Matt. 25:31-46

BARK · #41 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 12:50 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-can...d_in_the_Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

Everyone else uses Wikipedia so I will too.

Quote:

I would disagree Bark. First, I don't buy into the fact that the Bible has changed many times. Aside from the Apocrypha being included in the Catholic Bibles, it has largely remained the same. The Bible (as known by the Protestants) was accepted cannon since the time the books were written. If you don't want to take my word for that I understand. If it's really that big of a deal let me know and I'll give you my reasons for saying that but that would take more time then I wish to right here. To keep things simple I will say this. In 393 the Council of Hippo officially accepted the New Testament list as listed by Athanasius of Alexandria. This same cannon was also accepted at the Council of Carthage in 397. If you wish to go back a little further you may even find references to the cannon at the Council of Nicea in 325, but that did not have to do directly with the cannon. I would also like to note that the Council of Hippo and Carthage was NOT to establish the cannon. That had been accepted long before hand. The only reason that the cannon had to be officially stated during these councils was to reject heretical ideas entering the Church at that time. As far as the Apocrypha goes, here is a website telling its history: http://www.watch.pair.com/apocrypha.html To save you the time, the Apocrypha was brought into the Catholic Church on April 8, 1546 A.D. at the Council of Trent. If you want to know all the history behind all of this check the website. Now, with all that aside I would like to ask how you say that the translators were allowed to interject their opinions. If you mean the direct translations of the word, fine. Some of the meaning is lost when the books of the Bible are translated from Hebrew and Greek into English and other languages. Words that would normally be emphasized or carry emphasis are lost in translation. If you mean to say that the translators made slight changes to the MEANING on the other hand, then I strongly disagree. If that is also the case, please let me know and I will outline why I disagree with that.

Now you can use history. I love to use it myself. It is valid, but it must remain unchanged or else it is for naught. There are more versions of the bible right now than I can name. Each denomination takes what they want. Books referenced in other books might be ignored. What ever fits the politics of the day is what will be included. I'm not saying that they change it every five days or anything like that, but durring the council meetings the politics of the day were a huge factor in what they decided to cannonize. How big is the pool of books that could be in the bible? How many authors never had their work cannonized. If I'm not mistaken I have heard Barnabus had an amazing work that was excluded why. We can argue dates and times if you like, but the fact is that yes the bible has changed. There is no disputing that. Yes there are different, very different, versions of the bible. That is fact as well. No you cannot tell me that the Protestant bible which came to be with Luther and Calvin is the same bible that was cannonized in the fourth century. Which by the way came an easy 350-400 years after Jesus and 950-1000 years after the Old Testament was compiled. Faith in something does not negate the fact that facts say something counter.

BARK · #42 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 01:27 PM

Post #38. This is exactly what I am taliking about we are arguing the jargon of the bible. This is pathetic and this is the crap that leads to wars. People are son convinced that the bible they have sitting on their shelf represents the solid absolute truth of God that any other version has to be nullified. This is not my work. What you are replying to is from a Catholic Publication. And you have said that the only difference is the Apocrypha, and yet when I cite one verse you give me the same verse in different words. How does this NOT support my point that much is lost in translation? We have different types of Jargon for the same verse in the same language. And yet still, I assume, you will not change your view. This maddens me. Proof can be right in your face and it will be ignored. If you admit that there are two differing sets of jargon for the same verse in the same language, then how can you say the bible that you read is the same as the one cannonized in the fourth century? English itself has changed in the last 150 years. Thats why we have the NIV. I'm not speaking down, but does "thee" always translate to "you?" No it does not. To bolster this point I will repost the part of the story that you left out in your post #38 because it did not fit your belief.

Quote:

I suggest that the differences are the result of Luke employing different scriptural traditions for different aims. Acts uses the symbolic number 40, the number of years Israel spent in the wilderness preparing to enter the Promised Land. This allusion suggests that Jesus had prepared his disciples for living in a new stage of the divine plan, the time of the church. The Gospel, on the other hand, is intent on the outpouring of the Spirit that enables the disciples to do what the master did. In both versions, Luke is not writing history in the modern sense but aligning the new event with venerable Old Testament stories so as to validate and interpret that new event. He freely selects, omits and alters details-all to help his audience understand what the ascension means for them.

