If the Bible contains much that is unreliable, what should we do about it?

[Zebra1552]

None of them. But then neither did Jesus. So your point is moot.

Excuse me, but did you just say that Jesus did not claim to be God? You apparently do not understand the cultural significance of Jesus saying, "I am," and its connection with Exodus 3:14 where God says the same thing. You must have also missed John 10:28-30 (and surrounding context). Let us also not forget the cultural significance of forgiving sins. Whatever point the other guy was making, it certainly is not moot if Jesus is the only one of the self-claimed messiahs to claim to be, nevermind actually be God.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That's the solution - replace one human set of theological interpretations with another put out by blokes in funny clothes who spout in Latin who, like all power-mad [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth], like to claim they got it all from God.

Like, yeah, that'll work. Just leave your brain at the church door.

Clothing makes not the Man.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Matthew 22:11 And entering yet the King, to gaze of the ones, the reclining at table, he saw there a Man not clothed/en-dedumenon <1746> cothing/enduma <1742> of wedding-feast: [Luke 16:19]

zeph 1:7 Hush! in presence of Adonai YHWH, that near Day of YHWH. That YHWH prepares a sacrifice, He sanctifies called ones of Him.
8 And He becomes in Day of sacrifice of YHWH and I visit on the chiefs, and on sons of the King, and on all of ones being clothed clothing foreign.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamish,

Your words are kind; like all of us, I simply try to live by the love which He asks we show each to the other. As we are told, if we hate our brother whom we see, how shall we love Him whom we have not seen.

I was saddened by how swiftly the next poster jumped to conclusions; at no point did I mention Latin, as well as by the angry and mocking tone; that is not part of the Christianity taught in my Church, and I should be surprised if it was part of any Christian Church.

Neither did I mention a closed canon, just the canon established by St. Athanasius, most of which has long been accepted by most of the Church. My Ethiopian brothers and sisters accept a much larger canon than we do; my Protestant brothers and sisters often a smaller one. Which ever one we adopt it preaches the same Gospel, the same Lord crucified for our sake and risen on the third day.

Much though I respect the Catholic Church for its global witness, and often though I am tempted to think that any Church which is the subject of such visceral verbal attacks must indeed be resisting the Gates of Hades, I am with you in being unable to accept some of its innovations; it calls them developments of doctrine and it may well be correct, but they have not been received in my Church, and at best we can see them as local practices validated by local synods. Should there ever be another ecumenical council then perhaps our Catholic brothers and sisters can convince us through the Spirit; that, like everything, is in His hands.

I had forgotten that the new design omits one's Church: I am a member of the British Orthodox Church, which is part of the Coptic Orthodox Church. We have no power, although we do a good line in hats! The Copts have been persecuted for more than a thousand years, bearing witness to the Suffering Servant through martyrdom; whoever has power, it is not us; neither do we seek it. His kingdom is not of this world.

I have much respect for the Anglicans, but like the Catholics, they have innovated unilaterally; there never were women priests or bishops in the Church, although there were deaconesses, as there are still in my Church.

I make no judgements as to who is the 'original' Church: I have heard too many claim that. All I can say is my own Church goes back to Christ through St, Mark, and is the Church of St. Athanasius, St. Antony and St. Cyril, and that the word it received it has preserved and has passed on. St. Ignatius told us that where the bishop was, there was the Church, and the tradition we receive is the same mentioned by St. Paul.

The notion that a Church which nurtured St. Cyril requires the leaving of one's brain at the door is certainly novel to me, and if it were levelled at the Catholics, then understanding St. Augustine without engaging one's brain would be an equally difficult task.

No, what is required is to lay one's pride at the door as one enters the temple of God. Shall we, His creatures, understand the Creator? Can we, the finite, comprehend the Infinite? We have been told that He who knows the Son knows the Father; that is all we need to know. Through the Church we have the Creeds and we understand more about the Trinity and the nature of Christ than any one of us could wrestle from Scripture; but if we impiously seek to imitate our first parents, Adam and Eve, and seek to know everything, we shall suffer their fate.

