Books of the Bible

[TTom]

Madman wanted me to provide some background proof to my charge that the Bible has been changed and books adopted and rejected according to political and other reasons.

We opted not to continue a hijack of someone elses thread so I'm starting this one.

I believe this is the right forum since it is a post about which books have been accepted and which ones rejected as part of the Bible. (especially new testament)

and here was my reply.

Well lets see my documentation is as follows:

How many gosples were considered for inclussion in the new Testament?

The Gospel of the Hebrews didn't make the cut. Why?
The Gospel of Thomas didn't make the cut either, Why?
The Gospel of Peter same situation
The Gospel of Judas same
The Coptic Gospel of Egyptians same question

A council of men sat and determined that only the 4 Gospels Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were needed.

That is the proof that some books were chosen and other left out it's common knowledge history of your religion yet you seem not to know anything about it.

The Gnostic Bibles were burned and destroyed or simply left to rot because they conflicted with the mainstream roman catholic at the time churches views.

Any simple google will lead you to documentation of this historic fact and the fact that a Gnostic bible scroll set was recovered by archeologists recently and yet these gospels were not included in the Roman Catholic Bible.


The Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant versions of the New Testament are all different, some include books that others do not.

How much more proof do you need Madman or is this enough.

Additional proof starts here for you Madman.

A list of books accepted by the Greek Orthodox Church as part of the Bible that are not accepted as part of the Protestant Bible.

1 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus (different than Ecclesiastes)
Baruch
The Epistle of Jerimiah

There are 9 more should you require them.

 

[Lowjack]

What is the argument ?
Many of the Gnostic Books which were clearly found not to have being written by the apostles as they claim were left out, nothing wrong with that, now other books which shoud have being added were not, Specially those of Hebrew Studies and Historical Books.

 

[TTom]

My position Lowjack is simple, although I'm sure it will not meet your approval.

In another post I stated one reason for my doubt of the bible as infallable and uncorrupted by man was

"Too many revisions, books added, subtracted, considered, and then if not accepted sometimes burned"

Now some of the books considered I'll agree were evaluated and determined to be forgeries (a real cynic could say that they found them forgeries because they started with a bias, but I'll leave that argument for some better schooled than I am.)

My point remains man's corrupting influence on the bible is most notably seen in the fact that we have records of books of the bible being added and subtracted by councils of men. And those councils have so often been convened for political not religious purposes.

OK a bit more cynical than I intended to make that.

 

[Madman]

TTom,

I simply questioned your data. It is evident by your response that you too believe some of the books you mentioned may have been forgeries, for whatever reason. (Which diminishes the credibility of your answer significantly.)

I do not know of any books that have been added or removed from the Bible since it was canonized. The councils were called to combat the heresies of the day. For instance the First Council of Nicaea was called to address Arianism, at that time they agreed that the Bible should be canonized and the nature of God, Son, Holy Spirit, etc. should be put forth in a manner that had been handed down by the apostles.

If a letter was deemed heretical it was excluded. A mere cursory study of the councils and The Bible will make it quite clear why those books were excluded.

It is a shame that so many people today don’t believe that God has the ability to direct prayerful men in the safe keeping of His word. Perhaps that is more a reflection of their character, intentions, and agenda, then of the councils.

As for searching Google, I have never been a big fan of internet info. Wiki is the database of choice of many on this forum; some of us choose to use published material with the references, cross references, footnotes, etc.

There is no need for condescension i.e. “How much more proof do you need Madman or is this enough.”

However in response:

First of all your list is not proof, it is simply that a list. Research, like Crubear provided, would be helpful. I have studied the councils for years and the canonization of the Bible, we may not agree on the outcome, but after many years I am confident that God has kept his revelation to man intact.

Second, there is no need for your attitude.
We are all adults here and can act as adults not school children. Therefore statements like - “common knowledge history of your religion yet you seem not to know anything about it.” --- are unnecessary.

I would ask you keep them to yourself, they sound sophmoric and those posting here deserve better.

I look forward to future civil discussions.

 

[gtparts]

I'll not take the time here to copy/paste or regurgitate what has been covered in this forum in the past.