Even if YOU and AYFR this is for you too. Even if YOU choose to think that the bible is a truth speaking set of historical reference and fact, that does not change the fact that the authors of the bible put as much if not more work into making their pieces artfully pleasing. They were poets. No interpretation from to day or yesterday will change that. You are ignoring the style that people wrote in which is at least half to 2/3 the point of writing it. If Ahmed the village idiot wrote about Jesus do you think his work would have been included? Do you think Ahmed the Idiot work would have been considered if it was not perfect poetry. If we are trying to explain the inexplicable, God, don't you think technique goes a long way. Ahmed would write. "God gonna come back on a horse to fix the world and save from sin." Or would you rather hear, "1After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this." 2At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. 3And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian. A rainbow, resembling an emerald, encircled the throne. 4Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads. 5From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. Before the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits[a] of God. 6Also before the throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal." Rev 4:1-6 If it wasn't for the beauty of speech you would not lend it credence. You can't tell me you would because even if you would, the people who put the bible together wouldn't have. You never would have had the chance. All the war crap that happens over this stuff is ridiculous. Even fighting amogst chruches divides rather than unites those who have the same belief system. All Christian churches have the same basic ideas and rather than spreading their influence by uniting they fight over should we let them dance or not. What is and is not a sin. They fight for control of people. Where one church will tell you it is ok to dance another will say it is a sin you should ask forgivness for. This is stupid. Teach me the major things in life. Teach me that others matter more than me. Teach me the flaws of selfishness. But don't dictate my every action. If you are any good at what you do, If you are any good at teaching me right and wrong, then don't you have enough faith in me that I might be able to make some of my own decisions about morality. Set up a system leave the facts to me. (Stream of consciuos if you aregu jargon it would not shock me at all, but please don't. Argue my points.)

BARK · #43 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Do you not find it odd that multiple cultures came up with this "story"? I certainly do. Is it not seemingly possible that the reason these cultures all have a flood story is because it actually happened? Also, what are you basing this off of? I would like to know your sources so I could look the over to adequately debate this.

This is a repost, but I love the flood story, try this out:

Ok I'll do the flood thing. First we will begin with a Hebraic Idiom. He floated down the river. He floated down the river was sargon of babylon. He was verified by several sources to have floated down a river to be scooped up by a noble woman who took him to her care and he rose to the level of king. By the time the Bible people came to be it was an idiom for one who rose above the class his parents were in.

Now we do communications. Back in the days of the flood Noah did not have a cell phone. I know this is very hard to buy but this one might be even more difficult. THERE WAS NO INTERNET. Yes I know it is sad, but true. Believe me I couldn't believe it either so I checked some reliable sources and yes those things were not around. There was no way to travel very far in a day so you home range was very limited. Only massive caravan could trek across continents so that did not happen alot. Your world was small. Hell go back through maps in time and you will see the ends of the world fall off and come closer and closer together. The concept of the world was small.

Just for fun the whale bones on mountains. This could support the God thing, or it could support the fact that the world is more than six thousand years old. Mountains form by having two plates touch and rub against eachother for so long that they begin to push up. That was said very poorly. I'm not a science guy. But thats how we get them. They used to be flat and before they were flat land they were under water. you can find fossils on the sea floor, and if we wait long enough for the sea floor to come up then out we would be finding the fossils that were once on the sea floor now in the mountains. What are the odds of this happening. Not much, but how many fossils have we found anywhere versus how many animals have lived on this planet. Life is full of mysteries.

Now back to the small world communications point. When the Tsunami hit indonesia a few years back it wiped it clean. The damn thing covered most of everything. If you were on the island it looked like the whole world was swallowed. Get it if we have a small concept of the world and we are subject to a massive flood, which by the way is not a rarity in that region, The nile may very well be God's way of venting. It is a monster, but if we are subjected to a massive flood don't you think it would be safe to assume that it covered the whole wolrd? It was an assumption. A safe assumption. I would have probably made the same one, but it does not hold water. No pun intended. Well maybe a little bit.

Now back to the idiom. If floating down the river means raising you status above you parents how big of a river would you need if you were supposed to repopulate the earth? "Go wrap your head in newspaper and grow up." A columbian woman told me this and I laughed and laughed. I thought it was the funniest thing I had ever heard. See watched me with fire in her eyes (god I love that fire Columbian women are so hot.) but she told me what it meant. In Spanish the word for mature as in a mature individual and the term for ripe as in ripe fruit are the same. When a piece of frunit is not ripe they will wrap it in newspaper and put it in a drawer. She was telling me to mature or grow up. Lets say it was lost in translation, but do you know how much english and spanish have in common. It is uncanny, but still there are many things that get lost in translation. How much do you think english has in common with Aramaic? Sanskrit? Ancient Greek? I bet there was a lot lost in translation. If it does not line up perfectly it is ok. The bible is poetry not an almanac of world events. It was never meant to be. If you have a peole who spread knowldge with an oral tradition are you more likely to get them to memorize an almanac, or a sensationilized poem?

