Honest questions for God

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Call me obtuse, but could you tell me why this should mean anything more than that:

1) there was one original document written by one or possibly several authors
2) It was copied repeatedly during a time span of several hundred years. Not all copies necessarily originate form the original, they could be copies of copies (not always easy to determine, especially if they are accurate copies)
3) the people who performed the copying did a pretty good job, overall

I appreciate the thought you put into your argument. Concerning #1, Yes, there was only one original volume, but it consisted of 66 individual books. (Even tho' I'm really only concentrating on the New Testament writings in this discussion, I'll include the Old Testament in the count in order to be inclusive of the whole Bible.) As for the authors, there were at least 40. And as for the hand-copies, we've found over 5000 dating from about A.D. 150 up to the invention of the printing press (after which they were obviously printed instead of hand-copied. ) The number and similarity (extremely few and inconsequential discrepancies, like an omitted word, misspelling, punctuation) of the hand-copies (i.e., manuscripts) for any other document or writing in history doesn't begin to compare with what we've found for the Bible.

Quote

How does this in any way legitimate the content, especially re whether it's fact or faction or a mix of the two?

Well, it doesn't directly. But what it does do is tell us that the copies are reliable--- that what we find written in them is essentially what the authors of scripture actually wrote. This is certainly a crucial starting point!! Other criteria allow us to judge the trustworthiness of the content, such as: archeological discoveries and secular sources which confirm the existence of people and places... and even events... found in the Bible; the fulfillment of hundreds of prophetic statements found in the Old Testament, the internal unity of the message despite the diversity in background, writing styles, and locations of its authors who wrote anywhere from 1450 B.C. to about A.D. 70.

Quote

For independent confirmation you need different books that indipendently confirm the events in question, which means they cannot simply be copies of the same work and one cannot reference the other as the source of the info.
If you where to actually do that with the Bible you would have a hard time verifying a lot of key points.
For example, there is no independent confirmation of the Jews being taken to Egypt as slaves and then fleeing under the leadership of Moses.
It's been a while but I seem to recall that was kind of like a highlight of the Old Testament (think 10 commandments).

Yeah, as I recall it was a somewhat pivotal time in Jewish history! http://theexodusdecoded.com/index1.jsp Also an honest evaluation of the quantity of existing evidence can be found here:
http://www.probe.org/content/view/494/157/ (I haven't finished reading that one yet.)

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Define authenticity versus truth.

See my reply to vpozzoli above (post 626).

Quote

BTW, when talking about 'internal cohesiveness' might that also be a measure of how long the individual books were being edited together as one volume with 'mistakes' being 'corrected' before the bible reached the form we have it in now?

No, although this is a common allegation that began with 20th century form critics... Yep, it took 20 centuries for the bible's critics to come up with this one. It sounds like a good argument for someone who is really desperate for a way to discredit the bible! But I still say no... I mean, why? The early Christians paid dearly for their faith-- many were martyred-- Would they be willing to die for spreading a biblical message that they had edited/changed just to make the bible "look" good? It makes a lot more sense to accept that the bible's internal unity was simply a result of God-inspired people writing what God led them to write and/or writing what they actually witnessed!

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

The redaction of the Bible is Christianity's dirty little secret. It's pretty well documented.

Oh boy, does this mean you're gonna' document your claim?? Please point us to proof that the early Christians conspired to change scripture.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Yeah, and the fact that they often (it's not just MockingBird) refer to the authenticity of the original documents to defend their doctrine despite the fact that the current Bible(s) bear(s) little resemblance to the original docs (not to mention all the existing documents that were intentionally left out) speaks volumes.

Good pun, by the way.

BUT, can you tell me how the "current" Bible differs from the "original documents"? And which documents were intentionally left out and why?

See, I think you are repeating canards--- unsubstantiated claims, which biased skeptics made up, I suppose, to lead the gullible astray and justify their own skepticism and, dare I say, rebellion to the God who gave them life and to whom they will answer one day for their rejection of His Son, Jesus Christ....??? No I dare not. Oops. I better get to bed; my inhibitions begin to slip when I'm this tired.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

The Bible has been edited and re-edited.

