responding to common objections to bible

[total relism]

*cough*


Right... I guess one of those debates with your pastor goes along the dogma of baptism. Since you was baptised as an infant and not the proper way (according to them). They don't believe in infant baptism and that a baptism must be done by immersion.

I don't think you understand the subtleties in the differences of dogma that I am pointing to. Question: Do you consider yourself saved?


Not saying that you have bias... just saying that evangelists have bias against any bible not supporting their dogma. I have encountered this many times. Even here when I pulled verses from the New World Translation in a discussion.
I do like the KJV because of its beautiful English.
About the JW and Mormons being christian or not. I don't think you qualify to make any judgement on this. I do know the Mormons claim to be christian but I am unsure if the JW do so.


Right... so how are we to be inspired or enlightened by the original bible - if it does exist, but is not available to us?

sneaky?

no i agree with baptist on baptism. I had no choice but to be Baptized as baby, not much i could do lol.


yes i believe i am saved, but as i stated their is no differences in "dogma" or theology.Wording and english language through the years from 1600 yes.



what bible dont support " evangelists" what do " evangelists" believe anyways? your suppose to evangelize?. tell me what bible says not to?. I think you misunderstand greatly,there is no entire diffident bibles that teach different theology. There is debates about proper theology. You make much of catholic/Evangelist act like they have diferent bibles. Please watch debates as i do, they dont argue text on bit,they argue meaning. Here is conservative evagalist and catholic debating on many subjects.
http://store.aomin.org/christian-apo...tholicism.html


they both do claim to be christian, but what qualifies you?i base chritian on who jesus/bible,not modern sects created recently that change bible/jesus. Acording to jesus/bible they are not, so i go with that.


but it is, read my op for more on this, its been their since,well the op of this thread lol.

[drone]

In this thread: non-religious people telling religious people how their religion works.

Also in this thread: religious people telling non-religious people how their non-religion works.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Can't have a non-religion

ERGO - the people claiming not to be religious, in fact, are.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I...I was baptised as a baby in catholic church, i do not consider myself catholic at all....

But we Catholics do. One dunk-a-baby moment and we gotcha forever.




Specifics.

[Kadagar_AV]

But we Catholics do. One dunk-a-baby moment and we gotcha forever.




Specifics.

[Papewaio]

In this thread: non-religious people telling religious people how their religion works.

I was raised in a religious environment. Rejected it at seven. Tried it again in my twenties. Fully rejected it again.

One can be very well informed about a religion without being a practitioner. In fact it might be easier to stay a practitioner if not so fully informed.

[Papewaio]

I have a lack of data points on God. I'm not hostile to something i can't prove exists.

My lack of data doesn't mean God(s) don't exist. They could be a black swan event. Until Europeans came to Australia they had only observed white swans.

Of course the lack of data points also means I can't adequately decide who, what, where, when, how this God is. Is he an old man, young woman, neither either both? Are they part of a pantheon? Does God have a mum? Is our universe just a simulator and we the sprites?

Don't know. Not enough testable data points. So I'm not about to run my life on a lack of actionable data. I get enough of that from stakeholders...

[Kadagar_AV]

Religion is like a penis.

It is ok to have one.
It is ok to be proud of it.
But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around.
And if you try to shove it down a children's throat you are SICK.

[Rhyfelwyr]

But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around.

There is no reason that religion should be seen as inappropriate in the public sphere when other beliefs are not.

Why, for example, is handing somebody a Gospel track regarded as being somehow out of line, or harassing them, when handing out political leaflets is OK?

Why is it not seen as acceptable (in the sense of being contrary to secular ideals) to only vote for Christian Presidents, whereas it is perfectly fine to only vote for socialist/capitalist/whatever Presidents?

Humans are a social species and community life is an essential part of our existence. If you tell me to leave my religion at home, to never express it in public life, and to never allow it to influence my political ideas, then you are in effect asking me to be excluded from society, and as such oppressing me.

[Kadagar_AV]

There is no reason that religion should be seen as inappropriate in the public sphere when other beliefs are not.