BARK · #44 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 02:01 PM

Citing sources to justify me saying the bible is a story is about as productive as arguing the historic facts behind the movie"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. For every verse you cite I will be able to cite the same verse with a different message. The bible has been translated into so many times and so many languages that no it cannot be a historical record. You belong to one school of thought. I belong to another. Do you think that God is the only reason people wrote the books? Authors love to show off their talent. In the very article I posted you cited something then asked a question. You ignored the fact that the very next line in the article answered that question. What, I ask you, is the point? Why should I take time to post stuff just to repost it later? Your words are heavier than most of your thoughts. I do acknowledge that you have a gift for words. I will admit that you seem fairly well read, but without the moral strength to sort out things in your own head what is the point? I can't teach you from another school. If you are interested in what I say for the sake of trding ideas let me know, but, as I have done in this thread, when someone hits you with something and it is true; you must concede. Do you admit that in english alone there are tens of translations to the bible? And each has a different focus? And if there are tens of translations how likely is it that any are the absolute truth? Do you not think that one should examine all there is before coming to a conclusion? Big words fool some, but to me simplicity shows a deeper grasp. I think you hide much of your arguments in words. Speak simply and everyone can follow you. Speak above people and they wont follow. Follow?

Politicon · #45 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BARK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-can...d_in_the_Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

Everyone else uses Wikipedia so I will too.

Now you can use history. I love to use it myself. It is valid, but it must remain unchanged or else it is for naught. There are more versions of the bible right now than I can name. Each denomination takes what they want. Books referenced in other books might be ignored. What ever fits the politics of the day is what will be included. I'm not saying that they change it every five days or anything like that, but durring the council meetings the politics of the day were a huge factor in what they decided to cannonize. How big is the pool of books that could be in the bible? How many authors never had their work cannonized. If I'm not mistaken I have heard Barnabus had an amazing work that was excluded why. We can argue dates and times if you like, but the fact is that yes the bible has changed. There is no disputing that. Yes there are different, very different, versions of the bible. That is fact as well. No you cannot tell me that the Protestant bible which came to be with Luther and Calvin is the same bible that was cannonized in the fourth century. Which by the way came an easy 350-400 years after Jesus and 950-1000 years after the Old Testament was compiled. Faith in something does not negate the fact that facts say something counter.

You have asked me to use simplicity. This I shall try and I am sorry if it seems I am trying to hide behind words. You are right when you say there are thousands of Bible versions. For example, the Message version of the Bible uses very different words than the King James Version. This has to do with the point of the books though. For example, the Message is directed at a younger generation and so it uses basic terms and lingo that younger people will understand. Meanwhile, the King James Version uses Older English. While the words are different, the message behind the words is the same. I fail to see what the problem is. If I say Jesus ascended into heaven versus he rose into heaven it makes no difference. If I’m missing something here Bark, please let me know. I’m truly interested in what you are saying here. Ok, on to the canonization. First, there needs not be any question on the Old Testament cannon for the simple fact that those books were included in the cannon as soon as they were written. If they were not included, there was a reason the Jews did not included it. I guess we can discuss this point further, but I’m not as well versed in the history of the Old Testament compared to the NT. I can and will say that the same Bible at the time of Luther and Calvin is the same Bible from the fourth century. The councils of Hippo and Carthage acknowledged 27 books of the New Testament. They were the same books included in our Bible today. Yet, like I said earlier, those councils were only convened to reject the heresies being taught at that time. The NT cannon goes back much further then those councils though. We positively know that all for Gospels were in existence before160 A.D. This is known because Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho, written in 160 A.D., specifically states that the Gospels Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were being read and used in worship at his time. In fact, no document written after 120 A.D. was considered for inclusion in the canon. That is why there were so many books not included in the New Testament such as the Gnostic gospels (which disagreed so much with other scripture that they were never seriously considered anyway). As far as the Epistle of Barnabas goes I would like to quote http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02299a.htm

Quote:

This abstract discussion of Judaism is the sign of an epoch when the Judaizing controversies were already a thing of the past in the main body of the Church. In settling the date of the letter reference is often made to verses 3-5 of chapter four, where the writer, it is believed, finds the fulfilment of the prophecy of Daniel (Dan. 7:7, sqq.) in the succession of the Roman Emperors of his time. Starting from this, some critics place the composition of the epistle in the reign of Vespasian, others in the reign of Domitian, and still others in the reign of Nerva. But there is nothing to prove that the author considers the prophecy to be already accomplished. Besides, he might have taken the words of the prophecy to mean a series of kingdoms instead of a line of kings. It is necessary, therefore, to fall back on verses 3-5 of chapter xvi. Reference is here made to the command given by Adrian in A.D. 130 for the reconstruction, in honour of Jupiter, of the Temple at Jerusalem, which had been destroyed by Titus. Adrian had also forbidden the Jews to practise circumcision. The writer of the letter makes allusion to this (ch. ix, 4). The epistle must, consequently, have been written in A.D. 130-131.

As you can see it falls too far outside the timetable for inclusion in the cannon. In other words, the books included in the cannon had to match strict criteria (even more than what I have listed here) for inclusion.

I'm sorry if I'm making you repeat yourself. I'm not trying to; I'm just addressing topics as I see them. If I'm missing what you are trying to say, then please help me understand. I'm trying.

Politicon · #46 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 03:28 PM

Bark, I underestimated the writer of the publication you posted.

http://www.wjst.edu/resources/direct...4-EB6D69B7ABEA

I think you can say that is a credible source. I'll have to look into the idea about the 40 in ACTS and on Genesis 2-11. Right now I don't have the time to do it so please be patient with me

Eternal Footman · #47 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 04:23 PM

Realizing you directed this at Politicon, I will answer those questions on behalf of myself, as I am a Christian and have an opinion on the matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BARK

Do you admit that in english alone there are tens of translations to the bible? ?

There are many translations to the bible, this is true and inevidable. Translating a book into a different language is sure to change some verbiage, but not necessarily the message.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BARK

And each has a different focus? ?

Words may be changed and this lends itself to misinterpretation, but the focus has not always changed. Some stories may vary slightly between versions, but it would be irresponsible to take that fact and discount the entire story. Would you omit the book of Luke if one version spoke of a Zacchaeus in an olive tree? Lastly, I don't believe the focus has changed with every version. Not having scoured over every story of every version, I can't say with 100% certainty, but I am very confident in this statement and look forward to you proving otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BARK

And if there are tens of translations how likely is it that any are the absolute truth?

Likelihood, or odds as it is oft refered, is not a good barometer of "truth" when dealing with religion. Christianity is based on faith, not statistical values. To a christian, we believe what the Lord has told us within the books and in our daily walk with him, based on the faith that he is the only God and has died for all sinners. Odds don't factor into this faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BARK

Do you not think that one should examine all there is before coming to a conclusion?

Absolutely, with an open mind. But, don't expect a Christian to compromise their faith. *2 cents deposited*

Dom1 · #48 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Areyouforreal

I did not say to trust anyone interpretation. I have come to every conclusion on my own. I get my information directly from the source as well. I can tell from talking to you that you major gift is teaching and yes you are using your gifts but are you using them for God's glory?
It says plainly in the Bible that none may enter heaven without acccepting Jesus first. There is no other way to interptet that.

The idea of exclusive salvation is not what all Christians believe. We Catholics don't believe that Hitler is in heaven while Ghandi is not, like many of our Protestant brethren.

It also says something else plainly in the Bible. Matthew 16: 18-19

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed on heaven."

It seems that Jesus gave Peter (and thus his church) the power to make some interpretations. Peter does have the key to heaven, why can't he, or the people who have followed him, let others in.

Scoody Boo · #49 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 07:20 PM

Christ never said that the government should take from us and give to the less fortunate. It has to be given out of free will.

Areyouforreal · #50 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

The idea of exclusive salvation is not what all Christians believe. We Catholics don't believe that Hitler is in heaven while Ghandi is not, like many of our Protestant brethren.

It also says something else plainly in the Bible. Matthew 16: 18-19

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed on heaven."

It seems that Jesus gave Peter (and thus his church) the power to make some interpretations. Peter does have the key to heaven, why can't he, or the people who have followed him, let others in.

Dom what about

John 14:5-8
Jesus the Way to the Father
5Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know[a] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." 8Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."