We learn much, but will never learn everything; but if we learn humility and love, then we receive Him into our hearts - by faith, with thanksgiving; we are His children, and He told us we show that by our love. That so often we show only a snarl and a desire for the victory simply serves to demonstrate why He needed to die so that we might live; sinners we are - but saved by His blood.

I have found much that is edifying in the writings of the former Anglican, John Henry Newman, as well as in those of your current Archbishop, who is a great and good man of God, and I am sure that if your explore the intellectual and spiritual heritage of your Church you will find materials to help you along your journey. Remember what St. Isaac of Nineveh told us: if we think God has not answered our prayer we should remember, we are not wiser than Him.

In peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I had forgotten that the new design omits one's Church: I am a member of the British Orthodox Church, which is part of the Coptic Orthodox Church. We have no power, although we do a good line in hats! The Copts have been persecuted for more than a thousand years, bearing witness to the Suffering Servant through martyrdom; whoever has power, it is not us; neither do we seek it. His kingdom is not of this world.

I here the wardrobes of your bishops are pretty snazzy also. Did you borrow that from the RCC?

http://christianforums.com/t5805969
What would it take for Orthodoxs to come under Pope

quote: The Pope would renounce his Roman Catholicism and become Orthodox. There is nothing that would cause the Church as a whole to join with him.

 

[blessed b]

Hi folks!!!

Every child grows up believing almost literally everything in the Bible. That was what I went through myself as a young child. As I grew older, I realised that lots of things just can't be taken literally. Adam couldn't have been the first man and it couldn't have been 6000 years ago. That's fine, I revised my view of that portion of the Bible and I read Genesis not literally.

Then, when I was 9, I became a little rebellious in my thoughts and I became an atheist. I know in the GA forum, atheists say I wasn't a real atheist because I was only 9 but I know I really was. I had long chats with my vicar who helped me return to the faith but I found the Bible a rather odd stumbling block. Just how should I treat it?

When I was 10, something happened in my personal life that made me certain that Jesus is real. I escaped the Bali bombing by just seconds but that's another story fit for a different thread.

I decided to discover for myself just how we got our Bible. I read two books: Bruce Metzger's "The Canon of the New Testament" and FF Bruce's "The Canon of Scripture". I read up about the writers and I found that while Metzger was considered liberal by some fundamentalist (he certainly produced the obnoxious Ehrman), FF Bruce was considered by most Christians to be evangelical and conservative. So I figured that whatever damage Metzger might do can easily be healed by FF Bruce. I've read one of FF Bruce's account of the canon (it's called "Is the NT reliable?")

What I didn't know was scholars like FF Bruce wear different hats. In "Is the NT reliable?" he was quite encouraging because he was writing to the masses. But his "The Canon of Scripture" is a scholastic work and he was NO DIFFERENT from Metzger. Both books taught me the same thing about how the NT books came about.

I've already expressed some of the problems in this thread:



But that's only the tip of the iceberg. I spoke at great length with my vicar and he tells me it's OK if I don't accept the canonicity of some books eg Hebrews, 2 Peter and Jude. It's OK if I believe the writers of the gospels eg Matthew try to turn the history of Jesus into something that will fulfil non-existent OT prophecies (because the writers could only read the Septuagint which contained errors and was not the same as the Hebrew OT in many areas).

But I'm left with very little. It's tough deciding which parts of the Bible are corrupt, etc etc. Metzger has another book on the corruption of the NT and other textual problems but I'm not buying it only because it's jointly written with Ehrman who I do not like.

Sometimes I wonder if the Christian faith is more easily practised if I had been ignorant of the canon. Perhaps I should have just read books for the masses, eg. Josh McDowell's New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. I saw his book at a bookshop the other day and I looked at what he had to say about the canon. It was shoddy work! It was calculated to make the Bible look good but it was WRONG. He quoted bits from some of the early Church fathers but he didn't show the real problems with the Bible that some other quotations would have revealed. He carefully put in only those parts that would help the case for the Bible. I was really disappointed.

