What criteria was used to put the Bible together.

[22zg2293]

How did the books now in the bible get chosen? Who chose and what was the criteria used? – and is that decision long ago still valid.

I know I’m reposting this but I though stating it a different way might help.

 

[WalterTrull]

This is different??

 

[22zg2293]

Do you still not have a valid answer or opinion?

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's clearly Tom, Dick, and Harry.

Also what's his face, this guy, and that guy served on the committee to establish the criteria by which you get The Holy Bible.

So it's completely trustworthy and accurate by Christian standards.

 

[sealchan]

How did the books now in the bible get chosen? Who chose and what was the criteria used? – and is that decision long ago still valid.

I know I’m reposting this but I though stating it a different way might help.

Probably they were chosen by the teachers who first taught or those most popular works produced by the story-tellers who were part of the community of believers.

Paul was an early person helping to form the church and church members probably produced the gospels to help gather oral stories and teachings as well as create new content to further elaborate those teachings.

In the Hindu tradition, the sage Vyasa is reputed to have studied the Vedas and composed the great epic The Mahabharata which aimed to not only tell a story, a history, but to teach those teachings in that context. With divine assistance, the first written copy was produced from his oral recitation of the narrative.

This is similar to how the Torah "blends" narrative and teachings/laws together.

This is a time honored practice perhaps throughout all cultures transitioning from the oral to the literate technology of human language.

 

[metis]

How did the books now in the bible get chosen? Who chose and what was the criteria used? – and is that decision long ago still valid.

I know I’m reposting this but I though stating it a different way might help.

As you'll see with this link, it didn't happen until the 5th century: Development of the Christian biblical canon - Wikipedia

 

[WalterTrull]

Do you still not have a valid answer or opinion?

You didn't reply, but I'm guessing this is aimed at me.
My opinion is: "who cares?"

 

[Ellen Brown]

Everything I say is simply my own opinion, and I make no claim to particular expertise, save to say that I've been reading the Bible and other books for a long time and have my own ideas about Christianity.

I think that much/most of the "OT" is from the Jews and called Tanakh. Much of what I say about it will come from Wiki.
Ancient Hebrew writings - Wikipedia

I wish I could say that there is only ONE Bible but apparently the Catholics and Protestants especially have mucked about and part of the Bible is called the Apocrypha and is in some versions and not others. Apparently the Jehovah's Witnesses have their own versions and some groups variously like the "Good News" and "New American Standard". I'm unapologetically cranky in that I insist upon the KJV, and others are welcome to be wrong if they wish. I find the present day intellectual standards to be disappointing. There are important parts of the NT that are in one version but not another.

As to the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John seem relatively reliable, but I sometimes have reservations about the Book of Acts and the rest of it. Even in the NT key parts of it seem to be abrogated, and that is disappointing.

Further, I feel that the Abrahamic beliefs, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam should enjoy a close relationship

 

[Axe Elf]

If God inspired what was to be written, He probly also inspired what was to be included.