Why, for example, is handing somebody a Gospel track regarded as being somehow out of line, or harassing them, when handing out political leaflets is OK?

Why is it not seen as acceptable (in the sense of being contrary to secular ideals) to only vote for Christian Presidents, whereas it is perfectly fine to only vote for socialist/capitalist/whatever Presidents?

Humans are a social species and community life is an essential part of our existence. If you tell me to leave my religion at home, to never express it in public life, and to never allow it to influence my political ideas, then you are in effect asking me to be excluded from society, and as such oppressing me.

Politics is about facts and figures, not about "belief".

Why, oh why, would you think you are secluded from society, just because I would see it as rude if you start trying to convince others that you know what happens after death and thus like to control their life choices?

I live in a rich community life, haven't heard religion mentioned once.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Politics is about facts and figures, not about "belief".

Why, oh why, would you think you are secluded from society, just because I would see it as rude if you start trying to convince others that you know what happens after death and thus like to control their life choices?

I live in a rich community life, haven't heard religion mentioned once.

It's straightforward - if my beliefs are exluded from the public sphere, then I am being excluded from society. This repression can be political or social in nature.

The social aspect can be subtle but pervasive, and goes beyond a tabboo on public preaching. I heard it mentioned at a church meeting tonight that a school teacher was sacked for saying something negative about homosexuality to his class (I can't find it online, but something like that happened). And so suddenly you have a situation where it is difficult to be a Christian (or at least that type of Christian) and be a teacher. Or a social worker. Or if you have to care for abortion patients, a nurse (though they won a recent case). And the list grows and grows until you see a situation where Christians really are excluded from many employment options - a pretty fundamental part of your role in society.

As for your comment about political ideas being about facts and figures and not "belief", this is untrue. People's political beliefs are motivated by a whole host of things in much the same ways that religious ones are.

[Kadagar_AV]

It's straightforward - if my beliefs are exluded from the public sphere, then I am being excluded from society. This repression can be political or social in nature.

The social aspect can be subtle but pervasive, and goes beyond a tabboo on public preaching. I heard it mentioned at a church meeting tonight that a school teacher was sacked for saying something negative about homosexuality to his class (I can't find it online, but something like that happened). And so suddenly you have a situation where it is difficult to be a Christian (or at least that type of Christian) and be a teacher. Or a social worker. Or if you have to care for abortion patients, a nurse (though they won a recent case). And the list grows and grows until you see a situation where Christians really are excluded from many employment options - a pretty fundamental part of your role in society.

As for your comment about political ideas being about facts and figures and not "belief", this is untrue. People's political beliefs are motivated by a whole host of things in much the same ways that religious ones are.

I guess we have to agree to disagree then.

Yes of course a teacher should be sacked for commenting on who loves who, if it wasn't in a biology class and the teachers negative comment were in the lines of "homosexuality clearly isn't a way to get more babies".

Stupid people might vote on belief. I for one prefer to vote based on facts and figures. IE communism, I am ALL FOR IT from a belief perspective. But the facts and figures steers me way, way, away from it.

Beliefs in a religion leads to compromises with logic. And I don't support that.

[Papewaio]

It's straightforward - if my beliefs are exluded from the public sphere, then I am being excluded from society. This repression can be political or social in nature.

The social aspect can be subtle but pervasive, and goes beyond a tabboo on public preaching. I heard it mentioned at a church meeting tonight that a school teacher was sacked for saying something negative about homosexuality to his class (I can't find it online, but something like that happened). And so suddenly you have a situation where it is difficult to be a Christian (or at least that type of Christian) and be a teacher.

Being religious does not give a free pass to being a bigot.

A Christian should follow Christ. Break bread with sinners, Don't cast stones and turn the other cheek.

The teacher in question failed both general society and Jesus in particular. Only one of which is automatically forgiving.

[LittleGrizzly]

I heard it mentioned at a church meeting tonight that a school teacher was sacked for saying something negative about homosexuality to his class
..................................

Good!

I hope efforts are taken to ensure people with such views are kept away from influencing our children!