I've stopped reading the Bible for a long time now because I can't be sure which parts are really from God. I should be more industrious because there are ways to decide which parts are the correct ones and which the corrupt ones. Some very good and honest commentaries can be of use here. But it makes reading the Bible too tiring and complicated.

Anyone has any views on this? I find it easier to get answers in the GA forum but there are too many atheists in GA and I don't want them to pounce on this.

As far as genisis is concerned. Imagine this. Now moses was a ruler, a priest and a scientist. I think that genesis is the best scientific theories Mose's times. Based upon their observations of the physical world they came up with a theory just like science does. Then they wrote it down. For example they noticed that when humans die they decay and eventually become dirt so then humans must be made of dirt.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

As far as genisis is concerned. Imagine this. Now moses was a ruler, a priest and a scientist. I think that genesis is the best scientific theories Mose's times. Based upon their observations of the physical world they came up with a theory just like science does. Then they wrote it down. For example they noticed that when humans die they decay and eventually become dirt so then humans must be made of dirt.[/quote]Dust to dust...............

http://www.scripture4all.org/

1 corin 15:47 The first man out of the ground/ghV <1093>, dust/soil/coikoV <5517> ; the second Man [Lord] out of heaven.
48 As such, the soilish-one/coikoV <5517> also, those being of also the soilish-ones/coikoi <5517> as-such the heavenly those being of the heavenlies
49 And according as we wear the image of the soilish-one/coikou <5517> , we shall be wearing also the image of the heavenly

 

[Anglian]

I here the wardrobes of your bishops are pretty snazzy also. Did you borrow that from the RCC?

http://christianforums.com/t5805969
What would it take for Orthodoxs to come under Pope

quote: The Pope would renounce his Roman Catholicism and become Orthodox. There is nothing that would cause the Church as a whole to join with him.

Dear LLJ,

Ah, I see you are thinking of the Eastern Orthodox

It is always sad when people write things such as the lines you quote. The Pope is a Christian, his tradition happens to be that held by the majority of the Christian West from the beginning; the Ecumenical Patriarch is also a Christian, his tradition is that of the Chalcedonian East; my Pope, Shenouda III is also a Christian, his tradition is that of the non-Chalcedonian East. We have have liturgies and clerical dress inherited from the early Church, we all confess the one Christ crucified and risen, and if we spent more time practicing the love for our brothers and sisters Christ recommended, and less time asserting that we, and we alone, are right, we should be more recognizable as His children.

We all inherit the Creeds and the traditions of the early Church, and we all have Apostolic succession; what a shame we cannot behave as the Apostles did in the first council at Jerusalem recorded in Acts.

We can see, if we look at the world today, the fruits of our disunion. But I hope Beamishboy will remember that it was just because we are all sinners that He came to save us. Not to read Holy Scripture because some modern scholars cast doubt on some translations is to deprive oneself needlessly of the word of God. He inspired His Church to perceive His True Word, and there is no growth in Him without studying that word and prayer.

In peace,

Anglian

 

[artybloke]

My apologies Anglian. You don't follow the Pope, you follow a tradition even more fuddy duddy and old-fashioned.

Continue listening to your betters and leaving your brain at the church door.

 

[beamishboy]

My apologies Anglian. You don't follow the Pope, you follow a tradition even more fuddy duddy and old-fashioned.

Continue listening to your betters and leaving your brain at the church door.

Hi,

I wish you could give some points in your argument. So far, you just accuse the Orthodox of being fuddy-duddy and old-fashioned and you use strong words like "leaving the brain at the church door" but you have not backed up your statements with some argument.

Maybe I'm a bit sensitive but I tend to think that this only hurts people's feelings. I'm sure it'd be hurtful to Orthodox Christians. Can you please substantiate what you've said? In what way are they old-fashioned and how is that bad? In what way have they not used their intellect?