Show me.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[jakee 1,280]

Quote

It makes a lot more sense to accept that the bible's internal unity was simply a result of God-inspired people writing what God led them to write and/or writing what they actually witnessed!

Bwaahaahaa, that makes sense to you!?! Craziness.

The point is, that the editors of the bible surely did believe the stories held within. In fact, they were quite probably incredibly devout and comitted to spreading the word of God. Doesn't it make sense that when this kind of person comes across some inconsistency, some phrase that doesn't fit, some prophecy that wasn't quite right, that the logical conclusion is that the author must have made a mistake. Changing it to make it 'sound better' is simply doing Gods work - because they know that they are changing it to what must be the truth.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,280]

Quote

Also, Mohammed was a profit, and to the muslims, THE profit,

Ok, for fucks sake guys can we please have a little attention to detail? This is rapidly getting up there with 'Flair' and 'Bridal' as one of the most annoying misuses of a word on DZ.com.

So, for clarity, "profit" is the net gain of a set of business transactions and a "prophet" is a beardy guy who's spent way to long alone on the top of a mountain listening to the voices inside his head.

So when Allah wanted to spread his message to the people he didn't do it through a $2M increase in the gross with a 5% reduction of overhead and there are very few chairmans who want to announce to the board that this year the company made 3.2 Moses' after tax.

Carry on.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And we don't. So we don't know, do we?

So you don't believe what you read were the words of Shakespeare?

Does it matter who wrote it? Romeo and Juliet is a great story but that's all it is. Shakespeare never claimed to be anything other than a playwright.

Even the supposed non-fiction plays (such as Richard III) have their history "adjusted" to fit the prejudices of the times. Just like the redacted Bible.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

The redaction of the Bible is Christianity's dirty little secret. It's pretty well documented.

Oh boy, does this mean you're gonna' document your claim?? Please point us to proof that the early Christians conspired to change scripture.

The burden is on YOU to prove that your particular version of Bible is the unadulterated word of God, not on me to prove that it isn't.

However, this is the version of history I believe:
www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A307487

You might also look at www.harpercollins.com/book/index.aspx?isbn=9780060738174. Interesting that the biggest critic of the latter is a Christian "apologist" who lies about his own name.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sweetmoose 0]

Quote

Quote

Also, Mohammed was a profit, and to the muslims, THE profit,

Ok, for fucks sake guys can we please have a little attention to detail? This is rapidly getting up there with 'Flair' and 'Bridal' as one of the most annoying misuses of a word on DZ.com.

So, for clarity, "profit" is the net gain of a set of business transactions and a "prophet" is a beardy guy who's spent way to long alone on the top of a mountain listening to the voices inside his head.

So when Allah wanted to spread his message to the people he didn't do it through a $2M increase in the gross with a 5% reduction of overhead and there are very few chairmans who want to announce to the board that this year the company made 3.2 Moses' after tax.

Carry on.

Yeah yeah, so sue me, I think people still get the point of what I was trying to say even if I used the incorrect word that sounds exactly the same.

We die only once, but for such a very long time.

I'll believe in ghosts when I catch one in my teeth.

[hairyjuan 0]

The Talmud of immanuel was found in 1963, encades in resin for 19 centuries. The most accurate and detailed description of who and what your "mythical saviour' really was. Thank 'god' that the perpetrators of PIOUS FRAUD, did not get to destroy it, as well as the Nag Hammadi scrolls.



THOMAS JEFFERSON-"The Christian religion is the most perverted system that ever shone upon man".


www.jesusneverexisted.com


YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN! "the bible is the divinely inspired word of dog" is not an ACCEPTABLE REPLY

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Bwaahaahaa, that makes sense to you!?! Craziness.

The point is, that the editors of the bible surely did believe the stories held within. In fact, they were quite probably incredibly devout and comitted to spreading the word of God. Doesn't it make sense that when this kind of person comes across some inconsistency, some phrase that doesn't fit, some prophecy that wasn't quite right, that the logical conclusion is that the author must have made a mistake. Changing it to make it 'sound better' is simply doing Gods work - If you seebecause they know that they are changing it to what must be the truth.