Having been in secondary school a mere decade (and a bit) ago I can reliably inform you that teenagers, in particular teenage boys hate gay people and make their lives a misery (where they do exist and falsely accuse where they don't) more than enough as it is without teachers encouraging them to do so!

Where do you think we get these hide in the closet homophobic's that Lemur was posting about in a topic (I assume) is still on the front page?

From a combination of teachers like the one you mentioned, combine it with rampant homophobia amongst young teenagers and then add in family members who are also hate homosexuals and you have a surefire way to produce yourself a very messed up child.

[total relism]

But we Catholics do. One dunk-a-baby moment and we gotcha forever.




Specifics.

and to atheist i believe in a imaginary man in the sky,to islam i am infidel etc i dont care what you may think of me,i do care as asked what i think of myself. but yes my aunt always tells me that, i do go to catholic church with her sometimes.


you may like
http://www.comedycentral.com/video-c...ce-be-with-you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k_9mXpNdgU

[Sigurd]

no i agree with baptist on baptism. I had no choice but to be Baptized as baby, not much i could do lol.

I asked if you were baptized, and you replied that you were, as a child. Then you say you agree with the baptists on this issue. I am confused. Are you baptized or not. If you agree with the baptists, then should not consider yourself baptized.

yes i believe i am saved, but as i stated their is no differences in "dogma" or theology.Wording and english language through the years from 1600 yes.

what bible dont support " evangelists" what do " evangelists" believe anyways? your suppose to evangelize?. tell me what bible says not to?. I think you misunderstand greatly,there is no entire diffident bibles that teach different theology. There is debates about proper theology. You make much of catholic/Evangelist act like they have diferent bibles. Please watch debates as i do, they dont argue text on bit,they argue meaning. Here is conservative evagalist and catholic debating on many subjects.
http://store.aomin.org/christian-apo...tholicism.html

?? Dogma is church specific interpretation of principles of the bible. Of course there are differences in dogma. If not there wouldn't be 35 000 different Christian denominations. You lot.. the "born again", evangelists believe you are saved based on the KJV specific wording on this issue. While other denominations, also Christian, believes they are not saved. It is something they await, its a life long process that will result in salvation in the future. NEB does support THAT DOGMA and discards YOUR (as in your branch of Christianity) DOGMA. Meaning you can't show a debatant your view using the NEB translation. You need the KJV.

they both do claim to be christian, but what qualifies you?i base chritian on who jesus/bible,not modern sects created recently that change bible/jesus. Acording to jesus/bible they are not, so i go with that.

Do you see anywhere in my post where I claim I am better qualified at this? I merely point out that any particular self-proclaimed Christian can't pass judgment over the next self-proclaimed Christian whether this person is or is not a Christian. Why would you say Mormons are not Christian? JW are followers of Jehovah and they believe that He is distinct from Christ.

but it is, read my op for more on this, its been their since,well the op of this thread lol.

It exists.. but you don't trust translations. Do you read Hebrew? Greek? Aramaic? My guess is no.. so we are back at square one. As soon as someone translates - it becomes corrupt.

[total relism]

I asked if you were baptized, and you replied that you were, as a child. Then you say you agree with the baptists on this issue. I am confused. Are you baptized or not. If you agree with the baptists, then should not consider yourself baptized.

?? Dogma is church specific interpretation of principles of the bible. Of course there are differences in dogma. If not there wouldn't be 35 000 different Christian denominations. You lot.. the "born again", evangelists believe you are saved based on the KJV specific wording on this issue. While other denominations, also Christian, believes they are not saved. It is something they await, its a life long process that will result in salvation in the future. NEB does support THAT DOGMA and discards YOUR (as in your branch of Christianity) DOGMA. Meaning you can't show a debatant your view using the NEB translation. You need the KJV.

Do you see anywhere in my post where I claim I am better qualified at this? I merely point out that any particular self-proclaimed Christian can't pass judgment over the next self-proclaimed Christian whether this person is or is not a Christian. Why would you say Mormons are not Christian? JW are followers of Jehovah and they believe that He is distinct from Christ.