I stated earlier that I don't accept the RC position. I said I would rather not go into details because that could be hurtful but of course if I'm challenged why I don't accept RC doctrines, I can state my beliefs clearly and as respectfully as I can. But I'm not going to say RCs leave their brains at the church door!!! This is the second time you're saying that. I don't believe it's true at all. It just sounds so provocative.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[beamishboy]

My apologies Anglian. You don't follow the Pope, you follow a tradition even more fuddy duddy and old-fashioned.

Continue listening to your betters and leaving your brain at the church door.

Hi,

I wish you could give some points in your argument. So far, you just accuse the Orthodox of being fuddy-duddy and old-fashioned and you use strong words like "leaving the brain at the church door" but you have not backed up your statements with some argument.

Maybe I'm a bit sensitive but I tend to think that this only hurts people's feelings. I'm sure it'd be hurtful to Orthodox Christians. Can you please substantiate what you've said? In what way are they old-fashioned and how is that bad? In what way have they not used their intellect?

I stated earlier that I don't accept the RC position. I said I would rather not go into details because that could be hurtful but of course if I'm challenged why I don't accept RC doctrines, I can state my beliefs clearly and as respectfully as I can. But I'm not going to say RCs leave their brains at the church door!!! This is the second time you're saying that. I don't believe it's true at all. It just sounds so provocative.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamish,

It is always sad when Christians address each other with a want of that affection He asked of us. But after 1600 years of real persecution by Islam, we may survive a few old fashioned epithets unscathed.

Mind you, I am still puzzling about how we engage with St. Cyril's Christology and the works of St. Athanasius with our intellects at the door

In peace, and with thanks for your kind thoughts,

Anglian

 

[GBTWC]

It blows me away that anyone would even read the Bible if they've closed their mind to the fact that it is infallable. why not just go get zig ziglars new book or hey I hear Oprahs working on a new religion . its just silly there are to many truths and prophecies and historical facts proven and are constantly being proven. so you can wrestle with God till He calls you to give account of what you've done with what He's given you or you can get to work advancing His kingdom.

 

[Zebra1552]

My apologies Anglian. You don't follow the Pope, you follow a tradition even more fuddy duddy and old-fashioned.

Continue listening to your betters and leaving your brain at the church door.

So, given that you are able to address other people, are you going to address my post as well, or will you be leaving that at the door?

 

[Anglian]

Dear artyboke,

Originally Posted by artybloke

My apologies Anglian. You don't follow the Pope, you follow a tradition even more fuddy duddy and old-fashioned.

Continue listening to your betters and leaving your brain at the church door.
​

I wonder why you feel obliged to make such judgements? Would it not be easier to accept that we all find our way towards the Saviour?

In peace,

Anglian




​

 

[Nachtjager]

It blows me away that anyone would even read the Bible if they've closed their mind to the fact that it is infallable. why not just go get zig ziglars new book or hey I hear Oprahs working on a new religion . its just silly there are to many truths and prophecies and historical facts proven and are constantly being proven. so you can wrestle with God till He calls you to give account of what you've done with what He's given you or you can get to work advancing His kingdom.

So, if the Bible is infallable and every bit is accurate and historical truth, which of the four pillars upon which Earth rests are you standing over? And which of the four corners of our flat Earth are you closest to? St. Augustine had it right, the Bible exists to tell us how to go to Heaven, not to tell us how the heavens go.

I don't believe what we have is an infallable book simply because it was assembled and writen by man - when has man ever created anything perfect? To do so would make us Gods ourselves. We are not capable of perfection, so why do so many people believe in this one instance, everyone who's touched the scriptures through the years got it 100% correct?

And what of Wisdom, and the other books left out of protestant Bibles which are still in Catholic Bibles? Which canon is correct? Are they both correct? And what of the many, many, books which were deleted from holy readings because they were deemed controversial by early church fathers? Namely, The Sayings of Jesus, which has quite a bit of good things in it.

