Bible versions

[Prester John]

No, it wasn't. Later Christian theologians and writers kept writing even after the canon was established. The canon established what priest's readings for mass.

And people still write about it today, but the canonical material is used as evidence of gods existence and defines who and what god/jesus was. Service and mass is how the population is (was) taught about your religion. It is by far the most important christian writing. It defines christianity.

There was no gnostic canon that supported all of the gnostic writers. Marcion had a canon, but he modified the NT to support his heretical possition.

Don't be silly, there wasn't a NT to modify. There were a large number of texts including those which are now part of the new testament. His was the first attempt to put together what we now know as the new testament. Regardless it still shows that the 4 gospels were not universally accepted from day 1 which was my point. The gnostics were the eventual losers in the battle for christianity.

The Christians who established the canon were orthodox, and so were able to, under the guidance of the holy spirit, select which books to place in the canon.

But it took quite a few goes to get it right. So why didn't they get it correct the first time?

This a contrived view, however. For instance, if the Holy Spirit guides the creation of the Bible, will the Holy Spirit protect the book from all modifications? or will the Holy Spirit allow certain scribes to make small errors, not essential to the meaning of the text, come in during copying? Does the Holy Spirit so guide individual Christians that they don't make mistakes?

No its a fair point, you are the one suggesting an omnipotent being in the background, yet he can't get a single book right?

There's no evidence of early christian book burnings or any such thing.

Well if they were burnt then we wouldn't have them as evidence, but if some were buried we might find them in say 1945 (Nah Hammadi
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlintro.html
"Little did he realize that he had found an extraordinary collection of ancient texts, manuscripts hidden up a millennium and a half before (probably deposited in the jar around the year 390 by monks from the nearby monastery of St. Pachomius) to escape destruction under order of the emerging orthodox Church in its violent expunging of all heterodoxy and heresy."

Those who were apostles and those who worked and supported by the apostles. For instance, Luke can be supported because he was supported by Paul. Paul's writings can be supported, because his writings were reviewed by the apostles in Jerusalem.

But we have no writings of the apostles to know what they thought. What about Matthew?

For a writing to be allowed, it has to be original, to the extend that it adds new but orthodox ideas to the canon. Tone, while not making an unorthodox writing orthodox, is required for a broad audience. For instance, Irenaeus' work against heresies does have orthodoxy, but does not have the general audience. The heresies he wrote about have largely disappeared.

Original like Matthew is original? Matthews a copy of Mark, Mark could have sued him for plagiarism.

 

[okinrus]

And people still write about it today, but the canonical material is used as evidence of gods existence and defines who and what god/jesus was. Service and mass is how the population is (was) taught about your religion. It is by far the most important christian writing. It defines christianity.

The Bible is the most important Christian writing, but it is not always the best means of instruction.

Don't be silly, there wasn't a NT to modify. There were a large number of texts including those which are now part of the new testament. His was the first attempt to put together what we now know as the new testament. Regardless it still shows that the 4 gospels were not universally accepted from day 1 which was my point. The gnostics were the eventual losers in the battle for christianity.

By New Testament, I meant the books inside it. Marcion rejected the Old Testament, believing the God of the OT was evil. He went of course against Christian belief, and, as I believe, he was excomunicated.

But it took quite a few goes to get it right. So why didn't they get it correct the first time?

Your begging the question here. You haven't shown what is right. We simply don't know. Perhaps if God made a perfect book, made with gold, people would pay more attention to the book than to God? Perhaps by trusting God's means of making the book, we obtain some grace? If you say how God created the Bible was not right, then show some other way of creating the Bible more beneficial to mankind. (By perfect here I mean historically and factually correct, with no copying errors.)

Well if they were burnt then we wouldn't have them as evidence, but if some were buried we might find them in say 1945

In most of those writings, gnostics claim some type of secret knowledge, and most Christians might not have even heard of these writings.

But we have no writings of the apostles to know what they thought. What about Matthew?