It exists.. but you don't trust translations. Do you read Hebrew? Greek? Aramaic? My guess is no.. so we are back at square one. As soon as someone translates - it becomes corrupt.

no i just have not done so yet, i will do so just have not done it yet, i am waiting to do with my son. I was as baby, i do not count that as true baptism.



never said diffident opinions/theology. you claimed there were difernt bibles ,one for Evangelist one for catholic etc i said that is untrue. The differences are in how to understand the bible. That is clear to all who know/watch debates on the issue etc. the rest of your claim that Evangelist need kj to show saved based on wording in kj is completely false. almost no church uses kj anymore. Your claim can be easily refuted simply by reading a non king james version of the bible

you than claim
other denominations, also Christian, believes they are not saved. It is something they await, its a life long process that will result in salvation in the future.

please show me were?your making simple mistake in theology that had you any knowledge in bible you would not make it so. Salvation and sanctification.



i disagree fully, as what counts as being christian is what jesus/bible says. Therefore anyone who claims to be a follower must agree with him what bible says. That is why Mormons and jospeh smith are not christian.


please read op sir,until your willing this can go nowhere. I said in op we have the entire original of witch to translate from. You misunderstand what i object to in varying translations.

[Kadagar_AV]

TR, may I suggest you read more actual books rather than internet pages, and watch less debates online?

Not only would it do wonders with your English, it might also help you analyze easier. Getting spoon fed is rarely a good idea.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I guess we have to agree to disagree then.

Yes of course a teacher should be sacked for commenting on who loves who, if it wasn't in a biology class and the teachers negative comment were in the lines of "homosexuality clearly isn't a way to get more babies".

I will try to address LittleGrizzly/Papewaio with this bit as well.

I think you are all missing my point. My point was never that a teacher ought to have the right to do that when it harms homosexuals, or that somebody who would feel bound to express such views when asked honestly should to be allowed to be a teacher.

My point was that the beliefs and principles of Christians naturally put them in conflict with modern mainstream secular society. Due to this they cannot integrate with society, and as a result they become exluded from society.

I am not using this to advocate changing the rules to favour Christians - I am simply making an observation.

It's like you yourself have always said Kad, a healthy society is a homogenous society. Otherwise some groups will just never fit in and be happy.

Stupid people might vote on belief. I for one prefer to vote based on facts and figures. IE communism, I am ALL FOR IT from a belief perspective. But the facts and figures steers me way, way, away from it.

Well, while in a sense absolutely everything could be reduced to numbers and assessed rationally as such, in the vast majority of cases we humans lack the knowledge or capacity to strip concepts down to that level.

For something as complicated as politics with economic, social, geopolitical etc issues, our understanding is generally inadequate to reduce all the factors involved in them and the relationships between them into a simple set of statistics. If we could we would have a formula that showed the perfect relationship between economic growth, wealth distribution, and social wellbeing.

But we don't. Hence why we use other methods such as logical deduction, theorization, historical analysis etc - it is out of this cocktail that our political beliefs come from.

If you are relying purely on what we can quantify in statistical form, then your political ideas must be very poorly developed.

Beliefs in a religion leads to compromises with logic. And I don't support that.

The concepts of God or religion are not inherently illogical since they are not inherently inconsistent - you just happen to disagree with the logic that backs them.

[Sigurd]

never said diffident opinions/theology. you claimed there were difernt bibles ,one for Evangelist one for catholic etc i said that is untrue. The differences are in how to understand the bible. That is clear to all who know/watch debates on the issue etc. the rest of your claim that Evangelist need kj to show saved based on wording in kj is completely false. almost no church uses kj anymore. Your claim can be easily refuted simply by reading a non king james version of the bible

The Catholic Bible has 73 books, while the Protestants adhere to a 66 book bible.
What about the Douay-Rheims Bible vs. King James Version. Clearly I have showed a difference between two 66 book bibles in this thread. It doesn't take a Master degree in documentation to spot the differences. The KJV WAS created to accommodate for the new protestant view on salvation and other protestant dogma.
That almost no Church uses KJV is completely bollocks. More or less all protestant churches use it and many baptist churches uses it exclusively. The Anglican has it as its official version as well as the LDS church. Then you have the Evangelical "KJV only movement" and all sorts of conservative protestants who claim KJV is the superior version. Pentecostals, presbytarians etc... about needing KJV to show saved now vs. saved later - see my post quoting KJV and NEB.

you than claim
other denominations, also Christian, believes they are not saved. It is something they await, its a life long process that will result in salvation in the future.
please show me were?your making simple mistake in theology that had you any knowledge in bible you would not make it so. Salvation and sanctification.