Like the original poster, I have many problems with our current Bible, primarily with the OT, but I pray for God's grace and guidance, and His forgiveness if in my striving for understanding that I misunderstand some things. But, to take the whole book literally, especially Genesis and Exodus, in light of known history, seems absurd and I believe it gives an incredible amount of fuel to agnostics and athiests who are looking for reasons not to believe.

Take care and God bless!

 

[GBTWC]

So, if the Bible is infallable and every bit is accurate and historical truth, which of the four pillars upon which Earth rests are you standing over? And which of the four corners of our flat Earth are you closest to?

let me answer your question with a question of my own. when having a conversation with someone and they say to you "I watched the sunrise this morning and boy was it beautiful " do you immediately scold and correct them saying the sun doesnt rise literally? do you discount any book that gives metaphors as descriptives? why are you so cynical with Gods inerrant word

St. Augustine had it right, the Bible exists to tell us how to go to Heaven, not to tell us how the heavens go.

I respect Augustine's teachings but He was fallible and oops he was wrong with that opinion :o

I don't believe what we have is an infallable book simply because it was assembled and writen by man

2tim3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

- when has man ever created anything perfect? To do so would make us Gods ourselves. We are not capable of perfection,

so why are you quoting Augustine on the bible?

so why do so many people believe in this one instance, everyone who's touched the scriptures through the years got it 100% correct?

inspired=BREATHED OUT BY GOD

And what of Wisdom, and the other books left out of protestant Bibles which are still in Catholic Bibles? Which canon is correct? Are they both correct? And what of the many, many, books which were deleted from holy readings because they were deemed controversial by early church fathers? Namely, The Sayings of Jesus, which has quite a bit of good things in it.

you're asking for a full teaching on the canonization of the bible? if you'd like I could recommend some good resources

but to give you a quick answer God is able to include and exclude what He desires

Like the original poster, I have many problems with our current Bible, primarily with the OT, but I pray for God's grace and guidance, and His forgiveness if in my striving for understanding that I misunderstand some things. But, to take the whole book literally, especially Genesis and Exodus,

you do know that God is God don't you? as in in the beginning God created the maker of heaven and earth.
In light of that parting the red sea Jonah and the wail etc. seem like a no brainer

in light of known history,

what recent history ??? Are you talking about mans opinion again?

seems absurd and I believe it gives an incredible amount of fuel to agnostics and athiests who are looking for reasons not to believe.

and so we should change what the inerrant word of God says becouse someone doesnt believe it ? isn't that what the bible says will happen?

please forgive my bad grammar I know these things bug you

with Love in Christ

 

[beamishboy]

2tim3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

You have to be careful with that quotation. Which books do you think Paul was referring to? Are you aware that &#947;&#961;&#945;&#966;&#953;&#945; which all Bibles have translated "Scripture" means merely "writing"? Are you also aware that that verse can be translated (you can check with any Greek scholar on this) "All writing inspired by God is profitable for doctrine..."? That begs my first question: which books are included in the verse?

you're asking for a full teaching on the canonization of the bible? if you'd like I could recommend some good resources

It was after I had read books on the canon that I lost all faith in the reliability of the Bible. I've read Bruce Metzger's "The Canon of the New Testament" and FF Bruce's "The Canon of Scripture". What have you read? Just in case you are not aware, FF Bruce's "Is the New Testament Reliable?" series is for laymen. His books which are for laymen are drastically different from his scholastic books. Do you really know about the canon? Most fundamentalist Christians don't. And if they do, their knowledge usually comes from one of these books for lay people. Or worse, from Josh McDowell. Hahaha.

 

[GBTWC]

You have to be careful with that quotation. Which books do you think Paul was referring to?

No you have to be careful. your question would be worded better like this " Which books do you think God was referring to? 2pet 1:20

Are you aware that &#947;&#961;&#945;&#966;&#953;&#945; which all Bibles have translated "Scripture" means merely "writing"?

and what is the difference between the words writings and scripture?