It's possible Matthew and Mark worked together. It's also possible that Matthew wrote his material, adapting it from material Mark had already written. Matthew, most believe, is written for Jewish audience. It's possible he adapted Mark's writing for a Jewish audience.

None of these possibilties, however, is plagarism. The writings of that time didn't require the proper citations that modern works required. For instance, Luke comes out and says he draws upon other sources. But he doesn't cite those sources.

 

[Prester John]

The Bible is the most important Christian writing, but it is not always the best means of instruction.

But the instruction is based on the biblical version of Jesus/god.

By New Testament, I meant the books inside it. Marcion rejected the Old Testament, believing the God of the OT was evil. He went of course against Christian belief, and, as I believe, he was excomunicated.

I would suggest his view of the OT god was correct Thats a whole thread in itself tho'. The gnostics made a go of it for a while, one was almost Bishop of Rome i believe. Marcion did have an influence in the final NT so surely he must have been christian, or are you suggesting non christian ideas helped make the NT? If he was christian then my original point is made.

Your begging the question here. You haven't shown what is right. We simply don't know. Perhaps if God made a perfect book, made with gold, people would pay more attention to the book than to God? Perhaps by trusting God's means of making the book, we obtain some grace? If you say how God created the Bible was not right, then show some other way of creating the Bible more beneficial to mankind. (By perfect here I mean historically and factually correct, with no copying errors.)

I don't know i'm not an onmipotent being able to create light, dark,good, evil, animals,planets, stars and humanity but not a decent book. This being let his most important work on this planet be squabbled over for centuries before it settled down to an accepted form.

In most of those writings, gnostics claim some type of secret knowledge, and most Christians might not have even heard of these writings.

Thats the gnostic way, probably why it didn't survive. But again the point was you said there were no christian book burnings or the like. I showed that this did occur. At the time the gnostics was a different interpretation of Jesus to the orthodox view, much like we have 1000's of christian sects these days.

It's possible Matthew and Mark worked together. It's also possible that Matthew wrote his material, adapting it from material Mark had already written. Matthew, most believe, is written for Jewish audience. It's possible he adapted Mark's writing for a Jewish audience.

Possible that matthew adapted from mark!!!!!!!!! mathew takes 91% of mark. He even screws stuff up like the 2 donkeys prophecy.

None of these possibilties, however, is plagarism. The writings of that time didn't require the proper citations that modern works required. For instance, Luke comes out and says he draws upon other sources. But he doesn't cite those sources.

90% going a bit far tho' isn't it? Matthew uses 607 of Marks 661 verses. Its got to be beyond reasonable doubt

 

[Jenyar]

Prester John,

I'm not sure I understand your argument. You say "the 4 gospels were not universally accepted from day 1", and that God couldn't "get a single book right". What do you mean by 'universal', and what do you mean with 'book'? Surely you don't mean the first church, and surely you don't mean the collection of epistles to them? What else should they have used but the words of their leaders, which was the gospel they believed? Who else would they have known but the Jesus of the gospel as it was handed to them? Did you expect the disciples and apostles to acknowledge other Jesuses than the one who lived among them, such as the gnostic Jesus who only appeared to be human? Or one of the Manichean substitutions, or the Jesus of Basilides, who said:

"at the Crucifixion He [Jesus] changed form with Simon of Cyrene who had carried the cross. The Jews mistaking Simon for Jesus nailed him to the cross. Jesus stood by deriding their error before ascending to heaven"​

You argue that we only acknowledge the 'victor', and that we should also consider the 'defeated', i.e. the doctrines and beliefs that weren't accepted. But you give the impression that that is the only merit on which the should be considered; an argument for arguments' sake. Of course all available texts ideas and beliefs should be reviewed, and it has. If you disagree with the conclusion, you should at least offer an argument.