Books were included and excluded for legitimate reasons. Among them:

1. Books that were not written or dictated by an Apostle.
2. Books that were not written by a contemporary of the Apostles, but years, decades, and even a century or more after the deaths of the Apostles.
3. Books expressing theology inconsistent and contrary to books of known authorship and accepted validity.
4. Books that added no new and verifiable information.

What many of the uneducated still fail to acknowledge is the simple fact that before any council was convened, there was a core of books of known origin that were generally accepted by the majority of churches as Holy Scripture with a contingent of writings of lesser credibility, uncertain origin, of lesser value in doctrinal teaching, and with points of conflict with the more trustworthy manuscripts, all of this existing around 90 to 120 A.D.

The other point worth mentioning is that with over 25,000 ancient biblical manuscripts or partial manuscripts, it is a fact that any reasonable doubt as to the consistent transmission of the Bible to present day language is blown away and completely without merit.

Do your homework on modern biblical scholarship and the only conclusion one could reasonably draw is that we have essentially the same content in modern texts that they had in the 1st century and earlier. Anything else is just wishful thinking by the naysayer community.

 

[rjcruiser]

Well put Madman & GT....no reason to add more.

Amazing how some want to re-write history to further their religious cult.

 

[TTom]

Log and speck Madman, Log and speck

"Are you saying your bias about the Bible having "Too many revisions, books added, subtracted, considered, and then if not accepted sometimes burned" comes from a childrens game or do you have factual documentation?"


You start off baiting me by intimating that my ideas on the potential for corruption of the bible came from a children’s game and then calling me for attitude and sophmoric? Log/ speck.

I dropped to the level I evaluated your question to be.



GT you say they all had justified reasons to be excluded. That can be stipulated to for many of the gnostic bible texts, the cynic in me still says that your 3. and 4. are exactly what I was talking about when it comes to people maintaining political and religious power.


The differences between Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic and Protestant bibles though presents a different and much more in my line of thinking example. Mutual excommunication by the respective Popes of each East/ West branch based on theology and the resulting difference in which books are accepted and rejected from the bibles. That's politics and power, men being fallible. The same thing happening during the Reformation and the elimination of books from the bible by protestant branches mirrors the same revisions of what books are in and what books are out.

That's not God working or else there would be One Universal decision not 3 different sects each deciding that this book is in and that book is out.

 

[Madman]

A good resource is Josh McDowell's book – Evidence that demands a verdict.
Lots of footnotes and references to follow.

Want to learn something new. Read an old book.
My maternal grandfather.

 

[Madman]

Log and Speck, ironic the non-believers can only find Biblical references to display their frustration.

 

[TTom]

No frustration I'm calling you out on your display of hypocrisy is all.

You open with a slap and then want to call foul when it is returned.

 

[Madman]

Originally Posted by TTom
I assume with every step removed I am from the person's actual statement that bias and inaccuracy has crept in, just the way it does when you play the telephone game.

The telephone game was your remark. I was asking if you wanted to equate the great councils with a children's game.


I can see with your convoluted reasoning how you ended up where you are.

 

[Madman]

Well they tend to be a bit of each. body ritual is a gnostic experiencial pathway.

The Gnostic Bibles were burned and destroyed or simply left to rot because they conflicted with the mainstream roman catholic at the time churches views.

Sometimes we let our bias’ show.

 

[TTom]

If you wanted to see if I compared the great councils with the game of telephone you would have used those words, and my reply would have had a different tone, but you didn't.

You chose words that were easily read as a slap. They were taken as such, and that set the tone.

 

[gtparts]

GT you say they all had justified reasons to be excluded. That can be stipulated to for many of the gnostic bible texts, the cynic in me still says that your 3. and 4. are exactly what I was talking about when it comes to people maintaining political and religious power.


The differences between Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic and Protestant bibles though presents a different and much more in my line of thinking example. Mutual excommunication by the respective Popes of each East/ West branch based on theology and the resulting difference in which books are accepted and rejected from the bibles. That's politics and power, men being fallible. The same thing happening during the Reformation and the elimination of books from the bible by protestant branches mirrors the same revisions of what books are in and what books are out.

