Which bible is correct?

PoleStar

Just a question which occurred to me and perhaps some Christians can help me.

Which books/gospels about Jesus and his life and times are true. There are many gospels which are not included in the bible, such as the Gospel according to Judas etc, and many more. Many of these conflict with what is said in the bible that is accepted today.

Also even within the bible, many verses contradict each other with relation to the life of Jesus etc.

Which one is the right one?

Run_to_da_hills

You cannot go wrong with the 1611 King James. If its not in the King James its not in the Bible.

The Mad Hatter

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

You cannot go wrong with the 1611 King James. If its not in the King James its not in the Bible.

Why do you think this?

Sapien

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

You cannot go wrong with the 1611 King James. If its not in the King James its not in the Bible.

Are you serious?

Run_to_da_hills

Sapien wrote:

Are you serious?

Yes, all modern Bibles are corrupt!

The Mad Hatter

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

Yes, all modern Bibles are corrupt!

On what grounds are you saying this?

Run_to_da_hills

The Mad Hatter wrote:

On what grounds are you saying this?

I could write a book on this subject however I will compare the KJV with just the NIV as it is probably the most popular translation to-day.

The NIV removes and perverts the place of hell! The word "hell" occurs 31 times in the Old Testament in the King James Bible. In the Old Testament of the NIV it occurs ZERO! The word "hell" is NOT in the Old Testament of the NIV!

In PSALM 9:17 The King James reads, "The wicked shall be turned into HELL." The NIV, reads, "The wicked return to the GRAVE." We ALL "return to the GRAVE"! By removing "hell" the NIV perverts Psalm 9:17 into complete nonsense!

The Bible warns against taking away and adding to the words of God!
Deuteronomy 4:2 reads: "YE SHALL NOT ADD unto the word which I command you, NEITHER SHALL YE DIMINISH ought from it."

PDN

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

I could write a book on this subject however I will compare the KJV with just the NIV as it is probably the most popular translation to-day.

The NIV removes and perverts the place of hell! The word "hell" occurs 31 times in the Old Testament in the King James Bible. In the Old Testament of the NIV it occurs ZERO! The word "hell" is NOT in the Old Testament of the NIV!

In PSALM 9:17 The King James reads, "The wicked shall be turned into HELL." The NIV, reads, "The wicked return to the GRAVE." We ALL "return to the GRAVE"! By removing "hell" the NIV perverts Psalm 9:17 into complete nonsense!

The Bible warns against taking away and adding to the words of God!
Deuteronomy 4:2 reads: "YE SHALL NOT ADD unto the word which I command you, NEITHER SHALL YE DIMINISH ought from it."

The reason the NIV translates Sheol and Hades as 'the grave' is because that is what the Hebrew and the Greek words actually mean.

The King James Bible was an incredible piece of work by a group of men 400 years ago. However, it is, like any work of men, far from perfect. Any translation must, by definition, be imperfect.

Run_to_da_hills

PDN wrote:

The reason the NIV translates Sheol and Hades as 'the grave' is because that is what the Hebrew and the Greek words actually mean.

The King James is taken from the "Textus Receptus" Greek translation.

PDN

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

The King James is taken from the "Texus Receptus" Greek translation.

Well, the New Testament of the KJV certainly is based on the Greek Textus Receptus. The Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text.

However, the Greek word hades is still in the Textus Receptus, and it still doesn't mean 'hell'.

Sapien

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

Yes, all modern Bibles are corrupt!

On the scale of the history of the Hebrew nation, or even just the Christian era, King James is pretty modern.

You just don't want to have to learn Hebrew and Greek to believe that you can know the word of God.

Scofflaw

Ooh...bibliolatry!

amused,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Ooh...bibliolatry!

True bibliolatry (worship of the Bible) is very rare. However, the word has become a useful term of abuse that simply means someone else holds the Bible to more authoritative than you yourself do. If you are a professing Christian who wants to dodge biblical teaching on a subject, then it sounds pretty wishy-washy to say that your opponent believes the Bible more than you do. However, to accuse them of 'bibliolatry' sounds much more impressive.

Those who say they believe in the inerrancy and full authority of Scripture generally mean by this that the original autographs (in Greek and Hebrew) were what is without error. The Old Testament, it is usually agreed, comprises of the 39 books of Hebrew Scripture that Jesus Himself used and endorsed. The New Testament was written over a period of time (probably between 55 and 90 AD), so most inerrantists would see the original autographs of the New Testament as being the the first collection of the 27 books gathered together shortly after the writing of Revelation.

Of course the problem is that we don't possess a copy of these original autographs, and since early copies were all hand produced then we get minor variations between manuscripts. As with any typo, these variations are usually easily spotted and corrected, and do not generally impact upon any vital truth or hinder anyone's understanding of the message of salvation contained in the Scriptures. But part of Theology's task is to engage in textual criticism so as to try to determine the Hebrew and Greek text that, as much as we can tell, equates to the original. Obviously archaeological finds etc. have improved since 1611, so modern translations are generally based on a better Hebrew & Greek text that that used by the translators of the King James Version.

The problem with translations, of anything, is that one word in the original language often carries shades of meaning that can never be accurately translated by one single word in translation. This is why online translators, such as Babelfish, often produce nonsensical results. It takes a skilled translator to make the judgment call as to which shade of meaning in a word is intended, and often this means examining the context. This is especially difficult when translating puns (and the Hebrews were very fond of puns and wordplays - the Old Testament is full of them). For example, "One man's fish is another man's poisson" is a (very bad) pun on an old English proverb and a play on the French word for 'fish' - but if you tried to translate it into Japanese then a word for word translation would be incomprehensible.

Of course language also changes. We no longer speak the same English as was spoken in 1611 (and the language of the King James Version was outdated even when it was first produced, largely due to many religious people's silly notion that words become more holy if you say them in an archaic form and a pious tone of voice). I remember, as a child, being beaten by my Dad for using the word 'piss'. My objection, that the word 'pisseth' occurs 6 times in the King James Bible, did not save me from the beating. What was an everyday word in polite society in 1611 was no longer so in 1967 (although runtodahills will no doubt be gratified that the good King James Version terminology of 'piss' is now no longer as verboten as it was 40 years ago).

The point of this long and rather rambling post is that it is logically impossible for any translation of anything to totally convey all the meaning of the original with 100% accuracy. The best way to get a full understanding, other than learning a new language, is to compare different translations and to read the translators' notes.