Again I think you misunderstand. I am not attacking your Sola fide I am not attacking that dogma. It is more or less exclusively the evangelical branches of the protestants that claim they have been saved. There is a difference when churches confuse the tenses simple present and perfect present vs simple future of the verb saved. When does it happen?
As for where... 1. Cor 1:18, 1.Cor 15:2, 2 Cor 2:15 (NEB)

i disagree fully, as what counts as being christian is what jesus/bible says. Therefore anyone who claims to be a follower must agree with him what bible says. That is why Mormons and jospeh smith are not christian.

Then show me using the bible why Mormons aren't Christian.

please read op sir,until your willing this can go nowhere. I said in op we have the entire original of witch to translate from. You misunderstand what i object to in varying translations.

I question your confidence in this. You have only what people claim is the entire bible. Humans, not God decided what should be biblical and what should not.
120 NT books (that we know of.. could be more) competed for a spot in the compiled canon. The OT compilation and rules of copying was established 450 BC near a 1000 years after the supposed authors of the OT had written them. Who knows how many books competed for a spot in the Tanach. Then you have the whole Hellenistic Judaism that influenced the translation of the canon of the early church - the Septuagint. It is only the "bible is infallible" crowd that claims originality and a complete compilation, typically named in this thread the entire original bible. There is no such thing that is God-sanctioned.

[total relism]

The Catholic Bible has 73 books, while the Protestants adhere to a 66 book bible.
What about the Douay-Rheims Bible vs. King James Version. Clearly I have showed a difference between two 66 book bibles in this thread. It doesn't take a Master degree in documentation to spot the differences. The KJV WAS created to accommodate for the new protestant view on salvation and other protestant dogma.
That almost no Church uses KJV is completely bollocks. More or less all protestant churches use it and many baptist churches uses it exclusively. The Anglican has it as its official version as well as the LDS church. Then you have the Evangelical "KJV only movement" and all sorts of conservative protestants who claim KJV is the superior version. Pentecostals, presbytarians etc... about needing KJV to show saved now vs. saved later - see my post quoting KJV and NEB.


Again I think you misunderstand. I am not attacking your Sola fide I am not attacking that dogma. It is more or less exclusively the evangelical branches of the protestants that claim they have been saved. There is a difference when churches confuse the tenses simple present and perfect present vs simple future of the verb saved. When does it happen?
As for where... 1. Cor 1:18, 1.Cor 15:2, 2 Cor 2:15 (NEB)

Then show me using the bible why Mormons aren't Christian.


I question your confidence in this. You have only what people claim is the entire bible. Humans, not God decided what should be biblical and what should not.
120 NT books (that we know of.. could be more) competed for a spot in the compiled canon. The OT compilation and rules of copying was established 450 BC near a 1000 years after the supposed authors of the OT had written them. Who knows how many books competed for a spot in the Tanach. Then you have the whole Hellenistic Judaism that influenced the translation of the canon of the early church - the Septuagint. It is only the "bible is infallible" crowd that claims originality and a complete compilation, typically named in this thread the entire original bible. There is no such thing that is God-sanctioned.

of the original bible written, were are these differences between catholic and evangelistic bibles?that was your claim.

what about the Douay-Rheims Bible vs. King James Version.?


you have shown no differences in theology,just english language in 400 years [kj written in 1611 i think].


your claim
"The KJV WAS created to accommodate for the new protestant view on salvation and other protestant dogma. "

please support, i think your referring to Geneva bible, also they did not create to challenge catholic, they created with notes etc to better understand and show were catholic were wrong. Did not change text. as i sated earlier a simple knowledge of Catholics and watching any debate on salvation between catholic/protestant will fast show your claims false.

