Quote:
Originally posted by Buff@Jun 14 2005, 01:14 AM
They have found that it wasn't translated from language a to b to c to d to e. Rather from a to b, and a to c, etc. There may be some a to c to e somewhere in there, but there have been, like you said, minimal changes. The Bible still says the same thing in a version printed yesterday as a Bible printed 100 years ago, or a version of the Bible from 1000 years ago. It hasn't been changed to suit the current needs of Christianity, unlike other religions. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and so is his word.
|
Well I don't know how closely you've looked into it but it's certainly not as cut and dried as you make it appear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament
"The New Testament was written by many different people. The traditional belief is that all the books were written by the apostles or their followers (e.g. Mark and Luke). Modern scholars now largely discount this assumption aside from seven of Paul's letters. Except for Hebrews, no serious question about the authorship of any of the books as listed above was raised in the church before the 18th century, when critical inquiry into the New Testament began."
"The process of canonization was complex and lengthy. It was characterized by a compilation of books that early Christians found inspiring in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Hebrew Testament (early Christian communities were primarily Jewish). In this way, the books considered authoritative revelation of the New Covenant were not hammered out in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but in the secret worship sessions of lower-class peasant Christians. While an episcopal hierarchy did develop and finally solidify the canon, this was a relatively late development.
In the first three centuries of the Christian Church, there was no New Testament canon that was universally recognized. Nevertheless, by the 2nd century there was a common collection of letters and gospels that a majority of church leaders considered authoritative. These contained the four gospels and many of the letters of Paul. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (all 2nd century), held these to be on par with the Hebrew Scriptures as being divinely inspired. Other books were held in high esteem, but were gradually relegated to the status of New Testament apocrypha.
One of the earliest attempt at solidifying a canon was made by Marcion, who rejected the entire Old Testament, all but one gospel (Luke), and three of the Pauline letters. His unorthodox canon was rejected by a majority of Christians, as was his gnostic theology. Around 200 the Muratorian fragment was written, listing the accepted works. This list was very similar to the modern canon, but also included the Wisdom of Solomon (now part of the Deuterocanonical books) and the Apocalypse of Peter. The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367, in a letter written to his churches in Egypt. That canon gained wider and wider recognition until it was accepted by all at the Third Council of Carthage in 397. Even this council did not settle the matter, however. Certain books continued to be questioned, especially James and Revelation. Even as late as the 16th century, theologian and reformer Martin Luther questioned (but in the end did not reject) the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation. Even today, German-language Luther Bibles are printed with these four books at the end of the canon, rather than their traditional order for other Christians."
If you really look into it, you really have to wonder about which books made the "Bible" as we know it, why, and which ones were excluded and why. Question about alterations certainly abound as well.
"All Christian groups respect the New Testament, but they differ in their understanding of the nature, extent, and relevance of its authority. Views of the authorititativeness of the New Testament often depend on the concept of inspiration, which relates to the role of God in the formation of the New Testament. Generally, the greater the role of God in one's doctrine of inspiration, the more one accepts the Bible's infallibility, inerrancy, and authorititativeness."
And if you follow the link they proceed to detail the position of a lot of the major churches on this very matter.
To further talk about the excluded books...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_Apocrypha
"In the process of determining the Biblical canon, a large number of works were excluded from the New Testament. These New Testament Apocrypha are generally not accepted by Christians, though the Ethiopian Orthodox Church recognizes Jubilees, Book of Enoch, the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, Acts of Paul, and some uniquely Ethiopian books."
"Many alternate edited versions of other gospels existed during the period of early christianity. Sometimes, those attributed to the text state elsewhere that their text is the earlier version, or that their text excises all the additions and distortions made by their opponents to the more recognised version of the text. Although the church fathers insist that these people are incorrect (and indeed heretical) in their assertions, modern scholarship is not so convinced. It remains to be seen whether any are earlier and more accurate versions of the canonical texts. Details of their contents only survive in the attacks on them by their opponents, and so for the most part it is uncertain as to how extensively different they are, and whether any constitute entirely different works. These texts include:
* Gospel of Cerinthus (Cerinthus' version)
* Gospel of Basilides (Basilides' version)
* Gospel of Marcion (Marcion's version)
* Gospel of Appelles (Appelles' version)
* Gospel of Bardesanes (Bardesanes' version)
* Gospel of Mani (Mani's version)"