Therefore, it is logically impossible for both the original autographs and the 1611 King James Version to be the uncorrupted Word of God. We have three main options:
1. The original autographs (including the Hebrew Scriptures used by Jesus and the Greek texts as they came with the ink still wet from the pens of Matthew, Luke & Paul etc) were in themselves incomplete and corrupt. But, when translated by a committee of English and Scottish theologians and academics in the 17th Century then they at last achieved the full potential that God had been waiting for and became the pure, uncorrupted Word of God. This of course mans that only English speakers get to read or hear the true Word of God, since the full meaning of English words could never be fully expressed in a Chinese or French word-for-word translation.
2. The original autographs were perfect, and various manuscripts and translations through the centuries have, to a wonderful extent, captured the essence of what is contained therein. However, we recognise that no translation can ever be perfect (this, as you may guess, is my standpoint).
3. It's all a load of nonsense anyway. (The preferred option of some of our interlopers from the A&A forum).

Excelsior

To answer the OP, I think that there is a confusion in the question. There is only one "Bible". (This is a bulletin board so I am simplifying the question regarding the Apocropha)

The Bible is made up of the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament is a collection of 39 books written between 1400BC and 400BC that make up the Hebrew Bible. These are the books that Jews to this day hold as sacred. They make up an amazing tapestry with many different literary genres and themes. But the major theme running through this books is that somethng very serious has gone wrong in the world, bringing evil into play. The hope that these books keep returning to is that the Creator of this universe will intervene to set things right.

The New Testament is a collection of 27 books written between 45AD and 90AD. Alongside the Hebrew texts they complete the Bible. They take the form of 4 Gospels, a history book called the Acts (of the Apostles), a number of letters written by Saul of Tarsus who we now call Paul, Peter, John, James and an anonymous lady or gent who wrote the letter to the Hebrews and finally a piece of apocolyptic writing by the apostle John written while in exile on an island off Greece. The Gospels are a kind of history that we call bios, basically a kind of Greek biography. They were written by early Christian followers.

Its important to realise that when Paul sat down to write the letter to Christians in the city of Corinth that became II Corinthians, he did not think he was writing a new book for the Bible. The same is true of all the books really. Lots of letters and correspondence were written in between Jesus' death in or around 30AD and the end of that century. Even more were written in each successive generation. It makes sense, doesn't it, that if your life is transformed by this new revolutionary movement you'd want to write about it?!

The letters and Gospels that became the New Testament started to firm up in or around 150AD. Certainly by then the consensus was set about the Gospels. There was some difference about the letters for another 2 hundred years or so. Hebrews is a book written for Jewish converts so it didn't make much sense for Christians in Lyon to read it. Revelations was a book aimed at victims of the Roman imperialism so it wouldn't have been so popular in Ethiopia. The key thing to understand is that individual Christian communities (who were undergoing persecution) made these choices for themselves. They selected the books that served them well. These books for the largest part are the ones that were maintained as the New Testament in the centuries that followed (400AD+) as the church became more institutionalised and powerful. The decisions they made didn't in fact differ in any grand way from what was the practice of Christians across the world for the centuries previous.

There are many fascinating extra-Biblical texts that can teach you alot about early Christianity. But the Biblical texts are still the most interesting historical items for learning about this early movement. Books like the Didache are intruiging but they are largely meaningless if you aren't well familiar with the 4 Gospels.

There are also lots of apparently Christian texts from the era which we call the pseudoipigrapha. These are often the texts of religious communities that were influenced by the rapidly spreading Jewish story that Christianity actually is, without being Christian. The Gospel of Judas is perhaps in this category. It was written 300 years after Jesus. It doesn't aspire to be bios at all. It is not "untrue". It just that it tells the story of a different community from the Christian one. Hope this helps.

(Sorry to the pedants for my simplifications)

Tim Robbins

Interesting discussion. It should be pointed out that, although estimates can be made when certain parts of the Bible were written, nobody actually knows when the Bible was actually compiled as it is today with the selected texts.

Somebody (or bodies), somewhere at sometime made a decision what was Canon and what was not Canon.

In some cases, the parts that were left out contradict the parts that were left in.

Maybe they were correctly left out because they were unreliable or maybe they were incorrectly left out because what they said which didn't suit the early Church(es).

We don't really know. Christian theologians will generally tell you that the Canonical Gospels are more reliable than Gnostic Gospels because of the time they were written and by the number of people using them.

I would recommend any atheist / theist to read both Canonical and Gnostic Gospels. One has to remember that the scribes, didn't have spell and grammar checker, editorial reviews and all the things that contempory writers have today and can take for granted. When one bears this in mind and sees the amount of colour and depth of thought in them, it is hard not to be impressed. But my own opinion is that doesn't mean they are good history. I would skeptical of a newspaper written last Sunday, so I would naturally be skeptical of the inerrancy and spin of something written a few thousand years ago when literacy rates were very low and scientific thinking as we know it today didn't really exist.

Excelsior

Tim Robbins wrote:

... nobody actually knows when the Bible was actually compiled as it is today with the selected texts.

Absolutely true. Although there are good reasons to think that Genesis, for example, is an oral tale about 6000 years old, we can only vaguely say that the book we have now was written around 1100 BC. But we are better off with the New Testament. We know when Paul's letters were written within a year or two, just a slightly bigger margin of error with the Gospels and we know the last book came in before the end of the first century AD.

TR wrote:

Somebody (or bodies), somewhere at sometime made a decision what was Canon and what was not Canon.

I think we can rest assurred that it was bodies, not a body. There is pretty strong correspondence evidence even under Roman persecution that the Christian churches were sharing a largely similar canon from the end of the 2nd century.

TR wrote:

In some cases, the parts that were left out contradict the parts that were left in.

Get into the minds of the Christians involved. A pretty good reason for leaving out say, the Gospel of Thomas (the only so called Gnostic Gospel in the same age-category as the 4 Canonical texts) is that its definitive verse (114) utterly contradicts the words Jesus speaks and the actions he lives out in other records. It looks to us like someone made it up and maybe it looked like that to them so they left it out??

TR wrote:

I would recommend any atheist / theist to read both Canonical and Gnostic Gospels...

I agree. In the case of the Canon, no literature has had such an effect on the world and it really is breathtaking in its poetry, rhetoric and philosophy. I think the non-Canonical texts (Gnostic is useless a label, isn't it?) have real interest to see the very packed marketplace of ideas that existed in the era of the 2nd Temple. It reminds me that the contemporary pluralism we are so proud of today is no new thing.

TR wrote:

But my own opinion is that doesn't mean they are good history.

Scepticism is an essential part of any sensible decision making process but its not really a question of opinion, is it? If the Gospels are not "good history" then there are no ancient texts worth a rub at all. Either the New Testament texts are to read as intended, documents using the best historigraphical methods of their day or else all history of the ancient world is rendered impossible.

History written today is not without spin and one doesn't need to imagine they are inerrant to read them as historical.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

True bibliolatry (worship of the Bible) is very rare. However, the word has become a useful term of abuse that simply means someone else holds the Bible to more authoritative than you yourself do. If you are a professing Christian who wants to dodge biblical teaching on a subject, then it sounds pretty wishy-washy to say that your opponent believes the Bible more than you do. However, to accuse them of 'bibliolatry' sounds much more impressive.

