Reply to: Evangelical Christians?

[RichardCranium]

On Radio 4 this week is "The Story of the King James Bible" which may be of interest.

BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - King James Bible, The Story of the King James Bible, The Commission
BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - King James Bible, The Story of the King James Bible, The Translation
BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - King James Bible, The Story of the King James Bible, The Legacy

State-commissioned manipulation of the masses, or a sincere scholarly attempt at a true representation of God's word?

[Churchill]

I think the authors of The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine may well differ from your opinion. The NT was a political instrument to try and combine the very differing early Christianities under one faith who then recognise the Emperor as Gods leader on Earth.

Careful mate, they don't like inconvenient truths like that...

[Gibbon]

If that's true - which is kind of hard to demonstrate as you'd have to show what it was manipulated from - then it would only apply to the New Testament. Unless by manipulated you mean "put together by", in which case it's kind of self-evident.

All the other stuff about suppressed gospels etc. is about as as scholarly as Dan Brown, and should be treated with the seriousness that you'd reserve for any other kind of conspiracy theory.

I think the authors of The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine may well differ from your opinion. The NT was a political instrument to try and combine the very differing early Christianities under one faith who then recognise the Emperor as Gods leader on Earth.

[NickFitz]

What is scripture?

This is where that whole "owning a dictionary" thing kicks in

[minestrone]

Religion is a personal choice that can be taken or left. I will always respect a person for taking a conscious decision of faith even if they do scream down a megaphone.

[d000hg]

So I do have a capacity for rational discussion? I will take that as a compliment.

Actually in a backwards way, it is one. Until that point, I was genuinely enjoying debating with you.

[xoggoth]

All the other stuff about suppressed gospels etc. is about as as scholarly as Dan Brown

Have you actually looked at the history of the modern version of the Bible? Dan Brown clearly did, successful authors have to to in order to make their stories seem plausible.

[Spacecadet]

So where then do the apocrypha fit in then? Who decided that they should be in or out of the main cannon and on who's authority did they make that decision? I am thinking here about books like Tobit, 1 and 2 Esdras, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, etc.

Radio 4 has a series on at the moment about the King James Bible - you should be able to catch it on iplayer

[portseven]

If that's true - which is kind of hard to demonstrate as you'd have to show what it was manipulated from - then it would only apply to the New Testament

So where then do the apocrypha fit in then? Who decided that they should be in or out of the main cannon and on who's authority did they make that decision? I am thinking here about books like Tobit, 1 and 2 Esdras, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, etc.

[NotAllThere]

If that's true - which is kind of hard to demonstrate as you'd have to show what it was manipulated from - then it would only apply to the New Testament. Unless by manipulated you mean "put together by", in which case it's kind of self-evident.

All the other stuff about suppressed gospels etc. is about as as scholarly as Dan Brown, and should be treated with the seriousness that you'd reserve for any other kind of conspiracy theory.

[minestrone]

There is no doubt that the bible was manipulated by the early Church. It is not something that should be held as, well 'gospel'.

[NotAllThere]

Yes. But if you believe in a god driving these things, then the argument is he was driving those decisions. Faith is required, although I suppose the excluded books can be examined in the light of history and literary analysis and consistency with other books too. No. Other historical texts suffer the same issues but there are scientific techniques to try and determine if what you have in front of you is an accurate representation of the original, and the gospels for example are very strong in this regard. It doesn't mean of course that the original is accurate, but the easy argument "it's been warped over time" is no more valid than claiming many well-trusted ancient manuscripts are flaky.

I can't find a link, right now, but I've seen one before with a few examples.

It's fairly obvious that the warped over time argument has had its day. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls had significant portions from Isaiah, that differed in no important way from the received text. The codex sinaiticus is around 1600 years old. Some manuscripts have been found that are over 1900 years old. The bible does get revised as new documents are discovered, for example the story about an angel stirring the waters (in Matthew), is generally considered to be a later addition, and not part of the original. However, the overwhelming witness of ancient manuscripts is that most of what we have today differs little from the original.

Of course, whether the Bible is inspired by god or made up by men is an entirely different question. But as a representative of an ancient body of literature, it's pretty reliable.

[minestrone]

I don't remember saying that. I'm not religious, following a set of rules is dead religion rather than having a relationship... and the 'book' tells Christians about the one they have a relationship with.
It's hard to see how you can follow someone without basing it on what they said and did. Saying you're following Jesus by trying to be a decent bloke is like saying you're following Ronaldo by wearing a Real Madrid shirt while stuffing your face with chips and never leaving the sofa.

Is this the point the thread goes downhill, where your capacity for rational discussion runs dry and you sink to insults and putting words in others' mouths?

So I do have a capacity for rational discussion? I will take that as a compliment.

[d000hg]

Yes, I see what you have done there.

I do not understand what you get from religion, to me it is a way of life, to you it is a book.

I don't remember saying that. I'm not religious, following a set of rules is dead religion rather than having a relationship... and the 'book' tells Christians about the one they have a relationship with.
It's hard to see how you can follow someone without basing it on what they said and did. Saying you're following Jesus by trying to be a decent bloke is like saying you're following Ronaldo by wearing a Real Madrid shirt while stuffing your face with chips and never leaving the sofa.

Is this the point the thread goes downhill, where your capacity for rational discussion runs dry and you sink to insults and putting words in others' mouths?

[minestrone]

But "living the way Jesus lived" would include having a personal relationship with God, healing the sick and all that stuff. Simply being a "good guy" is a very shallow simulacrum IMO. Sorry I wanted to use the word "simalcrum", hope it's the right use

Yes, I see what you have done there.

I do not understand what you get from religion, to me it is a way of life, to you it is a book.