You're describing way too complex a project for the people of that time with the means they had. The original writings were composed from several continents, yet were already being quoted in the writings of early church (not Catholic, you understand) fathers within 10 years of their completion. In addition, you're assuming that there were inaccuracies that needed fixing. You're also projecting a deficiency of integrity on people for no apparent reason. And, you're forgetting that there were eyewitnesses and children of eyewitnesses that would've cried "foul" if the details were wrong. You have to assume a lot of stuff for which there's no evidence in order to hold to these "form" and "redaction" criticism theories.

If the critic doesn't believe in God's existence tho', he'll grab at straws and make unreasonable and unjustified assumptions in order to discredit the data. There's no reason not to view the Bible as it has been traditionally viewed.

Do you really want to arrive at the truth? or do you want to just debate it for debate's sake? If you really want to arrive at the truth, read both sides-- obviously you've already read the critic's side. Order a book that will present you with the data from the other side, and in a much more researched and articulate manner than I can give it, and weigh the evidence yourself. (If you've already done that, please forgive my insinuations that you haven't.) I do know this: If you want to know the truth and are willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads you, God will lead you to it. He has promised this:

1 Chronicles 28:9
"And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, you will find him; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever."

Hebrews 11:6
"...anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

John 8:31,32
"So Jesus said to those who believed in Him, "If you obey
My teaching, you are really My disciples; you will know
the truth, and the truth will set you free."

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[jakee 1,280]

Quote

You're describing way too complex a project for the people of that time with the means they had.

They had the individual texts and the ability to read and write. What more did they need?

Quote

In addition, you're assuming that there were inaccuracies that needed fixing.

It has been suggested by you and paj that the level of cohesiveness between books in the bible is a gold standard of its historical reliability. I am suggesting alternate means that a text that was edited as one unit for many, many years could agree with itself.

Quote

You're also projecting a deficiency of integrity on people for no apparent reason.

I am suggesting characters who's intention was not to decieve but to help pass on the truth. If they knew that x person was the fullfilment of Y prophesy what possible harm could it do to massage the details to make it easier for the readers to see it too?

Quote

And, you're forgetting that there were eyewitnesses and children of eyewitnesses that would've cried "foul" if the details were wrong.

Heh, children of eyewitnesses, so well known for their credibility!

Quote

Do you really want to arrive at the truth? or do you want to just debate it for debate's sake? If you really want to arrive at the truth, read both sides-- obviously you've already read the critic's side.

Actually I haven't, this is straight off the cuff.

BTW, might I ask if you hold yourself to that criteria when it comes to evolution?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Bwaahaahaa, that makes sense to you!?! Craziness.

The point is, that the editors of the bible surely did believe the stories held within. In fact, they were quite probably incredibly devout and comitted to spreading the word of God. Doesn't it make sense that when this kind of person comes across some inconsistency, some phrase that doesn't fit, some prophecy that wasn't quite right, that the logical conclusion is that the author must have made a mistake. Changing it to make it 'sound better' is simply doing Gods work - If you seebecause they know that they are changing it to what must be the truth.

You're describing way too complex a project for the people of that time with the means they had. The original writings were composed from several continents, yet were already being quoted in the writings of early church (not Catholic, you understand) fathers within 10 years of their completion. In addition, you're assuming that there were inaccuracies that needed fixing. You're also projecting a deficiency of integrity on people for no apparent reason. And, you're forgetting that there were eyewitnesses and children of eyewitnesses that would've cried "foul" if the details were wrong. You have to assume a lot of stuff for which there's no evidence in order to hold to these "form" and "redaction" criticism theories.

If the critic doesn't believe in God's existence tho', he'll grab at straws and make unreasonable and unjustified assumptions in order to discredit the data. There's no reason not to view the Bible as it has been traditionally viewed.

Do you really want to arrive at the truth? or do you want to just debate it for debate's sake? If you really want to arrive at the truth, read both sides-- obviously you've already read the critic's side. Order a book that will present you with the data from the other side, and in a much more researched and articulate manner than I can give it, and weigh the evidence yourself. (If you've already done that, please forgive my insinuations that you haven't.) I do know this: If you want to know the truth and are willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads you, God will lead you to it. He has promised this:

1 Chronicles 28:9
"And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, you will find him; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever."