As for the earliest 'canon'; There was nothing excluded that was once included. Scripture was compiled as time went on and the Spirit was active, as Paul's sermons were collected by his churches and compiled for further use, as those who received epistles from him and other apostles made copies for the benefit of other Christians. And how else? That people knew who Jesus was, able to believe and live according to his message, was of far more immediate concern than that an educated and literate few could look it up in one of the few libraries of the time (and neither the Roman nor the Jewish repositories would hold them anyway). But the epistles would have made no sense without a gospel to accompany them. The church was the recipient of the gospel message, handed down by the followers of Jesus, and it could not have been otherwise. You don't distinguish at all between the determination of the canon (by God) and the discovery of the canon (by His people). On the other hand:

"I agree with [Ben Witherington III] that we have no evidence for what we call "Gnosticism" from the first century, and have learned from our colleagues that what we thought about "Gnosticism" has virtually nothing to do with a text like the Gospel of Thomas." Elaine Paigels, 'Gnostic' texts vs. the New Testament​

By the way. The gospel was shared and probably remembered by repetition. It wasn't "plagiarism", it was reinforcement of what was known. Not living in a literary culture like today, the New Testament writers did not have the same rules or conventions for quoting that we have. They neither had nor used quotation marks, ellipsis marks, brackets, or footnote references. Also, Mark wasn't the only source, and you know it. (And do you even believe Mark?) The possibility that an earlier Hebrew/Aramaic version by Matthew himself existed has not been excluded, and neither has possible Lukan priority. But the synoptic problem is irrelevant if you have already decided to believe *none* of it.

 

[Prester John]

When i say the 4 gospels were not universally accepted by day 1 i meant that the gospels did not suddenly appear and were accepted as the basis of the new testament. There was much discussion in the early church which appears to have been very fragmented. The establishment of a canon is in response to this fragmentation and to re-establish control. As you say the very early church didn't need a canon.

When i said god can't get even a single book right i was refering to the Bible in general, more specifically the NT.

You argue that we only acknowledge the 'victor', and that we should also consider the 'defeated'

The defeated gnostics chracterised themselves as christians did they not? The concept of a living Jesus may actually be a later idea, the greeks of the time were rather big on the Christus concept of Jesus as a heavenly being, not a human being. The gnostics at least show that the early christian church was full of divisions and different interpretations. You've been educated by the descendants of the winners and the NT was put together by them. Gospels like that of Peter were quietly retired from circulation. My argument is against the idea that the NT was accepted pretty much a is from day 1. The presence of differing ideas, gospels and texts, arguments and excommunications around the formation of the canon suggests the simplistic view is wrong.

As for the earliest 'canon'; There was nothing excluded that was once included.

Irenaeus reckoned the book of Hermas was holy scripture. ie NT.

Though what seems to have happened is concensus on the various parts, it grew up from a nucleus that was acceptable by all. Argument not inspiration was the process

I'll repeat my point again, why does an omnipotent god need such a dubious method to get his book into circulation?

 

[Prester John]

When i say the 4 gospels were not universally accepted by day 1 i meant that the gospels did not suddenly appear and were accepted as the basis of the new testament. There was much discussion in the early church which appears to have been very fragmented. The establishment of a canon is in response to this fragmentation and to re-establish control. As you say the very early church didn't need a canon.

When i said god can't get even a single book right i was refering to the Bible in general, more specifically the NT.

You argue that we only acknowledge the 'victor', and that we should also consider the 'defeated'

The defeated gnostics chracterised themselves as christians did they not? The concept of a living Jesus may actually be a later idea, the greeks of the time were rather big on the Christus concept of Jesus as a heavenly being, not a human being. The gnostics at least show that the early christian church was full of divisions and different interpretations. You've been educated by the descendants of the winners and the NT was put together by them. Gospels like that of Peter were quietly retired from circulation. My argument is against the idea that the NT was accepted pretty much a is from day 1. The presence of differing ideas, gospels and texts, arguments and excommunications around the formation of the canon suggests the simplistic view is wrong.

As for the earliest 'canon'; There was nothing excluded that was once included.

Irenaeus reckoned the book of Hermas was holy scripture. ie NT. (actually may have misunderstood your point here.)

Though what seems to have happened is concensus on the various parts, it grew up from a nucleus that was acceptable by all. Argument not inspiration was the process

I'll repeat my point again, why does an omnipotent god need such a dubious method to get his book into circulation?