Also shorter!

PDN wrote:

Those who say they believe in the inerrancy and full authority of Scripture generally mean by this that the original autographs (in Greek and Hebrew) were what is without error. The Old Testament, it is usually agreed, comprises of the 39 books of Hebrew Scripture that Jesus Himself used and endorsed. The New Testament was written over a period of time (probably between 55 and 90 AD), so most inerrantists would see the original autographs of the New Testament as being the the first collection of the 27 books gathered together shortly after the writing of Revelation.

Of course the problem is that we don't possess a copy of these original autographs, and since early copies were all hand produced then we get minor variations between manuscripts. As with any typo, these variations are usually easily spotted and corrected, and do not generally impact upon any vital truth or hinder anyone's understanding of the message of salvation contained in the Scriptures. But part of Theology's task is to engage in textual criticism so as to try to determine the Hebrew and Greek text that, as much as we can tell, equates to the original. Obviously archaeological finds etc. have improved since 1611, so modern translations are generally based on a better Hebrew & Greek text that that used by the translators of the King James Version.

The problem with translations, of anything, is that one word in the original language often carries shades of meaning that can never be accurately translated by one single word in translation. This is why online translators, such as Babelfish, often produce nonsensical results. It takes a skilled translator to make the judgment call as to which shade of meaning in a word is intended, and often this means examining the context. This is especially difficult when translating puns (and the Hebrews were very fond of puns and wordplays - the Old Testament is full of them). For example, "One man's fish is another man's poisson" is a (very bad) pun on an old English proverb and a play on the French word for 'fish' - but if you tried to translate it into Japanese then a word for word translation would be incomprehensible.

Of course language also changes. We no longer speak the same English as was spoken in 1611 (and the language of the King James Version was outdated even when it was first produced, largely due to many religious people's silly notion that words become more holy if you say them in an archaic form and a pious tone of voice). I remember, as a child, being beaten by my Dad for using the word 'piss'. My objection, that the word 'pisseth' occurs 6 times in the King James Bible, did not save me from the beating. What was an everyday word in polite society in 1611 was no longer so in 1967 (although runtodahills will no doubt be gratified that the good King James Version terminology of 'piss' is now no longer as verboten as it was 40 years ago).

The point of this long and rather rambling post is that it is logically impossible for any translation of anything to totally convey all the meaning of the original with 100% accuracy. The best way to get a full understanding, other than learning a new language, is to compare different translations and to read the translators' notes.

Therefore, it is logically impossible for both the original autographs and the 1611 King James Version to be the uncorrupted Word of God. We have three main options:
1. The original autographs (including the Hebrew Scriptures used by Jesus and the Greek texts as they came with the ink still wet from the pens of Matthew, Luke & Paul etc) were in themselves incomplete and corrupt. But, when translated by a committee of English and Scottish theologians and academics in the 17th Century then they at last achieved the full potential that God had been waiting for and became the pure, uncorrupted Word of God. This of course mans that only English speakers get to read or hear the true Word of God, since the full meaning of English words could never be fully expressed in a Chinese or French word-for-word translation.
2. The original autographs were perfect, and various manuscripts and translations through the centuries have, to a wonderful extent, captured the essence of what is contained therein. However, we recognise that no translation can ever be perfect (this, as you may guess, is my standpoint).[]
3. It's all a load of nonsense anyway. (The preferred option of some of our interlopers from the A&A forum).

Well, first, I'm delighted to have given you the opportunity for such a lot of exposition!

Second, I'm not sure what one can call the belief in an inerrant KJV except bibliolatry (that having been the claim that the remark was directed to).

Last, I'll remind you that I'm no more an interloper here than you are, both being forum members in good standing, and that we've had that discussion.

cordially nevertheless,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, first, I'm delighted to have given you the opportunity for such a lot of exposition!

Well, as a preacher I don't really need much of an opportunity. The slightest little thing can set me off.

Second, I'm not sure what one can call the belief in an inerrant KJV except bibliolatry (that having been the claim that the remark was directed to).

While I find the idea of an inerrant translation to be unbelievable, I don't think it necessarily involves worshipping that translation, or indeed the Bible itself. KJV-Onlyism still maintains a distinction between God (who is worthy to be worshipped) and a revelation from him that people believe to be 100% accurate (but not to be worshipped).

Last, I'll remind you that I'm no more an interloper here than you are, both being forum members in good standing, and that we've had that discussion.

'Twas a joke, apolodgies if it was not understood as such. That's why i used the smiley (although I appreciate that the smileys have been so overdone on this forum as to be devoid of meaning).

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Well, as a preacher I don't really need much of an opportunity. The slightest little thing can set me off.

I suffer from the same problem myself, without any such excuse. Mind you, if atheism had preachers, I would find the lure irresistible.

PDN wrote:

While I find the idea of an inerrant translation to be unbelievable, I don't think it necessarily involves worshipping that translation, or indeed the Bible itself. KJV-Onlyism still maintains a distinction between God (who is worthy to be worshipped) and a revelation from him that people believe to be 100% accurate (but not to be worshipped).

Hmm. I would see the KJV as much closer to a fetish or idol, here, in that God can only be approached through it, and that which is not found in it cannot be part of the nature of God - thereby rendering the image of God as portrayed within it as both complete and exact. Even the idol-worshipper usually takes his idol to be a representation of God, and in that sense the term book-worshipper is just as appropriate as idol-worshipper.

PDN wrote:

'Twas a joke, apolodgies if it was not understood as such. That's why i used the smiley (although I appreciate that the smileys have been so overdone on this forum as to be devoid of meaning).

Alas, the smiley is a limited and inaccurate form of communication, and exposure to JC has rendered them even less useful to me personally...it's as often used to soften a seriously intended comment as to indicate a joke (quite apart from its main use, to indicate the user is differently sane).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Excelsior wrote:

Scepticism is an essential part of any sensible decision making process but its not really a question of opinion, is it? If the Gospels are not "good history" then there are no ancient texts worth a rub at all. Either the New Testament texts are to read as intended, documents using the best historigraphical methods of their day or else all history of the ancient world is rendered impossible.

I think it is very much a question of opinion.
I would also think there is in between "good history" and not worth a rub.
Personally I think the Gospels writers made human mistakes in their accounts, I don't think they were deliberately lieing. That's just my opinion.

Sapien

Excelsior wrote:

If the Gospels are not "good history" then there are no ancient texts worth a rub at all.

A breathtaking sentence. Quite happy with it?

Excelsior

So by your record today TR, if a historian makes an honest mistake, her work is no longer good history? In my opinion, the idea that the Gospels aren't valid historical texts is the kind of view often expressed on the internet but never expressed in history departments.

PDN and I have offered arguments in this thread. As usual they are met with assertions. Its almost as if visitors to this board think historians work in a lab.