your claim
"That almost no Church uses KJV is completely bollocks. More or less all protestant churches use it and many baptist churches uses it exclusively"

please support.
NIV Leads 40% of Protestant pastors prefer the NIV Bible says a recent Ellison Research survey.
http://www.sermoncentral.com/illustr...tics-24057.asp
Most Protestant ministers tell pollsters they like NIV above all other Bibles_51704
http://www.baptiststandard.com/resou...er-bibles51704
http://www.christianpost.com/news/su...g-pastors-445/
etc etc



i have asked many times before, could you please show me were a doctrine of a church teaches this saved know vs saved later idea you have?


i will ask once more, could you please show me were a doctrine of a church teaches this saved know vs saved later idea you have?
it seems you are mistaking the possiblity of losing salvation [a debate for sure] with if your saved originally.



well their are many places, but one is matt 23 were it says jesus will be last prophet. Look especially to v 37. last of all i will send my son.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...21&version=NIV

the bible in many places is clear jesus is last and no more added to bible



god did decide,we have it.


claim
"120 NT books (that we know of.. could be more) competed for a spot in the compiled canon"


please support

claim
"Humans, not God decided what should be biblical and what should not. "

please support


claim
The OT compilation and rules of copying was established 450 BC near a 1000 years after the supposed authors of the OT had written them. Who knows how many books competed for a spot in the Tanach.


please support


you have watched to much dan brown. Have you ever watched a debate on these claims/subjects?you would not make such claims had you.

The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going.
Proverbs -14.15

The first to present his case seems right,
till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I heard it mentioned at a church meeting tonight that a school teacher was sacked for saying something negative about homosexuality to his class
..................................

Good!

I hope efforts are taken to ensure people with such views are kept away from influencing our children!

Having been in secondary school a mere decade (and a bit) ago I can reliably inform you that teenagers, in particular teenage boys hate gay people and make their lives a misery (where they do exist and falsely accuse where they don't) more than enough as it is without teachers encouraging them to do so!

Where do you think we get these hide in the closet homophobic's that Lemur was posting about in a topic (I assume) is still on the front page?

From a combination of teachers like the one you mentioned, combine it with rampant homophobia amongst young teenagers and then add in family members who are also hate homosexuals and you have a surefire way to produce yourself a very messed up child.

It would depend, for me, on the level of education. At the primary level, I'm far more interested in stuffing their little heads full of facts, basic mathematics, etc.
At what is usually, in the USA, called a middle school level, I would prefer teachers to continue with progressively more difficult operations and the beginings of critical evaluation, but would probably prefer that sex and sexuality not be the focal subject for such nascent critical efforts. In High School and college, they SHOULD begin to address the more challenging and threatening subjects. At that stage, I am less against a teacher addressing the issue but would want instruction to clearly delineate between fact and opinion.

Let the teacher express their opinion -- as long as they label it as such.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

and to atheist i believe in a imaginary man in the sky,to islam i am infidel etc i dont care what you may think of me,i do care as asked what i think of myself. but yes my aunt always tells me that, i do go to catholic church with her sometimes....

I understood your point without you having to restate it. I was simply having a bit of fun (while noting Catholic doctrine on the issue).

[LittleGrizzly]

It depends how long you stay in Education I guess and what type of courses you study...

I am pretty sure homosexuality was barely mentioned to us in school, negative opinions, positive opinions or just general facts I can't really remember anything.

When we got the school rules (which I doubt many if any children actually read them all) there was probably a mention of bullying on sexuality not being allowed but outside of that I think it was just basically never mentioned (by the teachers in the classroom)

I chose R.E. as an option and I don't think it was really discussed there either. I do think we didn't delve too much into anything that could be controversial though in R.E. though...

Outside of that I am not really sure what subject a discussion of homosexuality would arise in, I did leave school a good 11 years ago now so things might have changed a bit.

It seemed like the right way to do it to me, schools should discourage discrimination and bullying of people because of their sexuality but I don't think teachers should be talking about it in a positive light or a negative one, at least not to children in comprehensive school (16 and under)

I think such a conversation would be mostly pointless anyway, teenage boys are particularly immature when it comes to homosexuality so any attempt to approach it as a positive would likely backfire and any negative approach could just fuel the flames of their homophobia.