 

[Prester John]

http://www.pastornet.net.au/rtc/canon.htm

A Christian perspective on the formation of the NT canon. Its a good hundred years after Jesus before the 4 Gospels become generally accepted.

 

[okinrus]

Marcion did have an influence in the final NT so surely he must have been christian, or are you suggesting non christian ideas helped make the NT? If he was christian then my original point is made.

Marcion would not be considered Christian. After all, he neither believes in the Father, nor the Trinity.

Marcion did have an influence in the final NT so surely he must have been christian, or are you suggesting non christian ideas helped make the NT? If he was christian then my original point is made.

I don't think Marcion influenced the final canon. While he distorted the NT books, Church Fathers before had quoted heavily from Paul and the four gospels. In effect, an unofficial canon existed made up of the authors the fathers quoted.

Thats the gnostic way, probably why it didn't survive. But again the point was you said there were no christian book burnings or the like. I showed that this did occur. At the time the gnostics was a different interpretation of Jesus to the orthodox view, much like we have 1000's of christian sects these days.

You haven't shown this occurred in the early church. I'm sure monastaries might destroy books considered offensive, but this would be a discipline imposed by the monastary and not by the church in general.

Possible that matthew adapted from mark!!!!!!!!! mathew takes 91% of mark. He even screws stuff up like the 2 donkeys prophecy.

Your ignoring the possibility that both books drew from a third source.

The defeated gnostics chracterised themselves as christians did they not? The concept of a living Jesus may actually be a later idea, the greeks of the time were rather big on the Christus concept of Jesus as a heavenly being, not a human being. The gnostics at least show that the early christian church was full of divisions and different interpretations.

The gnostics weren't members of the church. None of the church fathers consider them memebers.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

okinrus: Marcion would not be considered Christian. After all, he neither believes in the Father, nor the Trinity.
*************
M*W: The concept of the Trinity did not come up until the Council at Nicaea or even later. When was Marcion around?
*************
okinrus: I don't think Marcion influenced the final canon. While he distorted the NT books, Church Fathers before had quoted heavily from Paul and the four gospels. In effect, an unofficial canon existed made up of the authors the fathers quoted.
*************
M*W: What did the church fathers know, and when did they know it?
*************
okinrus: The gnostics weren't members of the church. None of the church fathers consider them memebers.
*************
M*W: Why on Earth would the gnostics want to be members of "the church?" Why would they want to have interference from the church fathers when they knew the truth and the church fathers created the lies as they went on to define xian beliefs? Jesus would have defied everything the church fathers later created.

 

[MarcAC]

Which Bible is the right Bible -- which Bible is one to adhere to?

It still confuses me somewhat.

Going over it I have come to this;

The only way to overcome the 'versions' is to illiminate all the 'noise'. All that trivial information that people squabble over and (atheists especially) take advantage of. We should stop focusing on the differences in interpretations of what is there and focus on what is the same - there was Jesus, He is God and we should live in faith, in love and in God.

The most intereting (and humourous) thing to see is an atheist attempting to highlight some insignificant paradox while overlooking the more blatant and important fact staring them in the face - in all desperatioin to justify their position. Like was there one angel or two or was there a boy or who saw Jesus first? Trivial! The point is - Jesus was not in the tomb.

The Bible is just a part of God's Word to man.
The Bible does tell you about God's Living Word, Jesus, but then Jesus transcends the Bible. If the Bible stopped being published - all the publications were atomised - Jesus would still exist, in our hearts, and in God.
The Bible tells you that creation itself speaks volumes on God's presence, yet I am sure that man originally inferred God's presence from creation (at least in part) to produce some document revering God; creation existed before the Bible did.

I am absolutely convinced (but never certain) that 2000 yrs from now the 'Bible' will be absolutely different (even if it were to exist only in our hearts as God's Word), but have the same basic principles - the important ones; Live in Faith; Live in Love; Live in God.