Scofflaw

Excelsior wrote:

So by your record today TR, if a historian makes an honest mistake, her work is no longer good history? In my opinion, the idea that the Gospels aren't valid historical texts is the kind of view often expressed on the internet but never expressed in history departments.

Surely any historical text that is not a modern forgery is a valid historical text?

Excelsior wrote:

PDN and I have offered arguments in this thread. As usual they are met with assertions. Its almost as if visitors to this board think historians work in a lab.

Hmm. To assert that because the Gospels are valid historical documents they are necessarily accurate and true is the usual bone of contention - the one does not imply the other.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Húrin

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

The Bible warns against taking away and adding to the words of God!
Deuteronomy 4:2 reads: "YE SHALL NOT ADD unto the word which I command you, NEITHER SHALL YE DIMINISH ought from it."

How do you know that the KJV did not add words to the Bible? Just because it is older than the NIV, does not make it more true. Considering that it was commissioned by a King who had political interets to oversee, and also only one denomination, I would speculate that it is less trustworthy. The NIV was translated by Christians of many denominations and many nations, who were free of political pressures.

robindch

Excelsior wrote:

Either the New Testament texts are to read as intended, documents using the best historigraphical methods of their day or else all history of the ancient world is rendered impossible.

If, of course, one ignores the possibility that the NT did not describe events accurately in the first place; and ignores the possibility that the NT was modified since it was written; and ignores the possibility that other more accurate texts were discarded; and ignores the possibility that there were strong political motives for selecting texts and editions and truths; etc, etc, etc.

One only has to look as far as scientology to see how the most dim and facile poppycock can rise to the status of religious truth in a generation, and that's in the age of the recorded word, the recorded image and close to 100% literacy. To claim, without doubt, that Jesus spoke what he's quoted to have said and did what he is claimed to have done, is simply in violation of every principal of history.

I'm constantly amazed that the very healthy skeptical nit-picking that some posters apply to other people's views is unfortunately laid aside when their own beliefs heave into view.

Excelsior wrote:

PDN and I have offered arguments in this thread. As usual they are met with assertions.

Cough, cough -- see your quote at the top of this post

PDN

H&#250 wrote: »

How do you know that the KJV did not add words to the Bible? Just because it is older than the NIV, does not make it more true. Considering that it was commissioned by a King who had political interets to oversee, and also only one denomination, I would speculate that it is less trustworthy. The NIV was translated by Christians of many denominations and many nations, who were free of political pressures.

A fascinating account of how the King James Version was produced is Adam Nicholson's God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible. I found it amusing that the Puritan members of the translation committee (who would be theologically closest to most of the KJV-Onlyists of today) were consistently overruled and outvoted by the Anglo-Catholics, so consequently saw the resulting translation as severely compromised.

For example, in 1 Timothy 3:1 the word "elder" was changed to "bishop" to conform with the Episcopal form of government, thereby affronting the Puritans who believed in a congregational body of elders rather than bishops.

Run_to_da_hills

H&#250 wrote: »

How do you know that the KJV did not add words to the Bible? Just because it is older than the NIV, does not make it more true. Considering that it was commissioned by a King who had political interets to oversee, and also only one denomination, I would speculate that it is less trustworthy. The NIV was translated by Christians of many denominations and many nations, who were free of political pressures.

The "Christians" you are talking about certainly did a good job diminishing verses.

The NIV completly removes 17 verses that would appear in the King James. 1 John 5 vs 7 is particularly important as it is the most accurate description in the Bible of what is known as the "trinity"

1 John 5 vs 7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one".

MATTHEW 18:11: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.".

ACTS 8:37: "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God


Also look up the following verses in your NIV Bible. You will not find them!
Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:28, Romans 16:24 and 1 John 5:7!

Our lord warns us not to interfere with Gods word, (Revelation 22vs18&19) What would one expect from HarperCollins the publishers of the NIV also the same company that publishes the Satanic Bible. http://www.harpercollins.com/book/index.aspx?isbn=9780380015399

PDN

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

The NIV completly removes 17 verses that would appear in the King James. 1 John 5 vs 7 is particularly important as it is the most accurate description in the Bible of what is known as the "trinity"

1 John 5 vs 7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one".

This is the best argument I have heard yet for not using the King James Version of the Bible.

I am a convinced Trinitarian and a believer in biblical inerrancy, so if 1 John 5:7 were genuine it would make my job much easier in refuting those who deny the Trinity. However, the reference to the Trinity in 1 John 5:7 is missing in all Greek manuscripts up until the 10th Century. Even then it only appears in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin. Erasmus omitted it from his original edition of the Greek New Testament, but inserted it into a subsequent edition under heavy pressure from the Catholic hierarchy. Luther, however, omitted it from his German Translation (which was based on Erasmus' Greek text).

So, this little phrase was championed by Catholicism and opposed by Protestantism. Since King James and the Anglo-Catholics were in the majority on the 1611 translation committee, the Protestants were overruled and this phrase was inserted into the King James Version.

A quick glance at Church History, IMHO, readily affirms that the reference to the Trinity is not part of the original text of the Bible. In all the Christological controversies of the 3rd and 4th centuries, as the Church Councils defined the doctrine of the Trinity, this verse would have been a clincher in any argument. Just quoting it would have saved the Councils months of debating, but it is never quoted once by any of the participants in those debates. Why? Because it didn't exist!

The King James Version, then, by adding this phrase into the text (and by retaining it even when all the evidence points to its spurious nature) is clearly adding to the Word of God. To maintain that the KJV is correct in so doing is to deny the purity and completeness of the original Greek text as accepted by the Church from the apostolic age and for the next 1000 years. Therefore the KJV-Onlyists are denying the inerrancy of the original autographs but affirming the inerrancy of a translation carried out by unregenerate and corrupt ecclesiastical dignitaries - a total reversal of the classic evangelical position on biblical inspiration.

Tim Robbins

Excelsior wrote:

So by your record today TR, if a historian makes an honest mistake, her work is no longer good history?

Obviously if historical facts are incorrect it is not good history. That's a tautology in my opinion. The texts may have other worth as I have alluded to.

In my opinion, the idea that the Gospels aren't valid historical texts is the kind of view often expressed on the internet but never expressed in history departments.

As for why some views are not presented in history departments well there are a number of reasons for that:
1. We are talking about events 2,000 years ago, that we just don't have good evidence for. It is much harder to have a historical debate about Jesus than it is to about Padraig Pearse or Daniel O'Connell.

2. Because Religion / Faith helps people cope with death and a humdrum life
it gets etc a special pass. It is rarely looked at critically and objectively.
Boards.ie is one of the few places in this state where there is a debate on the issues and you get diversity of opinion.

3. There are political conations with Religion. If a Minister in Ireland was to fund a project to investigate the extent of lies and propaganda of all Christian churches how many votes do you think he or she would get?

