Okay so I have lots of questions about Christianity, but let's start with one of the most basic.

What are you following exactly? Christianity has different doctrines depending on your denomination. They have something in common. One of those things is the Bible.

If you are reading in English, you are talking about the King James Version, based on the Textus Receptus. It is an old english version that contains disputed passages such as the "Comma Johanneum". It is disputed because it only started being found from the 5-7th centuries AD. Hardly clear that it is the original word of the gospel writers. Earlier manuscripts entirely omit it as if it wasn't there. This is so disputed, in fact, that most Bible editions after the 19th century do not even contain it!

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

Owing to the widespread use of the Textus Receptus (TR) as the principal source-language text for Bible editions, the comma is also contained in most translations published from 1522 until the latter part of the nineteenth century.

This may be an example of what is called "pious fraud".

Mark 7:18-20 also contains a parenthetical statement stating that Jesus declared all foods clean. Once again this seems to be a conveniently added statement which many Bibles do not include.

So when you say you trust "The Bible" what do you mean? The English King James Version? The New Revised Standard Edition? They differ in their content, sometimes in doctrinal passages.

Now let's go further back in history. How did our Bible come to be the way it is? Well first of all there are lots of editions even back then. The Latin Vulgate happened to be one of the most famous ones.

Even earlier, in the first centuries, there was quite a bit of dispute about what were the authentic gospels. Irenaeus brought such weighty arguments as:

Irenaeus declared that the four he espoused were the four "Pillars of the Church": "it is not possible that there can be either more or fewer than four" he stated, presenting as logic the analogy of the four corners of the earth and the four winds (3.11..

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

In 325 AD, Constantine (after conquering Rome) proclaimed Christianity the official religion, convened the Council of Nicaea and the official creed affirming the trinity was born, and the canon was established.

So how do you know that the contents of the Bible have anything to do with divine inspiration? It seems more like a lot of political infighting.

Going even further back. What are the gospels? Most historians will admit that they were *anonymous* documents. For example Matthew was an anonymous document, and was simply attributed to Matthew, and we don't even know if the original was written in Hebrew or Greek! Furthermore, the translations have caused a lot of people anxiety. For example:

Matthew 5:27-28
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Here we have an anonymous document translated into Latin then into English and here is what we got. Many Christians are worried about getting attracted to girls!

In reality, let's use a little logic. It says adultery. Adultery can ONLY be with a woman who is married. How can two unmarried teenagers commit adultery? They can't.

Did you know that in both Hebrew and ancient Greek, the word for WOMAN and WIFE are exactly the same? "isha" = woman = wife. So the document probably should have been translated like this:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a WIFE lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Which is quite similar to the commandment "do not covet your neighbor's wife".

In short, we have:

1. probably forged additions
2. canonization as a result of political infighting and denouncing others as heretics
3. anonymous documents written 30 years after the events accepted as gospel
4. translations which have given rise to doctrines based on translation alone

when you say you "trust the Bible" what do you mean? Which Bible? Trusting it to be infallible does not make sense if there are different editions.

Hi Egreg and welcome to the forum I will attempt to answer some of your questions.

Quote: › If you are reading in English, you are talking about the King James Version, based on the Textus Receptus. It is an old english version that contains disputed passages such as the "Comma Johanneum". It is disputed because it only started being found from the 5-7th centuries AD. Hardly clear that it is the original word of the gospel writers. Earlier manuscripts entirely omit it as if it wasn't there. This is so disputed, in fact, that most Bible editions after the 19th century do not even contain it!

It just so happens I have just started reading an article on this issue. The author suggests the comma is of an early date and quotes Jerome moaning how some people had been removing it before his time ~400ADish. He (the author not Jerome) suggests it was also removed from early Greek texts because of the Arians getting the upper hand over the Athenasians at the time and the removal helped them (Arians) in their trinity debates.
I have only started the article and may be able to add more later.

Psst on the quiet did you notice someone called "Revelations Too" here on this forum a day or two ago quote from Mark 16:12-16, with no cautionary warning, if you get my drift?

Quote: › Mark 7:18-20 also contains a parenthetical statement stating that Jesus declared all foods clean. Once again this seems to be a conveniently added statement which many Bibles do not include.

I wasn't aware of this can you elaborate a bit.