Hebrews 11:6
"...anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

John 8:31,32
"So Jesus said to those who believed in Him, "If you obey
My teaching, you are really My disciples; you will know
the truth, and the truth will set you free."

The Council of Nicaea was called by Constantine in 325 to fix up the errors and inconsistencies and make a politically correct version. 325 is LONG after any eyewitness or his/her children had died. Constantine himself presided to ensure the outcome he wanted. The Council then declared itself the work of God. Ha ha, so much for the integrity of the Bible.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The redaction of the Bible is Christianity's dirty little secret. It's pretty well documented.

Oh boy, does this mean you're gonna' document your claim?? Please point us to proof that the early Christians conspired to change scripture.

The burden is on YOU to prove that your particular version of Bible is the unadulterated word of God, not on me to prove that it isn't.

You're the one who made the claim. So... back it up.

And by the way, you still haven't answered my question from last week: Could you be mistaken in your presupposition about the non-existence of God and/or the supernatural?

You also made the claim that a supernatural explanation for Christ's empty tomb isn't necessary; I asked you for your explanation, but you never gave it.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The redaction of the Bible is Christianity's dirty little secret. It's pretty well documented.

Oh boy, does this mean you're gonna' document your claim?? Please point us to proof that the early Christians conspired to change scripture.

The burden is on YOU to prove that your particular version of Bible is the unadulterated word of God, not on me to prove that it isn't.

You're the one who made the claim. So... back it up.

And by the way, you still haven't answered my question from last week: Could you be mistaken in your presupposition about the non-existence of God and/or the supernatural?

You also made the claim that a supernatural explanation for Christ's empty tomb isn't necessary; I asked you for your explanation, but you never gave it.

Yes I did.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

However, this is the version of history I believe:
www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A307487

You might also look at www.harpercollins.com/book/index.aspx?isbn=9780060738174. Interesting that the biggest critic of the latter is a Christian "apologist" who lies about his own name.

Here's a great review of Bart D. Ehrman's, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005).

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

BTW, might I ask if you hold yourself to that criteria when it comes to evolution?

Frankly, no. I don't have any books on darwinism, except for what is discussed in books which don't defend it. I see other areas as being more important, such as whether the bible be trusted or not. After all, if the bible isn't trustworthy, my faith has no basis except subjectivism which of course is not trustworthy.

(more of a reply to your post is coming...)

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Quote

You're describing way too complex a project for the people of that time with the means they had.

They had the individual texts and the ability to read and write. What more did they need?

Lots and lots of time. Complete agreement (which in itself would be quite an accomplishment). Secrecy (other followers of Christ wouldn't allow changes to be made to what Christ taught). A total lack of integrity (seeing as how they would have to disregard the warnings from God in Proverbs, etc. which prohibited changing anything that God has revealed). All the texts, every single one. Indifference for clarity. (After all, why didn't they fix the passages which appear obscure or ambiguous?) Disregard for the apostles which were their mentors. (After all, no attempt is made to paint them in the best light; instead their foibles and sins are highlighted in many passages.) And I'm sure I'm overlooking something even more obvious.

Quote

Quote

In addition, you're assuming that there were inaccuracies that needed fixing.

It has been suggested by you and paj that the level of cohesiveness between books in the bible is a gold standard of its historical reliability. I am suggesting alternate means that a text that was edited as one unit for many, many years could agree with itself.

Yes, the Bible's cohesiveness is at times striking, especially when studying the "types" in the Old Testament which are fulfilled in Christ. Christ no doubt used many of these shadowy references to himself when he made a post-resurrection appearance to two of the disciples on the road to Emmaeus (I love this story):

13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him.

17 He asked them, "What are you discussing together as you walk along?"

They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, "Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?"

19 "What things?" he asked.

"About Jesus of Nazareth," they replied. "He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see."

25 He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus acted as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, "Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over." So he went in to stay with them.

30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?"

Quote

Quote

And, you're forgetting that there were eyewitnesses and children of eyewitnesses that would've cried "foul" if the details were wrong.

Heh, children of eyewitnesses, so well known for their credibility!