That's not God working or else there would be One Universal decision not 3 different sects each deciding that this book is in and that book is out.

While the scholarship may have been exercised at a considerably higher level, to the trained mind determining the difference between qualified texts and disqualified texts, it is no more complicated than the old testing we endured as children.

A. pear B. apple C. horse D. banana

Which one does not belong?

I suppose from you admission of cynicism that if 93 students answer C and the other 7 out of 100 answer B, then the motive for grading the answer of the 7 wrong is necessarily political or religious in nature. Really, the margins were not far removed from my example with regards to inclusion or exclusion in the Canon.
Your contention is pretty much untenable when the facts are considered from a neutral position. You really appear to be strongly predisposed to bias against Scripture being accurate and authoritative. Sure speaks to your lack of impartiality.

 

[TTom]

Well since you asked, oh wait no you ddn't but chose to assume.

In the first post

The word gnostic with a lower case speaks to an approach to spiritual exploration. To know through direct experience.

In the second post a separate different context posting Gnostic Bible with a capital letter refers to the specific group of Christians and their history and documents.

Yes bias is always revealed, I admit to my biases, some lie about theirs.

 

[TTom]

GT your bias seems at odds when you state 93 nswering A

The 3 Largest sections of the Christian Church have 3 different answers to the question What books are to be included in the bible.

The division of the answers is far from 93% A

1 billion catholics say one thing A
1/4 of a billion Eastern Orthodox say B
and Half a billion Protestants say C

 

[Madman]

Are you saying your bias about the Bible having "Too many revisions, books added, subtracted, considered, and then if not accepted sometimes burned" comes from a childrens game or do you have factual documentation?

Some on here are always looking for a fight. I choose to let those on the other end of the keyboard have the benefit of the doubt until they show otherwise.

Well since you asked, oh wait no you ddn't but chose to assume.

You are rapidly approaching that point.


I'll let you have the last word on this.

 

[gtparts]

GT your bias seems at odds when you state 93 nswering A

The 3 Largest sections of the Christian Church have 3 different answers to the question What books are to be included in the bible.

The division of the answers is far from 93% A

1 billion catholics say one thing A
1/4 of a billion Eastern Orthodox say B
and Half a billion Protestants say C

And they agree on how many books? On a more personal note, I have absolutely no issue with the RC Canon or the EO Canon. I simply don't use them, but they certainly have my blessing to use what they choose. They will receive no condemnation from me on the matter. I really don't see one as right and the other two as wrong. God has a way of using just the Gospel of John, Ephesians, or Romans to save some. If He can save an Ethiopian eunuch with Isaiah, well, surely you can see my point.

 

[crackerdave]

I'll not take the time here to copy/paste or regurgitate what has been covered in this forum in the past.

Books were included and excluded for legitimate reasons. Among them:

1. Books that were not written or dictated by an Apostle.
2. Books that were not written by a contemporary of the Apostles, but years, decades, and even a century or more after the deaths of the Apostles.
3. Books expressing theology inconsistent and contrary to books of known authorship and accepted validity.
4. Books that added no new and verifiable information.

What many of the uneducated still fail to acknowledge is the simple fact that before any council was convened, there was a core of books of known origin that were generally accepted by the majority of churches as Holy Scripture with a contingent of writings of lesser credibility, uncertain origin, of lesser value in doctrinal teaching, and with points of conflict with the more trustworthy manuscripts, all of this existing around 90 to 120 A.D.

The other point worth mentioning is that with over 25,000 ancient biblical manuscripts or partial manuscripts, it is a fact that any reasonable doubt as to the consistent transmission of the Bible to present day language is blown away and completely without merit.

Do your homework on modern biblical scholarship and the only conclusion one could reasonably draw is that we have essentially the same content in modern texts that they had in the 1st century and earlier. Anything else is just wishful thinking by the naysayer community.

What a perfect description of much of what gets posted in the "spiritual forum!"

A very wise man once said "There is nothing new under the sun."

 

[formula1]

Re:

I am confident that by the Spirit that God gave us exactly what He wanted us to have in the Scriptures. A Good God could give no less to His creation.