Evidence for God from Science

The Bible? Which Bible? The Protestant Canon has 66 books. The Ethiopian Orthodox Canon 81. There are several versions of the Bible. You happened to pick one, but there are books, epistles and letters left out of yours that appear in others. What is in your bible was decided by somebody back in time that wanted it to say certain things and left out certain others. The King James Bible says what King James and the Church or England wanted it to say. The Wycliff Bible says other things. Your Bible as evidence wasn't compiled for hundreds of years after the death of the central character. There are no original documents and no way to prove that the named authors of the books actually wrote them.

A question someone asked me.

Well...we do have surviving, older manuscripts though....

So...why not slowly and painstakingly go back through all the older and older copies of said scriptures and work out what is the best translation of the original texts...?

*Scratches head*

That has actually kind of always been my question. Hope it adds nicely to your own WannaLearn.

Much cheers to all.

I hope all those have this in common: "16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

Much cheers to all

WannaLearn wrote:The Bible? Which Bible? The Protestant Canon has 66 books. The Ethiopian Orthodox Canon 81.

This question is a variant of ''Which translation is correct?'' Stop tripping over the motifs in the carpet! Choose the Bible you are comfortable with and go with that.



FL

That is what im comfortable with, just trying to see and possibly fix others views.

WannaLearn wrote:That is what im comfortable with... possibly fix others views.

You've set for yourself an impossible task. God does the fixing in a Christian's life.

FL

WannaLearn wrote:The Bible? Which Bible? The Protestant Canon has 66 books. The Ethiopian Orthodox Canon 81. There are several versions of the Bible. You happened to pick one, but there are books, epistles and letters left out of yours that appear in others. What is in your bible was decided by somebody back in time that wanted it to say certain things and left out certain others. The King James Bible says what King James and the Church or England wanted it to say. The Wycliff Bible says other things. Your Bible as evidence wasn't compiled for hundreds of years after the death of the central character. There are no original documents and no way to prove that the named authors of the books actually wrote them.

A question someone asked me.

Wannalearn, this is more brash talk than an actual question by someone to you. Please have a look at "textual criticism" for the bible, you will find it most illuminating for your own self if not for others. We have thousands of manuscripts and have broad agreement on almost all of it. Some small parts are in question but the overwhelming rest of it simply is substantial to respect the fact that what we have today is pretty much what christ had in his day.

Is that like a book ?

No. In short its a process of how the biblical texts are analyzed and authenticated. Just google "biblical textual criticism". You will see.

Personally I think that the RC canon is more complete and that I would add the Epistle of Barnabas too.

PaulSacramento wrote:Personally I think that the RC canon is more complete and that I would add the Epistle of Barnabas too.

Mr. Ambiguous ,

For clarity, are you saying the Roman Catholic canon is more complete because it has more books? Or are you saying the Protestant canon is not complete, because it lacks the books in the RC bible? Or something different?

PaulSacramento wrote:Personally I think that the RC canon is more complete and that I would add the Epistle of Barnabas too.

Why not the gospel of Thomas?

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Personally I think that the RC canon is more complete and that I would add the Epistle of Barnabas too.

Mr. Ambiguous ,

For clarity, are you saying the Roman Catholic canon is more complete because it has more books? Or are you saying the Protestant canon is not complete, because it lacks the books in the RC bible? Or something different?

I think that that deutrocanonical books/apocraphical books in the RC canon serve a purpose and they shouldn't have been removed from the Protestant canon.
I will also add that I think the writings of the apostolic fathers should also be part of reading BUT not part of the bible canon.

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Personally I think that the RC canon is more complete and that I would add the Epistle of Barnabas too.

Why not the gospel of Thomas?

Because it is gnostic in its teachings.
I mention the Epistle of Barnabas because it was part of one of the oldest codex's (Sinaiticus) which means it was at one time viewed a "canon".
I agree that the anti-semitic parts may be contoversial for some, but I think that it is an important letter in terms of historical relevance for the thoughts of those times.
Clement of Alexandria cited it, which places it somewhere between 70 AD and 130 AD ( because of the mention of the temple destruction in the Epistle).

Just to note, I don't mean that the Epistle should be part of the Canon, but should read along with it, like the apostolic fathers.
Just wanted to clarify that.