Again, which Bible are we talking about? There have been several different canons over the centuries.
The Eastern churches excluded five books from the NT.
Other denominations included 1 Clement or 3rd Corinthians.
And then there's the Tanakh.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Again, which Bible are we talking about? There have been several different canons over the centuries.
The Eastern churches excluded five books from the NT.
Other denominations included 1 Clement or 3rd Corinthians.
The Eastern churches excluded five books from the NT
Do you find that history support the assertion that the Bible has been preserved ?
What are these five books?
Yes. The pentateuch has been preserved pretty well. But what is the pentateuch? Is it the Torah of Moses? Or is it a collection of books authored by different authors much later? What is preserved?
2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. BTW, these books were not named as canon by Eusebius either.
You do realize those are independent questions, right? That is:
- Whether or not it is "the Torah of Moses" (whatever that's suppose to mean) has nothing to do with, either, what's been preserved or whether it's been accurately preserved.
- Similarly, what's been preserved or whether it's been accurately preserved says nothing about whether or not it is "the Torah of Moses.
Alright brother. thanks
And I've always thought it a bit strange that an omnipotent god was unable to insure his message would never be ambiguous. That he would purposely create a work that some would misunderstand.Grownups deal with ambiguity all the time. The challenge is to make informed choices.
And I've always thought it a bit strange that an omnipotent god was unable to insure his message would never be ambiguous.
.
In as much as spirtual-philosophy mentioned that it was necessary to unscramble key ideas in the Bible so as to "get at something close enough" to their meaning, I simply think it a bit strange that an omnipotent god was unable to insure his message would never be ambiguous. That instead what he had to impart to mankind would be made unmistakably clear. Don't you?And what does that mean?
As for myself, all I know is what the Bible says, in this case that god is omnipotent, (Revelation 19:6 "And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.") and what others claim is true. Both of which, I seldom take as necessarily true.I always thought it a bit strange that someone would presume to know much of anything about preternatural agency..
And THAT is the biggest problem of all! The more accurately you assume that the original texts were preserved, the less excuse you have for the contradictions. And if you want to get around the contradictions by allowing that accuracy of transmission is poor, then you must ask, "why should I pay attention at all?"Evidently you believe the Bibles of today accurately preserve the source manuscripts, at least in meaning. Unfortunately, among the many versions of the Bible the various wordings in many verses produce messages that are at odds with one another.
.
As for myself, all I know is what the Bible says, ...
.
Describing such things as the Documentary Hypothesis as an 'excuse' is adolescent at best. It is also completely irresponsible, since it almost certainly reflects a biased shallowness pursued by someone who has never taken the time to familiarize himself with the relevant scholarship.And THAT is the biggest problem of all! The more accurately you assume that the original texts were preserved, the less excuse you have for the contradictions.
And what is the "relevant scholarship?" I've read Clement of Rome, you know -- though I had to do it sitting on a cold balcony to keep awake, it's so freaking boring (this was during a university course in which I read most of the early Christian fathers). I've also read Bart Ehrman, almost of all, by the way -- and Friedman and others. And even worse, the Nag Hammadi Library, and much more besides. So please don't suppose that I'm so monumentally unread that I don't have any glimmer of what I'm talking about. It's insulting of you to impute that since I don't believe as you do, I must therefore be unlettered and unlearned.Describing such things as the Documentary Hypothesis as an 'excuse' is adolescent at best. It is also completely irresponsible, since it almost certainly reflects a biased shallowness pursued by someone who has never taken the time to familiarize himself with the relevant scholarship.
I've read Clement of Rome, you know -- though I had to do it sitting on a cold balcony to keep awake, it's so freaking boring (this was during a university course in which I read most of the early Christian fathers). I've also read Bart Ehrman, almost of all, by the way -- and Friedman and others. And even worse, the Nag Hammadi Library, and much more besides. .,.
And for the record, I most certainly did NOT describe the Documentary Hypothesis as "an excuse." I used the word "excuse" to refer to those people who understand that sort of thing, .,.
And you consider that arrogance and deceit? That happens to have been part of my studies at York University, in Toronto. Perhaps you feel that nothing but the Bible should be studied, but that is not the conclusion of educators around the world."Friedman and others .. and even worse, the Nag Hammadi Library ..."! Seriously? The arrogance and deceit would be laughable were it not so repulsive.
(For those unaware of the extent of the claim, here is the Nag Hammadi Library.)
In the quote you cited. You apparently didn't read it correctly. "The more accurately you assume that the original texts were preserved, the less excuse you have for the contradictions." Please note, this speaks directly to the people reading the original texts, and to their assumptions about them. Not to the texts themselves.[/quote][/QUOTE]Where did you do that.
Perhaps you feel that nothing but the Bible should be studied, but that is not the conclusion of educators around the world.
And you, would you consider avoiding terms like "arrogance" and "deceit?"Please try to avoid feable attempts at feeble ad hominem.
... if he can respect the value in reading those works towards a more complete understanding of religion, then why wouldn't you?