 

[okinrus]

M*W: The concept of the Trinity did not come up until the Council at Nicaea or even later. When was Marcion around?

Correct, but all of the church fathers believed the Father divine and Jesus was divine.

What did the church fathers know, and when did they know it?

Well, from their writings and quotations, the church fathers treated the four gospels and Paul's writings on par with the Septuagint.

Why on Earth would the gnostics want to be members of "the church?" Why would they want to have interference from the church fathers when they knew the truth and the church fathers created the lies as they went on to define xian beliefs? Jesus would have defied everything the church fathers later created.

When you say "knew the truth," what in particular do you mean by "truth?"

 

[water]

To all participating here:


I see that the title of this thread is not as exact as it should be (I wanted to change it but the edit option doesn't allow that), but the opening post does state the direction of this discussion:

The topic of faith in regards to there being several versions/editions of the Bible.


I understand there is a lot to be said about the different versions/editions of the Bible, yet this is of interest here only as much as it sheds light on the topic of faith, and how one's faith relates to the text of the Bible -- knowing that there is *no* one and only ultimate text.

 

[Prester John]

Marcion would not be considered Christian. After all, he neither believes in the Father, nor the Trinity.

Getting dangerously close to the no true scotsman fallacy.

I don't think Marcion influenced the final canon. While he distorted the NT books, Church Fathers before had quoted heavily from Paul and the four gospels. In effect, an unofficial canon existed made up of the authors the fathers quoted.

"Marcion was very influential in the formation of the New Testament Canon even though his influence was a negative one. His most important contribution may have been to virtually guarantee that the Pauline Epistles would eventually enjoy the same status as the Gospels.27 Marcion's critics were forced to decide about the Pauline works and their relationship to the Gospels, which were already held in high esteem."
http://ontruth.com/marcion.html


Looks like you can thank Marcion for the inclusion of the pauline works, hardly insignificant.

You haven't shown this occurred in the early church. I'm sure monastaries might destroy books considered offensive, but this would be a discipline imposed by the monastary and not by the church in general.

For a start you said it never happened, after i showed it did you have now changed your claim.

Your ignoring the possibility that both books drew from a third source.

So were leaving the eyewitness suggestions even futher behind. I have no problem with this possibility, they both copied!!!

The gnostics weren't members of the church. None of the church fathers consider them memebers.

"Many Gnostic sects were Christians who embraced mystical theories of the true nature of Jesus and/or the Christ which were out of step with the teachings of orthodox Christian faith."

"Firstly, the notion that early, orthodox Christianity came into being fully possessed of a rigid doctrinal body and a similarly strict corpus of canonical texts is unlikely. Primitive Christianity was a most fluid entity, and encapsulated many apparently contradictory movements and core beliefs of the period; what we would now call orthodox Christianity is a synthesis of some of these beliefs, just one among many differing Christian movements. Thus the notion of a central orthodoxy from which 'Gnosticism' - or any other 'heresy' - deviated, is an improper approach"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

The most notable gnostic was Valentinius who was nbominate for Bishop of Rome:
"Valentinus taught first in Alexandria and went to Rome about 136, during the pontificate of Pope Hyginus, and remained until the pontificate of Pope Anicetus. He became so prominent among the Christian community that, according to Tertullian Adversus Valentinianos, Valentinus was a candidate for bishop of Rome"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinius

hardly not a member of the Church. Your view of the early church and how the NT developed would appear to be quite out of step with actually happened. Then the victors get to write the history. I have tried to use impartial or Christain sites to support my points.


I shall finish and sumarise. Actually the above paragraph from wikipideia sumarises my postion quite well. I go futher and suggest the same applies to the development of the NT canon, which developed not as a single divine inspiration with a bit of tinkering here and there, but from a long conflict within the christian church. Neither the books that make up the new testmant nor the contents of those books was universally accepted by the christian chuch from day 1. (The various writings of the NT have been subject to greater or lesser tampering with their texts throughout the first 3/400 years of early christian history)

 

[okinrus]

Getting dangerously close to the no true scotsman fallacy.

You can't be polytheist and Christian at the same time.

Looks like you can thank Marcion for the inclusion of the pauline works, hardly insignificant.

Well, let's look at the evidence. Marcion created his own canon, and, from what we can read from the Church father's, corrupted the books contained. How does Marcion creating his own corrupted canon influence Christians creating the canon? If any thing, because he was excomunicated, his works would be held in disfavor. Your site quotation contained second-hand sources, not primary ones. At best, Marcion might have created the need for the canon, but his influence simply is not there. That's like saying the Christians influenced the Jewish canon.

For a start you said it never happened, after i showed it did you have now changed your claim.

Yes, what I meant was that there was no evidence of book burnings. (By early Christianity I meant before monastaries) While an inindividiual monastary might impose some control, there's little evidence that this happened. Finding burried books could just mean the monks decided to bury them instead of copying them. In fact, researchers have found Qur'ans hidden away also. The burial of Qur'ans didn't immediately mean book burnings, just that Islamic custom was to bury Qur'ans which became too old.

Wikipedia isn't quite as reputable as a modern enclopedia. But the main problem I have is with their terminology. Gnostics weren't Christians. They weren't considered even Christians by Justin Marytr, who said, in a polemic debate with Typhro, that Romans blaimed Christians for gnostic's evil behavior.

The most notable gnostic was Valentinius who was nbominate for Bishop of Rome:
"Valentinus taught first in Alexandria and went to Rome about 136, during the pontificate of Pope Hyginus, and remained until the pontificate of Pope Anicetus. He became so prominent among the Christian community that, according to Tertullian Adversus Valentinianos, Valentinus was a candidate for bishop of Rome"

But this was before Valentinus started creating his ideology. Before, being in the Church, he was not a gnostic. When he started creating his own mythology, he stepped outside of the Church. When he was in the Church, he wasn't gnostic.
<blockquote>Valentinus had expected to become a bishop, because he was an able man both in genius and eloquence. Being indignant, however, that another obtained the dignity by reason of a claim which confessorship48 had given him, <em>he broke with the church of the true faith</em>. </blockquote> Adversus Valentinianos

 

[Medicine*Woman]

okinrus: Correct, but all of the church fathers believed the Father divine and Jesus was divine.
*************
M*W: Yes, but it remains that Jesus wasn't considered divine at the time of the crucifixion. He was pronounced divine at the Council of Nicaea or even later. Paul (I believe) was the first to say Jesus was divine, so it wasn't Jesus' actual divinity that the church fathers recognized, it was Paul's belief that Jesus was divine.
*************
okinrus: Well, from their writings and quotations, the church fathers treated the four gospels and Paul's writings on par with the Septuagint.
*************
M*W: Yet, the church fathers based the infallibility of the NT on
Paul's words when Paul was known as a liar, blasphemer, thief and murderer in his own day.
*************
okinrus: When you say "knew the truth," what in particular do you mean by "truth?"
*************
M*W: Paul never new Jesus yet created an entire storyline around him. When I say the "truth," I mean what is written in the Gnostic Gospels about Jesus by the people who knew him personally, and where Jesus is quoted first-hand. Comparing the Paul's NT writings with the Gnostic Gospels, the message is entirely different! In the GG, Jesus teaches about a personal salvation within every human being as being the "way, truth and life." Achieving a balance of body, mind and spirit, is what Jesus taught. He called it "becoming fully human." Jesus taught about using one's inner talents to achieve salvation within oneself. I'm not a xian as you know, but when I read the GGs and what Jesus actually said, I find a comfort in knowing the real Jesus and his true followers. This is what I consider to be the "truth."

 

[okinrus]

M*W: Paul never new Jesus yet created an entire storyline around him.

This is untrue, though. Paul didn't write the four gospels, and much of comentary on the events contained in them, was based on what the twelve Apostles and other Christians said.

M*W: Paul never new Jesus yet created an entire storyline around him. When I say the "truth," I mean what is written in the Gnostic Gospels about Jesus by the people who knew him personally, and where Jesus is quoted first-hand.

The gnostic gospels we have are usually given dates around second century, well after Christ. They all have theology that is more Greek than Jewish. Note, though, that the gnostics <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html">considered</a> Christ divine, just a lower god than the Father.

Comparing the Paul's NT writings with the Gnostic Gospels, the message is entirely different! In the GG, Jesus teaches about a personal salvation within every human being as being the "way, truth and life."

Nope, the gnostic gospels talk about secret knowledge that only a few possess.

Achieving a balance of body, mind and spirit, is what Jesus taught.

Gnostics rejected the physical body, even to concluding that Jesus was never fleshly present.

He called it "becoming fully human." Jesus taught about using one's inner talents to achieve salvation within oneself.

Knowledge is not the innerself but outside.

 

[MarcAC]

...faith in regards to there being several versions/editions of the Bible.

One cannot deny that their Christian faith is based in a large part on Biblical text (for me, no version in particular - I've been through a few; my current favourite being the BibleGateway version ).

However, as a 'student' of the Bible (A/a)uthor(s) one will eventually move away from the 'ideas' of the Bible - or the culture of the time if you wish - and apply the principles that arise from the Biblical text to the culture of today and through what he has learnt from the Biblical text explore and discover new things through faith.

Thus faith may be based in a large part on the Biblical text, but many have studied, learnt, and deconstructed the Bible to what is almost a mere historical document, yet still have their faith in God. Likewise some have done so and lost it. We all have our free will.

Thus one may see that although the Christian faith may begin with the Bible it will not end with it. Faith is dynamic and grows with experience and thus evidence. As I stated above in my previous post the Bible is only a part of God's Word to man. It gives you instructions on how to discover the other forms of God's Word.

The Bible - as I see it - is simply this; a compilation of the works of men who had faith in God as I see God. Their faith wasn't based on the Bible. Their faith was based on their life experiences - creation itself - God's works. Similarly, no mature Christian's faith will be grounded in the "New Zealot's Version"... or the "For Dummies Version"... I wonder how we haven't seen that one yet... if (their) Christianity is anything more than a "Star Wars" religious movement.

 

[water]

Marc,


Beautifully said.

 

[§outh§tar]

water, this is for you and MarcAC

However, as a 'student' of the Bible (A/a)uthor(s) one will eventually move away from the 'ideas' of the Bible - or the culture of the time if you wish - and apply the principles that arise from the Biblical text to the culture of today and through what he has learnt from the Biblical text explore and discover new things through faith.

Thus faith may be based in a large part on the Biblical text, but many have studied, learnt, and deconstructed the Bible to what is almost a mere historical document, yet still have their faith in God. Likewise some have done so and lost it. We all have our free will.

In this manner we have these abhorrent articles: arbitrariness and scornful inconsistency.

Thus one may see that although the Christian faith may begin with the Bible it will not end with it. Faith is dynamic and grows with experience and thus evidence. As I stated above in my previous post the Bible is only a part of God's Word to man. It gives you instructions on how to discover the other forms of God's Word.
The Bible - as I see it - is simply this; a compilation of the works of men who had faith in God as I see God. Their faith wasn't based on the Bible. Their faith was based on their life experiences - creation itself - God's works. Similarly, no mature Christian's faith will be grounded in the "New Zealot's Version"... or the "For Dummies Version"... I wonder how we haven't seen that one yet... if (their) Christianity is anything more than a "Star Wars" religious movement.

Outstanding circular reasoning! Assume God's works in creation (which God?), assume God's handiwork in the Bible, and assume God Himself. Why? And the vicious cycle continues. Abominable, it is.

 

[MarcAC]

Outstanding circular reasoning!

Existence itself is not based on logical reasoning - it is based on experience - yet everything follows from existence. Reasoning isn't always applicable... but as one slips into the atheist black hole one will start to think that.

Assume God's works in creation (which God?),

God The Creater. The Loving God. The Personal God.

assume God's handiwork in the Bible, and assume God Himself. Why?

It was written by men who had faith in God as I still see God.