Are you also aware that that verse can be translated (you can check with any Greek scholar on this) "All writing inspired by God is profitable for doctrine..."?

so then either God was referring to writings like Dr. sues, the Curran, meinkampf, and spiderman comics as inspired or He(God) meant the cannon of scripture wich He Has assembled and preserved

That begs my first question: which books are included in the verse?

the entire cannon. we can go into dates of Gospels and epistles what books Paul quoted who quoted Paul etc. etc. but as you say in the next quote you've done all the studying and your faith in the bible as the inerrant word of God doesnt exist . so if I was to give you more scholastic evidence do you really think this would change you mind or should I say heart ?

It was after I had read books on the canon that I lost all faith in the reliability of the Bible.

so why waste your time with the bible ? Tony Robbins has some good books or how about L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics. and why are you a Christian?

I've read Bruce Metzger's "The Canon of the New Testament" and FF Bruce's "The Canon of Scripture". What have you read? Just in case you are not aware, FF Bruce's "Is the New Testament Reliable?" series is for laymen.

Sounds like God has blessed you with much in the way of information and intellect . hey! that brings to mind this scripture from one of the books Paul quotes in Timothy.
Luke12:48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more. But you probably don't think this verse is inspired

His books which are for laymen are drastically different from his scholastic books.

yep your no laymen much will be required

Do you really know about the canon?

I try and live the cannon not just know about it

Most fundamentalist Christians don't. And if they do, their knowledge usually comes from one of these books for lay people. Or worse, from Josh McDowell. Hahaha

Prov 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,
But fools despise wisdom and instruction.

A true Christians knowledge doesnt come from these books but from God and His fully inspired word .
by the way Josh McDowell isn't here to defend Himself but if He was He'd probably rip you to shreds intellectually. I forget How many Books have you written?
If you choose not to believe in the Bible as the fully inspired word of God that's your deal but back to my original question why even read it ?
and How can defend your "christian" faith ?


with love in Christ

 

[beamishboy]

[/size]
No you have to be careful. your question would be worded better like this " Which books do you think God was referring to? 2pet 1:20


and what is the difference between the words writings and scripture?


so then either God was referring to writings like Dr. sues, the Curran, meinkampf, and spiderman comics as inspired or He(God) meant the cannon of scripture wich He Has assembled and preserved

No, my dear. It does not have to be all these modern books by biblical standards. Why not Didache, 1 Clement, Apocalypse of Peter, Shepherd of Hermas? But I suppose these books are alien to you. But these were books some of which were read regularly in the early church as scriptures.

And do you know who wrote Hebrews? No you don't because the greatest evangelical scholars don't either. But there was a time when the Eastern church thought Paul wrote it. They had it in their canon under the Pauline Corpus which contained 14 epistles. The Roman or Western church did not accept Hebrews. Their Pauline Corpus contained 13 epistles. A church father (whose name I've forgotten) convinced the Western church to accept Hebrews even though it's not written by Paul. In one of the letters sent, it was mentioned that Hebrews must have been written by a great man of God. So, just accept it. And the church did.

Before you continue to show your utter ignorance of the canon by writing what you wrote, I implore you to read Metzger and FF Bruce first.

the entire cannon. we can go into dates of Gospels and epistles what books Paul quoted who quoted Paul etc. etc. but as you say in the next quote you've done all the studying and your faith in the bible as the inerrant word of God doesnt exist . so if I was to give you more scholastic evidence do you really think this would change you mind or should I say heart ?

From your approach, it is clear to me that you are quite ignorant of the history of the Canon of Scriptures. I hope you don't take this in a bad way. I'm being honest in my assessment.

so why waste your time with the bible ? Tony Robbins has some good books or how about L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics. and why are you a Christian?