Once they move onto college/sixth form (16-18) or University (18+) then it would probably work a bit better.

Though I do wonder if I can ever justify somebody pronouncing a negative view of homosexuality as a teacher in an educational establishment...

I mean they are not exactly the same but I cannot justify a teacher in an educational establishment casting Black people in a negative light...

[InsaneApache]

You know what guys, as an atheist my view is this. This is your life. No rehearsals, no second chances. This is it. After this, it will be like before you were born. Nothing. Just enjoy it. It don't last long.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

claim
"Humans, not God decided what should be biblical and what should not. "

please support

Here is a translation of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3.25, written in the Early 4th Century. In this section he lists those books which he deems canonical, then those accepted by most, but rejected by him, then those commonly rejected, he closes by listing those books which are accepted by other denominations but rejected by him.

By contrast, here is the first attested list of what would become a standard 27-book canon, in a letter of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria in 367.

This suggests, rather strongly, that the Bible in its standard form now has been compiled by men, whether the original books were inspired by God or not...

[Slyspy]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/s...-2013033064361

[total relism]

I understood your point without you having to restate it. I was simply having a bit of fun (while noting Catholic doctrine on the issue).

ok sorry my bad, did you like those video links?. pretty funny.

Here is a translation of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3.25, written in the Early 4th Century. In this section he lists those books which he deems canonical, then those accepted by most, but rejected by him, then those commonly rejected, he closes by listing those books which are accepted by other denominations but rejected by him.

By contrast, here is the first attested list of what would become a standard 27-book canon, in a letter of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria in 367.

This suggests, rather strongly, that the Bible in its standard form now has been compiled by men, whether the original books were inspired by God or not...

yeah i got the book. I disagree fully with your claim, Muslims have compiled a book as well as Mormons Jehovah witness etc. Does that make gods word or bible any less? That today many modern liberals see all religions as equal, does that make gods true word [assuming there is one] no longer true?.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

It is entirely your right to disagree, should you choose to do so: I am merely supplying the evidence you requested, which I, and I am sure many others, both religious and irreligious, accept. I am making no claim as to whether the Bible is indeed the word of God, though I personally disagree with that assessment.

My point is that, working from Church sources, between c. 325 AD and 367 AD the Canon was compiled from existing works. As such at some point a churchman or council of churchmen has made a decision as to what is the word of God and what isn't. Even if they books themselves are the word of God, man is fallible, how would one know whether they omitted a text that ought to be considered Canonical, even if you accept the authenticity of those in the modern Canon.

I am aware that I probably won't change your mind - I just want to demonstrate that there is reasonable evidence that the New Testament Canon, while it may be divinely inspired, was the product of human authorship and editing...


With regard to translation issues, all I have to say is:

πάντα δὲ δοκιμάζετε, τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε

[total relism]

It is entirely your right to disagree, should you choose to do so: I am merely supplying the evidence you requested, which I, and I am sure many others, both religious and irreligious, accept. I am making no claim as to whether the Bible is indeed the word of God, though I personally disagree with that assessment.

My point is that, working from Church sources, between c. 325 AD and 367 AD the Canon was compiled from existing works. As such at some point a churchman or council of churchmen has made a decision as to what is the word of God and what isn't. Even if they books themselves are the word of God, man is fallible, how would one know whether they omitted a text that ought to be considered Canonical, even if you accept the authenticity of those in the modern Canon.

I am aware that I probably won't change your mind - I just want to demonstrate that there is reasonable evidence that the New Testament Canon, while it may be divinely inspired, was the product of human authorship and editing...


With regard to translation issues, all I have to say is:

i agree with above was my point. Man can create anything he wants and call it gods word [mormons islam jw add new books in 1500's etc] he cannot change what is gods or what god has done. I recommend watching debates on the supposed gospels etc and other nt books that were supposed "left out". I think you will find clear distinction from them and gods word.


last part
nice.