My Third Question to Christians: Is Our Bible Corrupted?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2012, 10:12 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2012 10:39 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: My Third Question to Christians: Is Our Bible Corrupted?
(22-03-2012 09:08 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Not so fast there, Mr. Blood.

Bucky is correct about Nicaea being the Council that it was charged with the responsibility from Constantine that they should agree on the Nature of Christ and agree on what was Canon. This was the first time Christian muckety mucks met and they put together the many canons that were floating around, they were mixed and matched and an "official" version was now available.
This was 325 CE


Trent in 1500 was a Council to counter the Protestant Reformation. The only thing it had to do with canon was keeping the Apochrypha in the Catholic Bible as being equally inspired as the rest of the Bible because Luther's Bible set them aside as being interesting background material, but certainly not "God Breathed."
Yup.
I did say "after" Nicaea. The proceedings of Nicaea do not record it, but the extra councilar documents DO. I really could care less. The POINT is, what was arrived at, was a very human, non-unanimous process, which had gone on for centuries. The Codex Vaticanus WAS different from the Codex Alexandrinus, etc. etc. THAT was my point. (Also whether Revelation was included, is a disputed matter as I recall).
The Protestants, (Martin Luther) has proposed that certain texts be relegated to "deutero" canonical status. The Council of Trent did lots of stuff, but in the agenda of Trent, the proceedings, (and the Canon of Trent), contain NO proceeding where an entire text that was not known and accepted for a thousand years, was either affirmed, or excluded. They simply rubber stamped what was done earlier, at the Council of Florence, which had ended in disaster, and the schism.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2012, 10:34 PM
RE: My Third Question to Christians: Is Our Bible Corrupted?
(22-03-2012 10:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-03-2012 09:08 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Not so fast there, Mr. Blood.

Bucky is correct about Nicaea being the Council that it was charged with the responsibility from Constantine that they should agree on the Nature of Christ and agree on what was Canon. This was the first time Christian muckety mucks met and they put together the many canons that were floating around, they were mixed and matched and an "official" version was now available.
This was 325 CE


Trent in 1500 was a Council to counter the Protestant Reformation. The only thing it had to do with canon was keeping the Apochrypha in the Catholic Bible as being equally inspired as the rest of the Bible because Luther's Bible set them aside as being interesting background material, but certainly not "God Breathed."
Yup.
I did say "after" Nicaea. The proceedings of Nicaea do not record it, but the extra councilar documents DO. I really could care less. The POINT is, what was arrived at, was a very human, non-unanimous process, which had gone on for centuries. The Codex Vaticanus WAS different from the Codex Alexandinus, etc. etc. THAT was my point. (Also whether Revelation was included, is a disputed matter as I recall).
The Protestants, (Martin Luther) has proposed that certain texts be relegated to "deutero" canonical status. The Council of Trent did lots of stuff, but in the agenda of Trent, the proceedings, (and the Canon of Trent), contain NO proceeding where an entire text that was not known and accepted for a thousand years, was either affirmed, or excluded. They simply rubber stamped what was done much earlier, at the Council of Florence, which had ended in disaster, and the
schism.
[Image: High_five.gif]

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2012, 12:07 AM
RE: My Third Question to Christians: Is Our Bible Corrupted?
Not adding to the conversation but the general agreement on the books of the bible occurred at the council of Carthage in 398. Also before the councils of Nicea there were the 12 synods, the first being the council of Jerusalem in 50 ad.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2012, 02:26 PM
RE: My Third Question to Christians: Is Our Bible Corrupted?
KC- this seems relevant and I was wondering about your take on it. I read this blog post and it was interesting, but I didn't research beyond that.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist...nslations/

The blog post does point a finger at the NASB as a culprit in changing the way scripture is read. This could either be because fo the political reasons suggest in the blog or because it actually does look at the original Hebrew and the original meaning was different than previous translations had it. I'm not sold on either, but it does look suspicious because of the change in the NASB translations between 1971 and 1995. The change is consistent with the changes in the political arena and Jewish version that they listed shows the original meaning.

This also might be interesting to see posted at the other Christian forums.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2012, 02:35 PM
RE: My Third Question to Christians: Is Our Bible Corrupted?
(24-03-2012 02:26 PM)kineo Wrote:  KC- this seems relevant and I was wondering about your take on it. I read this blog post and it was interesting, but I didn't research beyond that.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist...nslations/

The blog post does point a finger at the NASB as a culprit in changing the way scripture is read. This could either be because fo the political reasons suggest in the blog or because it actually does look at the original Hebrew and the original meaning was different than previous translations had it. I'm not sold on either, but it does look suspicious because of the change in the NASB translations between 1971 and 1995. The change is consistent with the changes in the political arena and Jewish version that they listed shows the original meaning.