The Bible, although erroneous in parts, is still the best document we have. The NT especially is the best available record of the teachings of our Lord. I am interested in knowing exactly what Jesus taught. I hope to be an effective follower of Jesus and not just a blind and uncompromising follower of a collection of books the compilation of which was fraught with serious problems and errors.

Sounds like God has blessed you with much in the way of information and intellect . hey! that brings to mind this scripture from one of the books Paul quotes in Timothy.
Luke12:48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more. But you probably don't think this verse is inspired

yep your no laymen much will be required


I try and live the cannon not just know about it


Prov 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,
But fools despise wisdom and instruction.

A true Christians knowledge doesnt come from these books but from God and His fully inspired word .
by the way Josh McDowell isn't here to defend Himself but if He was He'd probably rip you to shreds intellectually. I forget How many Books have you written?
If you choose not to believe in the Bible as the fully inspired word of God that's your deal but back to my original question why even read it ?
and How can defend your "christian" faith ?

We are all obliged to know what Jesus' teachings are. We cannot just follow a collection of books and say every word in it is true. You know the Bereans checked the OT when Paul preached to them. You also know that any epistle written by Paul would have been in the NT if they had been found. If you don't know that, it means you don't know the history of the canon at all. That is quite basic. Hebrews got in by a mistake. It was thought to be by Paul. No Christian at that point in time would've excluded any writing of Paul.

The four-fold gospels were the earliest books to be accepted. It's funny that in the defence of the four-fold gospels, one of the early church letters showed a comparison to the four corners of the earth. It said just as there are four corners of the earth and four winds blowing, there can be only four gospels. You should read some of these early writings. They're hilarious by our standards.

But that aside, let's take the Gospel of Matthew. Papias in the 1st century wrote that HE HEARD that Matthew wrote a gospel IN THE HEBREW TONGUE. He said further that there were many translations by different people into Greek and he indicated that the translations were uncertain. (By the way, Josh McDowell did not tell this bit about Papias and only used Papias because he's from the 1st century to say he referred to a few biblical texts. I think I can tear McDowell to shreds rather than the other way round if I can meet him in a debate. hehe)

We know that our manuscripts for Matthew came from a Greek source that could have come from a Hebrew source. Scholars are divided on this. Even if you take our Matthew to have come only from a Greek source, my question is which translation did we follow and how accurate was it? The truth is nobody knows.

We know there have been serious corruptions in the Bible, even in the revered Gospels. John 8 for example was an addition to John's Gospel. All evangelical scholars are agreed on this. The ending of Mark is an addition. Again, this is agreed on. In fact, some of your Bibles will have a footnote that says "Earlier and more reliable manuscripts do not contain these verses". Just look at your Bible.

My concern is not just these corruptions. But it's more fundamental. Which source did our gospels come from?

Modern scholarship also shows that Peter may not have been written by Peter. We know that Peter was of disputed acceptance even in the early church. In fact, all the Catholic epistles have problems. Please understand the language of theologians. "Catholic" epistles aren't Roman Catholic!!! I'm saying this to forestall possible replies from you on this.

It's important to get these things right because what if we accept everything in a book but there are some serious errors. You probably believe the OT entirely and accept that God commanded infants to be killed in Jericho and other places. You probably believe that God caused kids who teased a bald prophet to be torn apart by bears. You probably accept many other atrocities committed in the name of God. What if God is furious that you are blaspheming him by believing these to be true?

I really don't know. Sometimes I wish I could just be like the other boys who don't really care much about God and the Bible. I wish I could just be like people who would accept everything in a book because there's the print "HOLY BIBLE" on its cover or because my vicar tells me so or Josh McDowell says so. Things would be less complicated. But then I don't want to blaspheme God if in fact parts of the Bible do just that.

Do you know what Hebrews actually teaches? How its teaching got changed from the early church to our modern understanding? But that's a different topic.

 

[GBTWC]

No, my dear. It does not have to be all these modern books by biblical standards. Why not Didache, 1 Clement, Apocalypse of Peter, Shepherd of Hermas? But I suppose these books are alien to you. But these were books some of which were read regularly in the early church as scriptures.[/color][/size]

And they were declared noncanonical

And do you know who wrote Hebrews? No you don't because the greatest evangelical scholars don't either.