Actually, yes, back then in that culture they were very big on oral tradition and had always been. They didn't have tape recorders and scrapbooks and family albums. They most likely even memorized the testimonies of those who had been with Christ so that they could pass it on to their children, and so on.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

You replied to which question? Where is it?

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

The Council of Nicaea was called by Constantine in 325...

Yes.

Quote

...to fix up the errors and inconsistencies and make a politically correct version. 325 is LONG after any eyewitness or his/her children had died. Constantine himself presided to ensure the outcome he wanted. The Council then declared itself the work of God. Ha ha, so much for the integrity of the Bible.

Talk about REDACTION! This is a revision of history. Here's the truth about what we call the canon of scripture:

Compared to the New Testament, there was very little controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers, and accepted their writings as inspired of God. There was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon. However, by 250 A.D. there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha…with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.

For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in (A.D. 170). The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.



Why are you trusting a novel to tell you accurate history?

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

The Council of Nicaea was called by Constantine in 325...

Yes.

Quote

...to fix up the errors and inconsistencies and make a politically correct version. 325 is LONG after any eyewitness or his/her children had died. Constantine himself presided to ensure the outcome he wanted. The Council then declared itself the work of God. Ha ha, so much for the integrity of the Bible.

Talk about REDACTION! This is a revision of history. Here's the truth about what we call the canon of scripture:

Compared to the New Testament, there was very little controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers, and accepted their writings as inspired of God. There was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon. However, by 250 A.D. there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha…with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.

For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in (A.D. 170). The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.



Why are you trusting a novel to tell you accurate history?

Irony - the Bible is just historical fiction.

You should check other history books besides sanitized church history.

Example - the history of the synods written in 887:
The divine and sacred First Ecumenical Council of three hundred and eighteen God-inspired fathers was convened at Nicaea, metropolis of the province of Bithynia. Its presiding leaders were the presbyters Vito and Vicentius taking the place of Rome's Pope Sylvester and his successor Julius, Alexander of Alexandria, Macarius of Jerusalem, Eustathius of Antioch, the presbyter Alexander representing Metrophanes of Constantinople, Hosius the bishop of Cordoba, and Constantine the apostle among Christian emperors. This holy council attached the term "consubstantial" to the Holy Trinity, fixed the time of the divine and mystical Passover, and set forth the divinely inspired teaching of the Creed against all heretics, Arius, Sabellius, Photinus, Paul of Samosata, Manes, Valentinus, Marcion, and their followers. It condemned also Meletius of Thebais, along with those ordained by him, and Eusebius of Nicomedia. The canonical and apocryphal books it distinguished in the following manner: in the house of God the books were placed down by the holy altar; then the council asked the Lord in prayer that the inspired works be found on top and--as in fact happened--the spurious on the bottom.

The Apologists generally dismiss such histories as being corrupted by the passage of time, an irony when you think that they are trying to defend the Bible from exactly the same criticism.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

BTW, might I ask if you hold yourself to that criteria when it comes to evolution?

Frankly, no. I don't have any books on darwinism, except for what is discussed in books which don't defend it. I see other areas as being more important, such as whether the bible be trusted or not. After all, if the bible isn't trustworthy, my faith has no basis except subjectivism which of course is not trustworthy.

(more of a reply to your post is coming...)

OK, What OBJECTIVE proof do you have that an omnipotent supernatural being exists who has an interest in our daily lives, and who created the universe in the manner described in the Bible?

Calling it "Darwinism" isn't very clever - Darwin did not and does not have a personality cult like Mao or Jesus.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[aprilcat 0]

My one question would be:

What was THAT all about? (Then I'd shut up and listen to His/Her explanation)

Camelot II, the Electric Boogaloo!

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Irony - the Bible is just historical fiction.

At least the Bible gets its history right, unlike you with the Council of Nicea legend.

Quote

The canonical and apocryphal books it distinguished in the following manner: in the house of God the books were placed down by the holy altar; then the council asked the Lord in prayer that the inspired works be found on top and--as in fact happened--the spurious on the bottom.

You kill me, Kallend. Where did you get this bunk? fairytales.org? or deceit.com? Oh gee, no joke I make about its source is half as funny as you posting such nonsense.

See Note E. at the bottom of this page for the punchline.

Get serious.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"