PDN and I have offered arguments in this thread. As usual they are met with assertions. Its almost as if visitors to this board think historians work in a lab.

They have been met with rational critism and why shouldn't that be the case?If the Gospels were unquestionable accurate history, there would no need for faith. Maybe our rational critism remind you what your faith is

Excelsior

Scofflaw wrote:

Surely any historical text that is not a modern forgery is a valid historical text?

My point exactly old boy. The argument we saw trotted out yesterday is that old internet bulletin board chestnut about the Gospels not "being historical".

Scofflaw wrote:

To assert that because the Gospels are valid historical documents they are necessarily accurate and true is the usual bone of contention - the one does not imply the other.

Again, I wholeheartedly agree. Its another question though, isn't it, (however both PDN and I have touched on tangential issues to this central question here.)

Excelsior

robindch wrote:

If, of course, one ignores the possibility that the NT did not describe events accurately in the first place

Wow! The field of New Testament studies really does need someone with your thorough-going scepticism to teach us how to read our books. I always suspected that ignoring the rest of the world as we sat around and drank tea and read our magical sacred texts was naive but now I see why: we can't take it as read that they are accurate! An amazing insight.

robindch wrote:

...ignores the possibility that the NT was modified since it was written

You mean of course that the NT may have developed? Like, somehow there were drafts? And some writers read and were influenced by others? Again, a startling new perspective.

Robin wrote:

...ignores the possibility that other more accurate texts were discarded

Accurate how? Discarded how? Oh wait, that would open up a whole new field of study for scholars to look into. I think they prefer holding hands, singing songs and attacking minorities so we'll just ignore those questions too.

Robin wrote:

...ignores the possibility that there were strong political motives for selecting texts and editions and truths

Are you telling me that the Christian re-appropriation of words like ekklessia might have had political ramifications? The New Testament texts having a political dimension? Surely not. Don't you know us Christians just read them as quaint moralistic tales good for all of eternity?


Once again, this is a classic case of no argument being raised. The ignorance of theology and specifically New Testament studies displayed in this post is astounding. The very questions you shockingly raise to throw a spanner in the works of my naive (and hypocritical faith) are just some of the issues discussed as normal dialogue in universities, seminaries and even the coffee shop in my local church. Of course, any real-world knowledge of how Christianity actually is would dent that glorious cartoon that is held in such high esteem in online scepticism.

Robin wrote:

One only has to look as far as scientology to see how the most dim and facile poppycock can rise to the status of religious truth in a generation...

One only has to look as far as baseball to see how golf is obviously an inferior game... The shallowness of this argument is appalling considering the thrust of your post is a defence of the robust sceptical position. Its so curious that the topic of this thread, history and historiography are subjects that you would prefer not to apply to the comparison in question. Scientology might be compared historically to something like the Qumran community. There is no sensible way you could compare it to the rise of the Jesus-movement.

Robin wrote:

To claim, without doubt, that Jesus spoke what he's quoted to have said and did what he is claimed to have done, is simply in violation of every principal of history.

Every principal of history? Such all encompassing language might make sense if I had claimed that Jesus spoke what he's quoted to have said and did what he claimed to have done. Instead, I simply claimed that the 4 Gospels are accepted (with good reason) as as fine a set of historical sources for 2nd Temple Judaism as there is. But reducing the fullness of a Christian's worldview down to a parody is what you have made a profitable hobby of in this forum Robin so I would be surprised if you actually tried to do justice to the words I wrote.

Let me re-iterate: Claiming that the Gospels are historical sources is not the same thing as saying that the Gospels are true.

I'm constantly amazed that the very healthy skeptical nit-picking that some posters apply to other people's views is unfortunately laid aside when their own beliefs heave into view.

Excelsior

Tim Robbins wrote:

That's a tautology in my opinion.

I love this rational scepticism that is so popular around here. Tautological opinions are like circles without centres.

TR wrote:

Maybe our rational critism remind you what your faith is

With a nod and a wink, you set me back on course. Of course I had to look up the word patronising to find that it meant "to talk down to". But I really appreciate you clarifying things so brilliantly with your tautologies.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

2. Because Religion / Faith helps people cope with death and a humdrum life it gets etc a special pass. It is rarely looked at critically and objectively.
Boards.ie is one of the few places in this state where there is a debate on the issues and you get diversity of opinion.

There are three main problems with this line of reasoning.
1. In the internet age there is instant exchange of research and scholarly views between different nations. Except under an extremely repressive regime (say China, or Saudi Arabia) it is sheer fantasy to pretend that history departments in any democratic society could ignore well researched studies from other States. Therefore, any 'special passes' granted to religion in Ireland would be quickly overcome by research from other democracies where religion receives no such preferential treatment. If there was any serious basis for not treating the Gospels as valid historical texts then that would be reflected in history departments in Ireland.

2. Much as I enjoy Boards.ie I think that there are many places in Ireland where you can debate these issues and get diversity of opinion - the philosophy and theology departments of Colleges and Universities, for example.

3. You yourself, Tim, have argued that the Theory of Evolution is antithetical to Christianity. If your conspiracy of silence really existed then evolution would not be taught in Irish schools for fear of upsetting religious people.

There are political conations with Religion. If a Minister in Ireland was to fund a project to investigate the extent of lies and propaganda of all Christian churches how many votes do you think he or she would get?

Well, obviously to set up such a project would require a presupposition that all Christian churches are spreading lies and propaganda. If any minister was stupid or bigoted enough to argue such a position then they would be rightly viewed as a rabid demagogue who prejudges the outcome of a project and so, unworthy of electoral support.

Tim Robbins

Excelsior wrote:

I love this rational scepticism that is so popular around here. Tautological opinions are like circles without centres.

With a nod and a wink, you set me back on course. Of course I had to look up the word patronising to find that it meant "to talk down to". But I really appreciate you clarifying things so brilliantly with your tautologies.

You sound like you are throwing the toys out of the pram. This is what annoys some atheists, we begin with some sort rational discourse and it degenerates into this.

neuro-praxis

This thread is almost utterly retarded.

As a philosophy researcher I have to point out that many of our residents here wouldn't know rational criticism if it tattooed a truth table on their asses.

As for the original question:it is resting on a set of idiotic and un-researched assumptions, none of which have been addressed by our heroes of truth, the rational skeptics.

To answer your question we would first have to take apart the nonsense about "what is accepted today" as though the bible is just a novel that got a re-edit every eighteen months.

I suspect that you have no intention whatever of ever picking up a bible (BIBLES ARE SO BORING) and that your post is a veiled spasto-attack on Christianity. Take a crash course in scripture (guess what - you can get it taught to you by atheists!) and then re-formulate your question.

Personally, I read the NIV, not that you could tell from my scathing nature and bilious internet-induced rage.