I know who wrote Hebrews but I'm not gonna tell you cuz you wouldnt believe me if I did

A church father (whose name I've forgotten) convinced the Western church to accept Hebrews even though it's not written by Paul.

I thought you said you didn't know who wrote. you gotta get your story straight

Before you continue to show your utter ignorance of the canon by writing what you wrote, I implore you to read Metzger and FF Bruce first.

Thanks for your compliment you saying I'm ignorant shows that you definitely have the fruits of the spirit

Ive read The making of the new testament by Arthur g. Patrizia . have you?
Ive read the origin of the Bible wich was compiled by twelve authors including your buddy f.f. Bruce have you?
not to mention different theology books that include the forming of the cannon .
I'm considered knowledgeable enough to teach a class on N.T. survey wich includes the formation of our cannon.
and I am considered pretty well versed in Church history.

but this isn't a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ing contest. I just thought since you seem to be educated well beyond your own wisdom . these things might impress you

The Bible, although erroneous in parts, is still the best document we have. The NT especially is the best available record of the teachings of our Lord.

Your Lord ? how can you say anything in the bible is accurate? how do you even know he claimed to be God? why arn't the Gnostic gospels just as reliable ?

you haven't answered any of my questions on my other posts so I assume you ll just ignore this one. hey! ignore isn't that the root word for ignorant?

I am interested in knowing exactly what Jesus taught. I hope to be an effective follower of Jesus and not just a blind and uncompromising follower of a collection of books the compilation of which was fraught with serious problems and errors.

Good luck with that

We are all obliged to know what Jesus' teachings are.

I hear Thomas or Judas had good writing on what Jesus was about.
or hears a link that could help youhttp://www2.oprah.com/index.jhtml

You know the Bereans checked the OT when Paul preached to them.

And they found Him His writings to match up with O.T. scripture does that mean they might have been inspired :o say it isnt so

You also know that any epistle written by Paul would have been in the NT if they had been found. If you don't know that, it means you don't know the history of the canon at all. That is quite basic. Hebrews got in by a mistake. It was thought to be by Paul. No Christian at that point in time would've excluded any writing of Paul

no really O.M.G. you mean God is able to make the first letter of Corinthians disappear so it wouldnt be included in the cannon. Boy This God must be powerful

But that aside, let's take the Gospel of Matthew. Papias in the 1st century wrote that HE HEARD that Matthew wrote a gospel IN THE HEBREW TONGUE. He said further that there were many translations by different people into Greek and he indicated that the translations were uncertain. (By the way, Josh McDowell did not tell this bit about Papias and only used Papias because he's from the 1st century to say he referred to a few biblical texts. I think I can tear McDowell to shreds rather than the other way round if I can meet him in a debate. hehe)
the arguments you are making would be challenged by some of my first year ministry students you might wanna do better than that if you wanna challenge someone like McDowell

We know that our manuscripts for Matthew came from a Greek source that could have come from a Hebrew source. Scholars are divided on this. Even if you take our Matthew to have come only from a Greek source, my question is which translation did we follow and how accurate was it? The truth is nobody knows.

I know

We know there have been serious corruptions in the Bible, even in the revered Gospels. John 8 for example was an addition to John's Gospel. All evangelical scholars are agreed on this. The ending of Mark is an addition. Again, this is agreed on. In fact, some of your Bibles will have a footnote that says "Earlier and more reliable manuscripts do not contain these verses". Just look at your Bible.

so let me get this straight theres controversy surrounding different texts of the cannon?
this destroys my faith that God could maintain His inspired word
you know what your right I'm gonna be Muslim now

you know you never answered my original questions

Here's one more can you prove Jesus is God?
you cant use the bible its corrupt what about tradition ? who's tradition that seems to be flawed also