Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is the ancient manuscripts which support Bible canon.
A paraphrased bible is Not a translation. Translations can be compared to the ancient manuscripts.
So, what the King James added is exposed as spurious.
That does Not make the Bible as wrong or different, but that slipped-in errors are exposed.
Because the Bible has cross-reference verses and passages that shows the internal harmony among Bible writers.
The apocryphal books simply exclude themselves being out of harmony with the '66' Bible books.
Only if you pretend all of the contradictions do not exist. You can pretend if you like, but that doesn't stop the contradictions from existing.
It is the ancient manuscripts which support Bible canon.
A paraphrased bible is Not a translation. Translations can be compared to the ancient manuscripts.
So, what the King James added is exposed as spurious.
That does Not make the Bible as wrong or different, but that slipped-in errors are exposed.
Because the Bible has cross-reference verses and passages that shows the internal harmony among Bible writers.
The apocryphal books simply exclude themselves being out of harmony with the '66' Bible books.
No, I'm talking about the early Christians described in the gospels. They didn't have Gospel writings nor Paul's letters or later Christian letter that they deified. Are they not saved if they converted without them?
It is the ancient manuscripts which support Bible canon.
Which Bible canon? There have been several between the second and fourth centuries AD. And what our NT shows is that the basic Canon we know have was first thrown together around in the second half of the second century AD.
The writings of Justin Martyr also show that around 150 AD, he did not know of the Canon we now have, as quite a few of his statements about Jesus contradict the gospels. Justin appears to not know the Judas story, or aware of Acts of the Epistles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew 4:4
A paraphrased bible is Not a translation. Translations can be compared to the ancient manuscripts.
So, what the King James added is exposed as spurious.
True, but this is also a problem with other translations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew 4:4
That does Not make the Bible as wrong or different, but that slipped-in errors are exposed.
Except you do not know if the 'errors' are original, or the 'original' texts are the errors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew 4:4
Because the Bible has cross-reference verses and passages that shows the internal harmony among Bible writers.
Not in any Bible I have read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew 4:4
The apocryphal books simply exclude themselves being out of harmony with the '66' Bible books.
An argument that would mean one would need to remove many of the works out of the NT.
There is no one religion or one "true religion". We all are different, have different DNA, souls, backgrounds, paths in life, etc. We will never see spiritual matters the same, and that's the way it is supposed to be. Fighting that and expecting one simple "this is it" is foolishness. Just look at history and even nature. The signs show how it is.
Seeking and searching can lead one in the right direction if it comes from within oneself, and is done freely, openly, and honestly. Nothing will be gained trying to think and do the same as other humans. We'll always be on different frequencies and speaking different languages, so to speak.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,483,414 times
Reputation: 12187
I was raised in an ultra conservative literal Bible denomination. By my teen years I had major unresolved questions and since have went back and forth from atheism to trying to believe in Christianity. I've read up on all the major world religions and other forms of Christianity. I find good and bad, seasonable and nonsensical in every religion. I could not go all out with believing in any major religion. Maybe their is a God out there who delivered some sort of message to different people but people mishandled or manipulated the message. Maybe there is no God and the beauty and complexity around us truly arose from spontaneity and accident. I'm 35 years old and accept that I will never find a satisfactory answer, at least on this side of the grave.
I was raised in an ultra conservative literal Bible denomination. By my teen years I had major unresolved questions and since have went back and forth from atheism to trying to believe in Christianity. I've read up on all the major world religions and other forms of Christianity. I find good and bad, seasonable and nonsensical in every religion. I could not go all out with believing in any major religion. Maybe their is a God out there who delivered some sort of message to different people but people mishandled or manipulated the message. Maybe there is no God and the beauty and complexity around us truly arose from spontaneity and accident. I'm 35 years old and accept that I will never find a satisfactory answer, at least on this side of the grave.
yup, religion doesn't own the rights to god. the science data and the scientific method shows that there is something, its just not what religions teach.
your in a god spot ... IMO that is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