Why is this rubbish tolerated mods? If someone lashed into the, er, computer forum, and said, "Many computers are made of plastic and metal, sometimes even silicon is used, which type of computer is most reliable for getting good grades in my exams?" nobody would listen.

ARGH.

Excelsior

Tim Robbins wrote:

You sound like you are throwing the toys out of the pram. This is what annoys some atheists, we begin with some sort rational discourse and it degenerates into this.

Grr! If it was true that I was a baby throwing my toys out of the pram, then why would it ONLY BE ATHEISTS who were offended at me ending the "rational discourse"!?! Is that rational or is it an ungrounded prejudice.

In the quote you took of me, I clearly rationally challenged the idea that your opinion can reach the lofty height of tautology and then jokingly called you on your patronising tone.

This is a classic example of how "rational discourse" so often actually means "things I like to believe".

PDN- good arguments there, NP- you are hilarious
And she is also right, the Mods should be playing a bigger role here protecting the Christians from having to repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat the same answers day in and day out, for people who couldn't give a sh|t, distracting them from the topics at hand.

Tim Robbins

neuro-praxis wrote:

This thread is almost utterly retarded.

As a philosophy researcher I have to point out that many of our residents here wouldn't know rational criticism if it tattooed a truth table on their asses.

As for the original question:it is resting on a set of idiotic and un-researched assumptions, none of which have been addressed by our heroes of truth, the rational skeptics.

To answer your question we would first have to take apart the nonsense about "what is accepted today" as though the bible is just a novel that got a re-edit every eighteen months.

I suspect that you have no intention whatever of ever picking up a bible (BIBLES ARE SO BORING) and that your post is a veiled spasto-attack on Christianity. Take a crash course in scripture (guess what - you can get it taught to you by atheists!) and then re-formulate your question.

Personally, I read the NIV, not that you could tell from my scathing nature and bilious internet-induced rage.

Why is this rubbish tolerated mods? If someone lashed into the, er, computer forum, and said, "Many computers are made of plastic and metal, sometimes even silicon is used, which type of computer is most reliable for getting good grades in my exams?" nobody would listen.

ARGH.

Sounds like a rant looking for the "special pass", full of arguments by assertions and not much rationalism.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

There are three main problems with this line of reasoning.
1. In the internet age there is instant exchange of research and scholarly views between different nations. Except under an extremely repressive regime (say China, or Saudi Arabia) it is sheer fantasy to pretend that history departments in any democratic society could ignore well researched studies from other States. Therefore, any 'special passes' granted to religion in Ireland would be quickly overcome by research from other democracies where religion receives no such preferential treatment. If there was any serious basis for not treating the Gospels as valid historical texts then that would be reflected in history departments in Ireland.

The other countries are usually non christian and not interested in critically researching Christianity in the same way as Ireland is not interested in critically researching Hinduism.

2. Much as I enjoy Boards.ie I think that there are many places in Ireland where you can debate these issues and get diversity of opinion - the philosophy and theology departments of Colleges and Universities, for example.

No way. The theology departments are quite biased. I checked out the syllabus for some of their degree courses and they completly avoid critisms of theology. I didn't see "Why I am not Christian" or "The God Delusion" on any of their reading lists.

More to the point, theological departments and philosophy degree courses are not viable options for most people. Most people go to college to do something that will get them a job.

3. You yourself, Tim, have argued that the Theory of Evolution is antithetical to Christianity. If your conspiracy of silence really existed then evolution would not be taught in Irish schools for fear of upsetting religious people.

Well you've got me wrong there. Evolution theory is antithetical to fundamental christianity or creationism (which a large percentage of Christians who post here are). There are some famous Christians, Kenneth Millar, Alister McGrath, John Hughton and the Pope for example who argue they are not.
You are correct in that the special pass has been removed and we can now openly critise parts of the Bible without fear of offending most reasonable people. However, do you not think the special pass exists for other areas? I certainly give the special pass to many aspects of Christianity.

Well, obviously to set up such a project would require a presupposition that all Christian churches are spreading lies and propaganda. If any minister was stupid or bigoted enough to argue such a position then they would be rightly viewed as a rabid demagogue who prejudges the outcome of a project and so, unworthy of electoral support.

Why would it require a presupposition? Surely that would be very biased.

Tim Robbins

Excelsior wrote:

Grr! If it was true that I was a baby throwing my toys out of the pram, then why would it ONLY BE ATHEISTS who were offended at me ending the "rational discourse"!?! Is that rational or is it an ungrounded prejudice.

I am not offended I am disappointed.

In the quote you took of me, I clearly rationally challenged the idea that your opinion can reach the lofty height of tautology and then jokingly called you on your patronising tone.

Throw in some smilies It sounded like you were just been tetchy.

This is a classic example of how "rational discourse" so often actually means "things I like to believe".

Why?

And she is also right, the Mods should be playing a bigger role here protecting the Christians from having to repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat the same answers day in and day out, for people who couldn't give a sh|t, distracting them from the topics at hand.

Well you are wrong there, some atheists do give a sh*t. They want rational discourse. If you want "protection" that would just support my "special pass" hypotheisis. I don't see atheists looking for protection when Christians come over to the A&A forum. In fact I would encourage all Christians to come over and challenge viewpoints held there.

Scofflaw

TimRobbins wrote:

You sound like you are throwing the toys out of the pram. This is what annoys some atheists, we begin with some sort rational discourse and it degenerates into this.

Excelsior wrote:

Grr! If it was true that I was a baby throwing my toys out of the pram, then why would it ONLY BE ATHEISTS who were offended at me ending the "rational discourse"!?! Is that rational or is it an ungrounded prejudice.

Alas, this is often the case when Tim's involved, and it unquestionably does annoy atheists as well as Christians.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Alas, this is often the case when Tim's involved, and it unquestionably does annoy atheists as well as Christians.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think we'd better off sticking to the content of the arguments and leaving personal attacks out. Perhaps if Excelsor could say what is wrong with the tautology and I withdraw the toys out of the pram comment that might be a good place to start.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

The other countries are usually non christian and not interested in critically researching Christianity in the same way as Ireland is not interested in critically researching Hinduism.

No, the other countries would be post-Christian ( eg Germany, Scandavian countries etc). The fact is that countries that are often perceived as Christian (such as the UK) are, and have been for many years, perfectly willing to pay academics nice salaries out of public funds so they can spend their time attacking Christian beliefs. Any notion of religion somehow getting a special pass in the academic world is a half-baked conspiracy theory on a par with obsessing over bar codes in supermarkets.

No way. The theology departments are quite biased. I checked out the syllabus for some of their degree courses and they completly avoid critisms of theology. I didn't see "Why I am not Christian" or "The God Delusion" on any of their reading lists.

More to the point, theological departments and philosophy degree courses are not viable options for most people. Most people go to college to do something that will get them a job.

Trinity, to cite just one example, have a range of extramural courses that are ready accessible to anyone interested enough to give up a couple of hours drinking time once a week. An entire course can cost as little as 50 euro, and they reduce that if you are on Social Welfare. Of course if people are so crass & materialistic so as only to study that which will help them get a job, then that is their problem.

Here's a flavour of what they offer:

Deciphering the Past: Sites, Objects and Texts of the Ancient World: Ancient sites, buildings, artefacts and literary works are often enigmas to us today. But how can we, as detectives of the past, investigate them in order to understand their significance? What tools can we use as we search for missing pieces of the jigsaw? How can we understand the role played by ancient words, sites and objects in the intricate web of meanings that are only indirectly available to modern scholars? In this course you will be introduced to some of the methods, techniques and lines of approach used by classicists, historians and archaeologists as they try to decipher the mysteries of the past.

‘If God is for us …’: Wars of Religion through History: This course looks at the recurring theme of religion as a motivation for war. Religion and war have made good bedfellows since the classical period. From antiquity through to current religion-based conflicts, this course takes a snapshot view of a number of key conflicts in world history. The use of religious texts in inciting people to war and, in many cases, the involvement of religious authorities in war efforts are universal aspects of religious wars. However, each war has its own unique background, both cultural and historical, and these are examined in their own context. The aim of the course is to look in particular at specific conflicts associated with religious opposition and to assert that some conflicts, while not immediately associated with religion, can be seen as ‘religious wars’.

Philosophy and Religion: This series of evening lectures comprises the following nine lectures:
• God and metaphysics
• Neoplatonism and negative theology
• Mysticism and philosophy
• Faith and reason
• Freud, religion and rationality
• Atheism and existentialism
• Russell and religion
• Religion and the European project
• The rationality of atheism

Israel and the Ancient Near East: From the Iron Age to the Graeco-Roman Period: This series examines the religious worldview of the ancient Israelites from the tenth century BCE to the first century CE. Topics examined include: temples, goddesses, popular worship, the emergence of monotheism, Alexander the Great and the Jews, the sect of the Dead Sea, Herod, the Jewish revolt against Rome and the spread of the Jews to Babylon and to the cities of the Graeco-Roman world. No previous knowledge of the subject is required.

The New Testament: The ‘Synoptic’ Gospels and the Johannine Writings: This course examines the four Gospels and the Johannine writings in the Christian New Testament, using a range of classic and contemporary approaches. In part I we concentrate on the three ‘synoptic’ Gospels. After a brief discussion of the genre of ‘Gospel’ and its origins, Mark will be studied in terms of narrative criticism, Matthew in terms of source and redaction criticism, and Luke in terms of the social sciences. In part II we turn to the Johannine writings and make literary, theological, and historical readings of the Fourth Gospel, the Johannine epistles, and Revelation.

Ethics, Philosophical and Theological: This course of day-time lectures will examine the sequence of radical critiques which constitutes the history of modern ethics from Kant, and Kierkegaard, to Nietzsche. Their mutually challenging theories form the background to different positions elaborated in the 20th century, such as critical theory, existentialist, feminist and post-modern ethics. How have Christian ethicists interacted with Kant’s ethics of obligation, with Kierkegaard’s placing of the ethical between the ‘aesthetic’ and the ‘religious’ stages, and with Nietzsche’s counterproposal to autonomous and theological ethics?

Approaches to Theological Ethics: This course of twenty-two day-time lectures will investigate how approaches to theological ethics differ in methods and basic concepts, and which moral evaluation of concrete issues they offer. Conceptions of Christian ethics based on scripture, on ‘classical’ and ‘revisionist’ interpretations of natural law, on autonomous ethics and on feminist analyses will be compared.

Religion and Science: Conflict, Consonance, or Confirmation?: This course explores the relation between natural scientific and theological views of the universe and human beings. Among the issues that will be discussed are: the popular view of the history of science as one of relentless conflict with religion; the extent to which Christian culture was the matrix of modern science; the concept of the universe as God’s ‘creation’; the implications of the theory of evolution for our understanding of God, human being, ‘sin’, and morality; the relation of matter and spirit; the nature of God’s action in the world; and whether the end of the universe will be a mere termination or a completion.

The Origins of Monotheism in the Mediterranean World: This course explores the origins of Judaism, Christianity and Islam in terms of their historical development as well as the social, political and ecological consequences of monotheistic belief.

Plenty of opportunity for debate and diversity of opinion there. In fact, you could cover a lot of the subjects that get debated on the boards - but without a lot of the nonsense.

interestinguser

PDN wrote:

No, the other countries would be post-Christian ( eg Germany, Scandavian countries etc). The fact is that countries that are often perceived as Christian (such as the UK) are, and have been for many years, perfectly willing to pay academics nice salaries out of public funds so they can spend their time attacking Christian beliefs. Any notion of religion somehow getting a special pass in the academic world is a half-baked conspiracy theory on a par with obsessing over bar codes in supermarkets.



Trinity, to cite just one example, have a range of extramural courses that are ready accessible to anyone interested enough to give up a couple of hours drinking time once a week. An entire course can cost as little as 50 euro, and they reduce that if you are on Social Welfare. Of course if people are so crass & materialistic so as only to study that which will help them get a job, then that is their problem.

Here's a flavour of what they offer:



Plenty of opportunity for debate and diversity of opinion there. In fact, you could cover a lot of the subjects that get debated on the boards - but without a lot of the nonsense.

Interesting, thanks for posting that information. Might go have a look and see if they have anything similar doing in NUIG...

Run_to_da_hills

PDN wrote:

This is the best argument I have heard yet for not using the King James Version of the Bible.

Perhaps one of the best arguments I have heard yet for not using the NIV.
The NIV butchers have transformed Lucifer (Satan) into the same title that Jesus uses in revelation 22:16!

Isaiah 14:12:NIV- How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star ...
KJV- How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

In this NIV passage, "Lucifer" has been changed to "Morning Star".
This is so frightening because the same Bible also defines the Morning Star as Jesus Christ.

Revelation 22:16 NIV!
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

No, the other countries would be post-Christian ( eg Germany, Scandavian countries etc). The fact is that countries that are often perceived as Christian (such as the UK) are, and have been for many years, perfectly willing to pay academics nice salaries out of public funds so they can spend their time attacking Christian beliefs. Any notion of religion somehow getting a special pass in the academic world is a half-baked conspiracy theory on a par with obsessing over bar codes in supermarkets.



Trinity, to cite just one example, have a range of extramural courses that are ready accessible to anyone interested enough to give up a couple of hours drinking time once a week. An entire course can cost as little as 50 euro, and they reduce that if you are on Social Welfare. Of course if people are so crass & materialistic so as only to study that which will help them get a job, then that is their problem.

Here's a flavour of what they offer:



Plenty of opportunity for debate and diversity of opinion there. In fact, you could cover a lot of the subjects that get debated on the boards - but without a lot of the nonsense.

Thanks for the post will check 'em out.
I was referring to degree courses when I said they really weren't an option for most peope. It's not materialistic to only study a degree where you have a chance of getting a job it's a reality. My parents would not have been wealthy enough for me to do a degree which did not have a practical aspect to it, it is the same with most people.

The Mad Hatter

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

Perhaps one of the best arguments I have heard yet for not using the NIV.
The NIV butchers have transformed Lucifer (Satan) into the same title that Jesus uses in revelation 22:16!

Isaiah 14:12:NIV- How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star ...
KJV- How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

In this NIV passage, "Lucifer" has been changed to "Morning Star".
This is so frightening because the same Bible also defines the Morning Star as Jesus Christ.

Revelation 22:16 NIV!
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

So?

Anyways, have you conceded the two points on which PDN challenged you?

philologos

PoleStar wrote:

Just a question which occurred to me and perhaps some Christians can help me.

Which books/gospels about Jesus and his life and times are true. There are many gospels which are not included in the bible, such as the Gospel according to Judas etc, and many more. Many of these conflict with what is said in the bible that is accepted today.

Also even within the bible, many verses contradict each other with relation to the life of Jesus etc.

Which one is the right one?

I personally believe that some of the Gnostic gospels and Acts are indeed true.

The Acts of Paul were removed because God forbid. A woman baptised herself and others. This was objected because women couldn't lead a church, they weren't as intelligent as men etc.

So yes, a lot of the Gnostics are accurate.

Run_to_da_hills

The Mad Hatter wrote:

So?

It is further evidence to show that there was no thought put into the NIV if they can make such a slip up by giving Jesus and Lucifer the same title.

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Anyways, have you conceded the two points on which PDN challenged you?

Yes, I am a trinitarian i.e I believe in the three persons of the Godhead ie "Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I also believe that this scripture was butchered along with many more from the modern translations on the basis that more "reliable" Bible manuscripts that had been discovered in Alexandria Egypt. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Jehovah Witnesses' Bible (the New World Translation) comes from the EXACT same Greek text as does the NIV, NASV, NKJB, TNIV, ASV, and the Living Bible). Older manuscripts that were discovered in recent time’s may not necessarily mean that they are more accurate than the later manuscripts. I still want explanation for the 17 other verses removed by the NIV.


200 AD - Tertullian's quote is debated, but he may well be referring to the phrase found only in 1 John 5:7 when he says: "And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete (Holy Ghost) makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, WHICH THREE ARE ONE entity, not one person. Just as it is said "I and the Father are one entity" refers to the unity of their substance, not to oneness of their number."

250 AD - Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians. Note that Cyprian is quoting and says "IT IS WRITTEN, And the three are One." He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question. This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn't part of Holy Scripture, then where did he see it WRITTEN?

350 AD - Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]

350 AD - Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]

350 AD - Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione

380 AD - Priscillian in Liber Apologeticus quotes "and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."

Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the Varimadum (380 AD) states: "And John the Evangelist says, . . . “And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one”. (Varimadum 90:20-21).

398 AD - Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism

415 AD - Council of Carthage. The contested verse (1 John 5:7) is quoted at the Council of Carthage (415 A. D.) by Eugenius, who drew up the confession of faith for the "orthodox." It reads with the King James. How did 350 prelates in 415 A.D. take a verse to be orthodox that wasn't in the Bible? It had to exist there from the beginning. It was quoted as "Pater, VERBUM, et Spiritus Sanctus".

450-530 AD. Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:

A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"

Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]

C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]

500 AD - Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]

527 AD - Fulgentius in Contra Arianos stated: "Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo. Pater, Verbum et Spiritus, et tres unum sunt."

550 AD - The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]

636 AD - Isidor of Seville quotes the verse as it stands in the KJB.

750 AD - Wianburgensis referred to it

800 AD - Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.] It is also in the Clementine Vulgate today.

157-1400 AD. Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse.

PDN

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

Perhaps one of the best arguments I have heard yet for not using the NIV.
The NIV butchers have transformed Lucifer (Satan) into the same title that Jesus uses in revelation 22:16!

Isaiah 14:12:NIV- How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star ...
KJV- How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

In this NIV passage, "Lucifer" has been changed to "Morning Star".
This is so frightening because the same Bible also defines the Morning Star as Jesus Christ.

Revelation 22:16 NIV!
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

It is bad history, bad linguistics, and bad theology to try to insert the Latin word Lucifer into a Hebrew text.

The Hebrew word in Isaiah 14:12 is helel literally "shining". It was used by the Jews to refer to the planet Venus when it appears in the night sky. Venus has been referred to as "the morning star" from the earliest times.

Lucifer, literally "light bringer" is a Latin astrological term for Venus. To take this Latin astrological term and plop into a prophecy of Isaiah, as the King James translation committee did, is a dreadful anachronism. Thank God that the NIV (and most other modern translations) have had the good sense to avoid such a step of folly.

The word 'Lucifer' did not even exist at the time of Isaiah. The fact that the KJV inserts it into the Old Testament is another example of the KJV translators adding stuff to the Word of God.

PDN

Jakkass wrote:

I personally believe that some of the Gnostic gospels and Acts are indeed true.

The Acts of Paul were removed because God forbid. A woman baptised herself and others. This was objected because women couldn't lead a church, they weren't as intelligent as men etc.

So yes, a lot of the Gnostics are accurate.

No, the "Acts of Paul" was rejected for a number of reasons. It was written about 170 AD, so was about a century later than the canonical books.

The canonical books were written either by apostles or by their close associates (Mark, Luke, James, Jude). the "Acts of Paul" was written by a cleric from Asia minor who, according to Tertullian, was dismissed from his post for falsifying the facts.

The canonical works were accepted as Scripture because the early church believed them to be factual and divinely inspired. The "Acts of Paul" contains a story about Paul preaching to a lion in the countryside and, upon the lion's profession of faith, baptising it as a Christian! Then, years later, Paul was arrested and put in the arena to be eaten by lions. However, one of the lions that was supposed to eat him turned out to be his baptised converted lion and spared his life, thus allowing Paul to be miraculously released.

You may believe that this kind of stuff is true, but I personally don't.

JimiTime

PDN wrote:

The "Acts of Paul" contains a story about Paul preaching to a lion in the countryside and, upon the lion's profession of faith, baptising it as a Christian! Then, years later, Paul was arrested and put in the arena to be eaten by lions. However, one of the lions that was supposed to eat him turned out to be his baptised converted lion and spared his life, thus allowing Paul to be miraculously released.

You may believe that this kind of stuff is true, but I personally don't.

Is that true? I never heard that. Maybe its symbolic of the Christian plight amongst Atheists here on Boards:D So which one of you atheists is going to be the converted Lion:D