
2 Tim 2:15

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
KJV
Study means diligently,( I will not take the time for the Greek, nor Aramaic words.).
rightly dividing means "right cutting" in essence, the punctuation.
The church that I have been involved with since the 70's has taught me how it is done...there is no secret, it just takes time and diligence. Knowing Greek and Aramaic is helpful but not necessary. A good concordance, Greek - English Lexicon are a must. And of course an honest person truly seeking the truth will be rewarded...

Heb 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
NKJV

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Yes I agree to a point, but God has preserved enough of the bible where anyone can understand enough to be saved from destruction and have a relationship with Him.
What I know is that all chapter headings and punctuation has been added and the KJV is one of the bibles where it is in italics when a word or even whole sentences were added. Sometimes they ...[text shortened]... t believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
NKJV[/b]

I applaud any analysis. Refreshing. And it is often, almost generally possible to get to the intended meaning of passages. This is better than blind (and idolatrous) equating of Christian verses with the direct "Word of God". I think its also important to recognize the likely religio-political intentions of editings.

"God has preserved enough of the bible where anyone can understand enough to be saved from destruction and have a relationship with Him."

- I find this sort of statement in many guises. "God knows...", "God did or didn't do this, etc." disingenuous. It simply stating the writer's opinion and putting into the mouth of the infinite Source of the Universe. God appears to have lots of confidential pals, to whom he whispers the correct interpretation, what he likes and doesn't like.

We can all do that. Here's my version:

"God knows that when He wanted His message to get across that there would be this process. So He sent liberal educated theologians to correct and explain about myth and analysis so He wouldn't be taken the wrong legalistic way, and to prevent inspirations from being used in an idolatrous manner."

Originally posted by Taoman
I applaud any analysis. Refreshing. And it is often, almost generally possible to get to the intended meaning of passages. This is better than blind (and idolatrous) equating of Christian verses with the direct "Word of God". I think its also important to recognize the likely religio-political intentions of editings.

"God has preserved enough of the bible ...[text shortened]... listic way, and to prevent inspirations from being used in an idolatrous manner."

You are right again but I used words from the book itself in a paraphrased form.
But archaeology has strongly supported the bible as well. There is much history in the bible that was scoffed at, but discoveries have proved them wrong. Cities have been found, copies of scrolls, the pool of Siloam, and so many others. It is not widely publicized, but never the less fascinating.
Are you familiar with the "New Testament Documents" by F.F.Bruce? It is a very insightful book about copies of copies.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
But archaeology has strongly supported the bible as well. There is much history in the bible that was scoffed at, but discoveries have proved them wrong. Cities have been found, copies of scrolls, the pool of Siloam, and so many others. It is not widely publicized, but never the less fascinating.

I always find this argument to be so ridiculous that I wonder why Christians repeat it time and again. Can't you see how ridiculous it is?