This also might be interesting to see posted at the other Christian forums.
LOL at this:

Quote:It turns out that English-speaking Christians aren’t the very first people ever to read the book of Exodus. The Jews got there way, way before we did. It seems Jews actually wrote the thing. Plus they’re pretty good at reading Hebrew.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2012, 02:50 PM
RE: My Third Question to Christians: Is Our Bible Corrupted?
Kiss my bonds.

Anyone ever read the supressed "Acts of Paul and Thekla" ? Apocryphal ... and even then they were fighting about the place of women in the church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Paul_and_Thecla

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2012, 03:07 PM
RE: My Third Question to Christians: Is Our Bible Corrupted?
I'm in Ireland. A few months ago, before I became an atheist, in the catholic church there was lots of changes to creed and the responses and whatever else. I think the priest said it was because the translations were not exact as they should have been.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2012, 03:19 PM
RE: My Third Question to Christians: Is Our Bible Corrupted?
(24-03-2012 03:07 PM)Magoo Wrote:  I'm in Ireland. A few months ago, before I became an atheist, in the catholic church there was lots of changes to creed and the responses and whatever else. I think the priest said it was because the translations were not exact as they should have been.


Yup. Gotta get them magic words just right. Abra cadabra.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
24-03-2012, 07:15 PM
RE: My Third Question to Christians: Is Our Bible Corrupted?
(22-03-2012 09:08 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Not so fast there, Mr. Blood.

Bucky is correct about Nicaea being the Council that it was charged with the responsibility from Constantine that they should agree on the Nature of Christ and agree on what was Canon. This was the first time Christian muckety mucks met and they put together the many canons that were floating around, they were mixed and matched and an "official" version was now available.
This was 325 CE


Trent in 1500 was a Council to counter the Protestant Reformation. The only thing it had to do with canon was keeping the Apochrypha in the Catholic Bible as being equally inspired as the rest of the Bible because Luther's Bible set them aside as being interesting background material, but certainly not "God Breathed."

There seems to be some confusion between scriptural canon and canon law. These are two different things.

Scriptural canon was not discussed at Nicea. No "official" New Testament emerged from it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea


"A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the biblical canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council at all."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2012, 08:47 PM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2012 09:19 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: My Third Question to Christians: Is Our Bible Corrupted?
(24-03-2012 07:15 PM)Blood Wrote:  
(22-03-2012 09:08 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Not so fast there, Mr. Blood.

Bucky is correct about Nicaea being the Council that it was charged with the responsibility from Constantine that they should agree on the Nature of Christ and agree on what was Canon. This was the first time Christian muckety mucks met and they put together the many canons that were floating around, they were mixed and matched and an "official" version was now available.
This was 325 CE


Trent in 1500 was a Council to counter the Protestant Reformation. The only thing it had to do with canon was keeping the Apochrypha in the Catholic Bible as being equally inspired as the rest of the Bible because Luther's Bible set them aside as being interesting background material, but certainly not "God Breathed."


There seems to be some confusion between scriptural canon and canon law. These are two different things.

Scriptural canon was not discussed at Nicea. No "official" New Testament emerged from it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea


"A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the biblical canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council at all."


Nope.

No one is talking about Canon Law. We all know what Canon Law is. And THAT is EXACTLY what I said. The proceedings of Nicaea do not record a discussion of the canon of scripture. However extra concilar documents prove there was a discussion of it, by those attending.

Marcion (of Sinope) had a canon. Irenaeus used as his inclusion criteria the (ridiculous) reason : "It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four quarters of the earth in which we live, and four universal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world, and the 'pillar and ground' of the church is the gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh… Therefore the gospels are in accord with these things… For the living creatures are quadriform and the gospel is quadriform… These things being so, all who destroy the form of the gospel are vain" .....bla bla bla....

By the 3rd Century, (Origen of Alexandria), the present canon was set. This was about 1200 years before Trent.

In the famous "Easter Letter", (367), Athenasius listed EXACTLY the same books they use today.

Once again we are OFF THE POINT. You can't "corrupt" what was never "pristine".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: