Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Why those books of the Bible?

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 11:57:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm just wandering why all the books of the Bible were chosen to be included and why most Christians accept all of them. I mean there were 40 (I think) authors of the Bible. How do we know all of them wrote the truth, or part truth?

Anyways, this is the idea I had of doing for myself, but I'd like to hear what other people have to say first.

To go through every book of the Bible from start to finish.

Do one book at a time, so starting with Genesis.

Annotate, make notes, do research on its validity, it's historical accuracy and archeological finds that support it, see if there are any fulfilled prophecies or unfulfilled, do research on the author and whether there's any speculation of who wrote it, contemplate whether it's compatible with Christianity or God, whether it contradicts other parts of scriptures, whether there are any good reasons for it to be or not to be included in scriptures, and so on. Being careful not to simply be cherry picking my beliefs, out of what I think sounds appealing.

Then with that research and study I decide whether I think the book is of God. And so I go throughout the whole Bible doing so which my take a very long time, but in the end I'll have a clearer view of what I believe, and a better understanding of the scriptures.

If I do decide to undertake this task I promise to tell everyone here of my findings after each book, and after I'm finally finished to make a whole summary. :)
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 12:01:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 11:57:31 AM, phantom wrote:
I'm just wandering why all the books of the Bible were chosen to be included and why most Christians accept all of them. I mean there were 40 (I think) authors of the Bible. How do we know all of them wrote the truth, or part truth?

Anyways, this is the idea I had of doing for myself, but I'd like to hear what other people have to say first.

To go through every book of the Bible from start to finish.

Do one book at a time, so starting with Genesis.

Annotate, make notes, do research on its validity, it's historical accuracy and archeological finds that support it, see if there are any fulfilled prophecies or unfulfilled, do research on the author and whether there's any speculation of who wrote it, contemplate whether it's compatible with Christianity or God, whether it contradicts other parts of scriptures, whether there are any good reasons for it to be or not to be included in scriptures, and so on. Being careful not to simply be cherry picking my beliefs, out of what I think sounds appealing.

Then with that research and study I decide whether I think the book is of God. And so I go throughout the whole Bible doing so which my take a very long time, but in the end I'll have a clearer view of what I believe, and a better understanding of the scriptures.

If I do decide to undertake this task I promise to tell everyone here of my findings after each book, and after I'm finally finished to make a whole summary. :)

I do not accept all of them
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 12:07:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 11:57:31 AM, phantom wrote:
I'm just wandering why all the books of the Bible were chosen to be included and why most Christians accept all of them. I mean there were 40 (I think) authors of the Bible. How do we know all of them wrote the truth, or part truth?

Anyways, this is the idea I had of doing for myself, but I'd like to hear what other people have to say first.

To go through every book of the Bible from start to finish.

Do one book at a time, so starting with Genesis.

Annotate, make notes, do research on its validity, it's historical accuracy and archeological finds that support it, see if there are any fulfilled prophecies or unfulfilled, do research on the author and whether there's any speculation of who wrote it, contemplate whether it's compatible with Christianity or God, whether it contradicts other parts of scriptures, whether there are any good reasons for it to be or not to be included in scriptures, and so on. Being careful not to simply be cherry picking my beliefs, out of what I think sounds appealing.

Then with that research and study I decide whether I think the book is of God. And so I go throughout the whole Bible doing so which my take a very long time, but in the end I'll have a clearer view of what I believe, and a better understanding of the scriptures.

If I do decide to undertake this task I promise to tell everyone here of my findings after each book, and after I'm finally finished to make a whole summary. :)

All that's needed is to read Genesis Ch 1 (with it's 2 hippies and a talking snake) and if that doesn't tell you it's a pile of old rollocks then nothing will. To ask the reason why particular books were included is making the assumption that it's been looked after in a consistent way. It's partly due to the political flavour of the month and random chance. I wouldn't look any deeper than that. It's the Emperor's New Clothes. It's a product of it's time. It's God in man's image - and not woman's image.
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 12:13:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Jesus defended the Old Testament the Gospals, so they are valid.

The Gospals were written by four disciples of Christ, so they are eye witness accounts.

The rest are letters to the churches in the ancient Roman Empire. They were past down from generation to generation leading leadinf up to the making of the Bible.

But I think the real question is whether to accept the Volgate Bible, or the King James Version. Personally I thing KJV is better because all of the books in the version were done by desciples of Christ with the exception of Paul.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 12:15:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 12:07:27 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:

All that's needed is to read Genesis Ch 1 (with it's 2 hippies and a talking snake) and if that doesn't tell you it's a pile of old rollocks then nothing will. To ask the reason why particular books were included is making the assumption that it's been looked after in a consistent way. It's partly due to the political flavour of the month and random chance. I wouldn't look any deeper than that. It's the Emperor's New Clothes. It's a product of it's time. It's God in man's image - and not woman's image.

Allot of the early OT I already reject. I'm still going to go through all the books. Maybe I'll change other Christians minds.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 12:20:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 12:13:19 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
Jesus defended the Old Testament the Gospals, so they are valid.

How much of the OT? We'll see.

The Gospals were written by four disciples of Christ, so they are eye witness accounts.

The rest are letters to the churches in the ancient Roman Empire. They were past down from generation to generation leading leadinf up to the making of the Bible.

I currently believe most of the NT but that each author has his own opinion that sometimes contradicts with others.

But I think the real question is whether to accept the Volgate Bible, or the King James Version. Personally I thing KJV is better because all of the books in the version were done by desciples of Christ with the exception of Paul.

I'll be reading from the NASB. Not that I won't be looking at other translations.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 12:22:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 12:13:19 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
Jesus defended the Old Testament the Gospals, so they are valid.

The Gospals were written by four disciples of Christ, so they are eye witness accounts.

The rest are letters to the churches in the ancient Roman Empire. They were past down from generation to generation leading leadinf up to the making of the Bible.

But I think the real question is whether to accept the Volgate Bible, or the King James Version. Personally I thing KJV is better because all of the books in the version were done by desciples of Christ with the exception of Paul.

Eye witness testimony? Really? Is this verifiable? You've conveniently forgotten about the hypothetical Q document that Matthew and Luke "borrowed" heavily from and the fact that the Bible as we know it wasn't properly compiled until the 4th century CE.
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 1:03:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
My own research on the gospels leads me to believe that at least two of the current gospels (Mark and Matthew, I believe) were written if not by the actual disciples then by their children or someone in the following generation. This would allow for absolute minimal amounts of divergence from the stories these disciples wanted to tell.

This is encouraging more than it is worrying. Christianity wasn't popular at the time, it stands to reason that it would take that long for the gospels to be committed to writing.

What is more worrying than encouraging is the period of time during which the bible itself began to take shape. The translation attempts in 302 were meant to standardise the scriptures, which implies that between the time when the gospels were written (Between 60 AD to 120 AD if memory serves) and the year 302 then there was divergence enough for standardisation to be reqiuired. The phrase. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind. That resulted in the Vulgate Bible.

However, in the middle of the fourth century, so within a lifetime at the time for most, the new testament began to be collated. Which implies that the gospels, the only primary sources, were ignored in the Vulgate bible, which allows for any number of divergences that could be completely false and yet still make it through due to the longetivity of the vulgate bible.

Augustine had every single piece of the new testament "approved" by two councils, which raises more questions as to why holy text needs "approving" by anyone unless there's an agenda in play. While it could be to insist upon accuracy and simplicity, I can't shake the feeling that if that were the case then the bible ought to be bigger. Every disciple had a gospel, and yet we see only one third of them in the bible itself. Luke was a prominent writer who wrote at least one other book of the bible that I know of (the book of Acts) which raises questions as to what other books may have been written by the disciples or those involved with Jesus and his life that weren't included because of the church at the time?

This concern increases with the canonisation of the gospels which effectively sought to automatically reject anything that was not already within the tetramorph. The problem with this being that it provides a potentially incomplete picture. Not to mention the possibility of mistakes, mistranslations or simple reading errors that could have taken place during the bible's founding.

A good example of this is the Gospel of Judas. One of the gospels suppressed and ultimately banned from biblical canon by Ireneus. The gospel states that Judas didn't betray Jesus, but instead was acting explicitly on Jesus' orders. Note that this version actually lends credence to the theory that Jesus was to be a sacrifice for the sake of humanity. It meant that Jesus would have to ensure that he was in fact killed at the right time in the right manner. Instead we read of Judas the betrayer, which makes Jesus' foreknowledge of his death seem unnecessrily mystic.

Jesus' knowledge and abilities could be skwered depending on the editing. A man could be demonised throughout history simply for following the orders of his messiah.

Ultimately I think the bible's word is questionable not because of whether it is false or true, but because of what some crusty old c*nt decided SHOULD be false or true.

Its entirely possible that the Christian God is real, and Jesus was every bit as special and symbolic and powerful as the bible states, and yet that every single Christian that has ever lived and ever will live from the year 400AD is following a horribly inaccurate creed purely because a small group of people decided to screw around with biblical texts.

Not sure about anyone else but if I were a Christian, or any other kind of theist for that matter, I wouldn't be too pleased about following a creed my entire life only to be punished for eternity because some idiot misunderstood, mistranslated or just downright decided to change what the creed consisted of.

Still, it's a fascinating field, all the same.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 2:48:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Books of the Bible were cannonized based upon several principles.
They were not banned or any such nonsense or any of the other claims above.

***
First, the question was asked did the vast vast majority of Bishops know the books and consider them scripture and utilize them as such?
In this sense they discovered which books were cannon by realizing that any book that was not widely known could not be considered being perpetuated by the Holy Spirit. (All the OT books included in the septuigant met this criteria) and used since the earliest times of the spread of the churches from the original 8, otherwise it would have gone with them.

***
Second, was it well attested to be very early. If it could not be shown to be early it was not considered.

***
Third, the authorship needed to be attested to by the overwhelming majority of the Bishops. Was it an apostol or did the work have apostolic authority.

***
Fourth, was the theology taught within the books consistent with all of the other known books. Did it teach concepts unknown to the Bishops that gathered and concepts that were directly contradictory.

***
Summary, if 95% of bishops of the day were not familiar with a book, who wrote it, its internal teachings, and the books contradicted other 'validated' books, it was not considered to be cannonical.

The cannonization is a very logical secular process.

Books that were not included in the Septuigant for the OT was not considered cannonical. Several were taught and believed to be inspired by many of the churchs, but not included in the cannon.

The book of Enoch is an example with Jubilees. The Ethiopic Church still uses the book of Enoch as scripture today and it is the copy we have today to compare against the recently discovered ancient copies.

Cannon does not mean God did not inspire or write it. It was a largely secular process to rule out false documents. It did not invalidate or validate documents that could not meet the four criteria.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 4:00:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Another thing I've always found odd about Christianity. So many divine books were left out because a few men decided they didn't want them. I think it was History, but I recall watching a show called "Lost Books of the Bible" that completely focused on this. Many books, like the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary, Enoch, the book of Adam and Eve, were all lost from the organizing of the Bible. Some are still available to read; others are lost to the sands of time.

I don't understand how when Protestants defected from the Church, they denounced every practice: except the Bible. In fact, that was the only thing that they said they could believe in - but the Bible was controlled and dictated by the Church at the time. You see what I'm getting at? Denounce the ENTIRE Church, except the Bible. Obviously.

I think you get a far different picture of Christianity when you start learning about the Apocrypha. After all, those men (and women) would say it was the divine word of God as they received it.

Also, who can forget that there's actually MULTIPLE Apocalyptic books? Does that not mean anything to anyone?
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 4:26:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 2:48:00 PM, Gileandos wrote:
The Books of the Bible were cannonized based upon several principles.
They were not banned or any such nonsense or any of the other claims above.

***
First, the question was asked did the vast vast majority of Bishops know the books and consider them scripture and utilize them as such?
In this sense they discovered which books were cannon by realizing that any book that was not widely known could not be considered being perpetuated by the Holy Spirit. (All the OT books included in the septuigant met this criteria) and used since the earliest times of the spread of the churches from the original 8, otherwise it would have gone with them.

***
Second, was it well attested to be very early. If it could not be shown to be early it was not considered.

***
Third, the authorship needed to be attested to by the overwhelming majority of the Bishops. Was it an apostol or did the work have apostolic authority.

***
Fourth, was the theology taught within the books consistent with all of the other known books. Did it teach concepts unknown to the Bishops that gathered and concepts that were directly contradictory.


***
Summary, if 95% of bishops of the day were not familiar with a book, who wrote it, its internal teachings, and the books contradicted other 'validated' books, it was not considered to be cannonical.

The cannonization is a very logical secular process.


Books that were not included in the Septuigant for the OT was not considered cannonical. Several were taught and believed to be inspired by many of the churchs, but not included in the cannon.

The book of Enoch is an example with Jubilees. The Ethiopic Church still uses the book of Enoch as scripture today and it is the copy we have today to compare against the recently discovered ancient copies.


Cannon does not mean God did not inspire or write it. It was a largely secular process to rule out false documents. It did not invalidate or validate documents that could not meet the four criteria.

All this relies on human competence. Anyone that bets their eternal soul on the competence of another person is an idiot.

Besides, if these other books were so unnecessary as you claim, then why were they actively suppressed? Actually, wait, don't answer that. It may be best if you look at the material itself first. The most convenient and free-to-use method of finding out about them that I could find is here: http://www.scribd.com... but feel free to post anything alternative if its pertinent.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 5:40:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 4:26:30 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 12/30/2011 2:48:00 PM, Gileandos wrote:
The Books of the Bible were cannonized based upon several principles.
They were not banned or any such nonsense or any of the other claims above.

***
First, the question was asked did the vast vast majority of Bishops know the books and consider them scripture and utilize them as such?
In this sense they discovered which books were cannon by realizing that any book that was not widely known could not be considered being perpetuated by the Holy Spirit. (All the OT books included in the septuigant met this criteria) and used since the earliest times of the spread of the churches from the original 8, otherwise it would have gone with them.