Quote: › So when you say you trust "The Bible" what do you mean? The English King James Version? The New Revised Standard Edition? They differ in their content, sometimes in doctrinal passages.

Its my understanding that no textual differences result in any doctrinal "problems" can you give an example?

Quote: › What are the gospels? Most historians will admit that they were *anonymous* documents. For example Matthew was an anonymous document, and was simply attributed to Matthew

There is a theory that although say Mathew doesn't mention his name, in reality when these things were written on scrolls ,the actual scroll would have a tag saying Mathew on it.

The Bible is a collection of 66 books written by about 40 authors, in three different languages, on three different continents, over approximately 1600 years. The Bible claims to be inspired and inerrant. This means that the Bible claims to be from God and that it is without error in everything it addresses.

http://calvaryoakville.com

calvaryoakville wrote (View Post): › The Bible is a collection of 66 books written by about 40 authors, in three different languages, on three different continents, over approximately 1600 years. The Bible claims to be inspired and inerrant. This means that the Bible claims to be from God and that it is without error in everything it addresses.

You said the Bible is a collection. Then you say that the collection claims something. Can you be more specific -- do you mean that a particular book or books in the collection claim that they AND the rest of the collection is inerrant? How would the books know which other books would wind up in the collection?

It seems strange. Let's say I write a book today, and then I say that in 500 years there will be a collection, and that every book that winds up in the collection will be inspired and inerrant.

Do you see what I mean? Can you please provide quotes from the Bible that shows that ALL books (not just the ones in the past, but the ones that will make it into the book we know now as the Bible) are inerrant? I am not aware of such a quote. The closest I can get is this:

http://bible.cc/2_timothy/3-16.htm

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;"

But of course, this begs the question of what is scripture. Before the Bible was canonized under the council of Nicaea, the early Church had a lot of disagreements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon#Early_Christianity_.28c.30-325.29

For example, Clement of Rome did not consider letters of Paul to be scripture. So what would the statement in Timothy's gospel mean to him?

At the end, only four gospels were accepted as canonical:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_Gospels#Canonical_gospels

But this was not always the case. Irenaus wrote a book called "Adversus Heresies" in which he argued against other gospels.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book1.html

In short ... I am not sure what you mean by "The Bible claims to be inspired and inerrant". Once you clarify this we can figure out what the reasons are to believe that claim.

Ps.. Bible helps us to know what God wants us to do and it helps us in our daily living

[url=http://calvaryoakville.com/]Contemporary Church in Oakville[/url]

Hi Mole,

You said: "Psst on the quiet did you notice someone called "Revelations Too" here on this forum a day or two ago quote from Mark 16:12-16, with no cautionary warning, if you get my drift? "

I thought that the addition or deletion of a certain comma issue was so well known that no additional warning was needed.

I am not the one who made the change.

The change was made without revelation,

The change appears to have been made with a specific motive.

Are you implying that this change was made to bolster a new doctrine introduced about 325A.D.?

Ok
Egreg was talking about disputed parts of the Bible and mentioned the Johanine comma.
I as an aside mentioned that you had quoted Mark 16:12-16 which you did on the Israel thread 0n 15th april 2012 and here it is

Quote: › What were the instructions given to the disciples by the risen Lord? Mark 16:12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. 14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

The Mark verses are of course the longer disputed ending of Mark. The comma issue is another issue from the John's 1st epistle (1 John 5:7-8 )

Egreg was discusing disputed verses of the Bible and you just happened to quote from one of them the previous day, which I pointed out to him.
I hope this clarifies things.

EGreg wrote (View Post): › when you say you "trust the Bible" what do you mean? Which Bible? Trusting it to be infallible does not make sense if there are different editions.

I haven't read the above responses to the initial post so I apologize if I cover something that someone else has previously covered in their responses.

I don't think it is a correct turn of speech to say that we need to trust 'the' Bible. I think it is correct, however, to say that we should trust 'the' God of the Bible. The Bible is 'God-breathed' (2 Timothy 3v16). There may be many 'editions' but ultimately if we believe in the preservation of Scripture and God (who is revealed through the revelation of Scripture) then in turn, we should also be able to trust that what we know of God and other scriptural doctrines are in fact accurate and true.

If we don't trust 'the' Bible then how can we have any trust in the God which 'the' Bible reveals?