***
Second, was it well attested to be very early. If it could not be shown to be early it was not considered.

***
Third, the authorship needed to be attested to by the overwhelming majority of the Bishops. Was it an apostol or did the work have apostolic authority.

***
Fourth, was the theology taught within the books consistent with all of the other known books. Did it teach concepts unknown to the Bishops that gathered and concepts that were directly contradictory.


***
Summary, if 95% of bishops of the day were not familiar with a book, who wrote it, its internal teachings, and the books contradicted other 'validated' books, it was not considered to be cannonical.

The cannonization is a very logical secular process.


Books that were not included in the Septuigant for the OT was not considered cannonical. Several were taught and believed to be inspired by many of the churchs, but not included in the cannon.

The book of Enoch is an example with Jubilees. The Ethiopic Church still uses the book of Enoch as scripture today and it is the copy we have today to compare against the recently discovered ancient copies.


Cannon does not mean God did not inspire or write it. It was a largely secular process to rule out false documents. It did not invalidate or validate documents that could not meet the four criteria.

All this relies on human competence. Anyone that bets their eternal soul on the competence of another person is an idiot.

Actually, it was established via logic and reason. Anyone that best their soul on a logical process will be saved :)


Besides, if these other books were so unnecessary as you claim, then why were they actively suppressed? Actually, wait, don't answer that. It may be best if you look at the material itself first. The most convenient and free-to-use method of finding out about them that I could find is here: http://www.scribd.com... but feel free to post anything alternative if its pertinent.

Disuse is not supression.
- They were not widespread to begin with
- There were few copies in circulation
- Those copies were regional at best
- They were not taught in the Catholic Churches
- They were not kept in the libraries

- Many times the actual Cannon was attacked and burned but it survived due to widespread use and belief in its inspiration. If these other books shared that favor of the Theologians they would have survived.
- The accounts there were few and late had no way of being validated or tracked to an early Apostolic source.
Calvincambridge
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 11:12:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I' currently reading the whole Bible but i'm skipping around.
Trying to figure out women is like trying to solve a Rubik's cube with missing pieces. While blind. And on fire. And being shot.-Agent_Orange
Dude. Shades
That is all.- Thaddeus Rivers
One thing that isn't a joke though is the fact that woman are computers.Some buttons you can press and it'l work fine, but if you push the wrong one you'll get the blue screen of death.
silly, thett. girls are only good for sex. being friends with a female is of no value.-darkkermit
Calvincambridge
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 11:14:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I accept all 66 books plus 1 apocryphal book.
Trying to figure out women is like trying to solve a Rubik's cube with missing pieces. While blind. And on fire. And being shot.-Agent_Orange
Dude. Shades
That is all.- Thaddeus Rivers
One thing that isn't a joke though is the fact that woman are computers.Some buttons you can press and it'l work fine, but if you push the wrong one you'll get the blue screen of death.
silly, thett. girls are only good for sex. being friends with a female is of no value.-darkkermit
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 11:19:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
To me Christianity is logical because how could 2 billion people today and countless millions from the past 2000 years all be duped by a lie? It doesn't make sense.

(and yes I am aware that the atheists are going to destroy me for this comment)
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 6:12:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Gileandos said:
Disuse is not supression.
- They were not widespread to begin with
- There were few copies in circulation
- Those copies were regional at best
- They were not taught in the Catholic Churches
- They were not kept in the libraries

Again, I notice a lack of sources for the above claims.

Also, actually, yes it is. Its called suppression by preference. If someone like, say, the church decides to do something like, oh, say, canonising certain books then the implication is that the others aren't as worthy or aren't as true. If someone like a priest, a holy (snerk) authority (snerk snerk) comes along and says "oi, all those books are wrong, but these books are good" then people aren't going to access the "wrong" books because they want to read the truth, but by actively showing preference, the church is automatically suppressing the rest.

Gileandos said:
- Many times the actual Cannon was attacked and burned but it survived due to widespread use and belief in its inspiration. If these other books shared that favor of the Theologians they would have survived.
- The accounts there were few and late had no way of being validated or tracked to an early Apostolic source.

Once again, a lack of sources for these claims. Also, how do you burn a canon, precisely?

Besides, you're forgetting about the infancy gospels which mainly paint a picture of Jesus as a kid, and like many kids with godly powers, he was kind of a d*ck. These gospels were considered outright heretical. You know what the Inquisition did to people suspected of heresy or found to be in possession of heretical material now, don't you?

Look, when an institution like the church that holds such near-tangible influence over the lives of people needing guidance, them saying "These books good, those books bad" is suppression by definition. People aren't going to cling to something rejected by the authority on the subject.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?