Rescuing The Bible From Fundmentalism

[Coolhand]

I'm curious what course of action YOU think he SHOULD undertake? It seems you were questioning his ability to preach non-standard doctrine.... am I right? That he shouldn't call himself by a name which has very specific connotations? Is that it? What do you think the PROPER action would be if he wants to share such a different message?

He obviously marches to a different beat than I do. Choosing religious or denominational affiliations should be something that is done purposely and thoughtfully. My personal convictions lead me in a big circle in regard to denominational affiliations: Assemblies of God 1975-1985; none 1985-1994; Assemblies of God 1994-1998; Calvary Chapel 1998-2001; 2001-2004 ULC; 2004-2006 Non-Denominational; 2006-present Assemblies of God.

Why all the changes? It is called being true to myself and the organizations that I represent. Sometimes I get to the point to where I just say; "No, I can't do it your way." That is when (in my opinion) a person has to be true to all involved and say: "Brothers, I am being lead in a different direction," and go in that direction. That takes a lot of guts to do.

The whole point for affiliation with a denomination is to have a deeper fellowship with people who all agree on certain points of doctrine. There is unity in doctrine; there is unity in prayer, and in mission. As a minister you choose an affiliation because the denomination has a list of doctrines that you agree are biblically and spiritually sound that you feel accurately represent the truth, and then proclaim that truth.

In regard to Spong, I am surprised that has been able to keep his position and be so vocal about his ideas. It almost seems that he keeps the affiliation so that people view his ideas and him as credible. It would seem to me that people who are true lifelong Episcopal that choose that denomination because its specific doctrines would have him removed. Normally, on the license or ordination certificate there is some phrase that says something like: “this license is granted and is valid so long as fellowship with (the denomination) is maintained and the standard of teaching is maintained.”

My thoughts would be if someone wants to break in doctrine from the group they belong to, they should also break from the group. I know personally I did not go to Assemblies of God churches to hear Baptist doctrines taught, or non-denominational churches to hear pagan teachings.

You can see from my record which I have shared what I would do if I were Spong; I would join up with people who were like minded or start my own fellowship.

So the obvious question that comes up which would be directed back at me would be: “If you are not ULC anymore, then why are you here? Why don't you take your own advice and leave?”

When I resigned my credential with the ULC , I asked that question also. At the time I was a moderator here on this forum, and I had informed the other mods and admins of what I was going to do, and asked since I was resigning my credential I assumed that I should resign as a mod and leave the forum also. The answer was "that is up to you."” I remained on the mod staff for some time after that and ultimately resigned mainly because of time constraints cause by adding school to work and ministry.

Also, to participate in this forum, ordination from the ULC is not required, and this is a discussion forum where respectful discussion is desired from as many different points of view as possible.

But to answer your question regarding Spong, I think he should change his affiliation.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Coolhand

[Pete]

Actually Cool I think you celebrating a sense of righteousness over Spong that I do not think is founded. I know for a fact in the UK there has been a growing rift between conservative and Liberal views in the Anglican church. They had a split over women ministers and fear another over women Bishops. They are also finding it hard to discuss things like practising gay ministers because there is such a division and the church is fearful that this time the church will be badly damaged by it. I am surprised by the number of churches of the Anglican churches that have declared themselves liberal in recent years and have broken away from fundamentalist views. So to say that Spong is somehow isolated and others do not agree with him or that he would hoisted out of the church I believe is just not credible.

I also note your use of the word "credible" as if your view is the only one that counts. I have to say it is not and I do not find your views very credible (IMO). Sure you have done trainings but as I say one can walk a long way down the wrong road and having done trainings with a particular bias is not any more a justification that your any the more right in my view. You say you have attended differing churches but just a scan tells me that there is not a wide variation between each of their out looks and are mostly centred around Elim type churches and especially "Assemblies of God". It seems from your list you do not have a wide experience of other churches.

P.S. Have you read Spong's book?

Edited November 7, 2010 by Pete

[Coolhand]

Actually Cool I think you celebrating a sense of righteousness over Spong that I do not think is founded. I know for a fact in the UK there has been a growing rift between conservative and Liberal views in the Anglican church. They had a split over women ministers and fear another over women Bishops. They are also finding it hard to discuss things like practising gay ministers because there is such a division and the church is fearful that this time the church will be badly damaged by it. I am surprised by the number of churches of the Anglican churches that have declared themselves liberal in recent years and have broken away from fundamentalist views. So to say that Spong is somehow isolated and others do not agree with him or that he would hoisted out of the church I believe is just not credible.

I also note your use of the word "credible" as if your view is the only one that counts. I have to say it is not and I do not find your views very credible (IMO). Sure you have done trainings but as I say one can walk a long way down the wrong road and having done trainings with a particular bias is not any more a justification that your any the more right in my view. You say you have attended differing churches but just a scan tells me that there is not a wide variation between each of their out looks and are mostly centred around Elim type churches and especially "Assemblies of God". It seems from your list you do not have a wide experience of other churches.

P.S. Have you read Spong's book?

I'm not celebrating anything, I'm just responding to a specific question that was asked specifically to me. I do believe you are correct in regard to the disagreements in the Anglican Church. However I would refer to it as "disintegration" instead, which is what happens when unity in doctrine and mission is lost. Which is what happens when everyone thinks they are right. Which is why there are bylaws and missions statements, as well as Scripture. They should consider a split unless they want to see the whole denomination disintegrate.

Why would I take the stance that only my view is the only one that counts? Why would you assume that is how I think? Why would I come to a discussion forum if I didn't want to hear any other views. My use of credible is in regard to belonging to one group and not espousing their fundamentals for what appears to be for personal gain. I have no idea what you mean by Elim and whether that includes Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, and Independent.

Yes I have read Spong's book. I feel it is a prerequisite to read a book or article in order to comment on its content. Which was why I made comments concerning it. In contrast, did you read "How to Read the Bible for all Its Worth" prior to your commenting on it?

Edited November 7, 2010 by Coolhand

[Fawzo]

Coolhand what do you think of this article on the proof that the Scriptures were altered regarding the Trinty.

http://whatwouldjesu...671420551/item/

Edited November 7, 2010 by Fawzo

[Pete]

I'm not celebrating anything, I'm just responding to a specific question that was asked specifically to me. I do believe you are correct in regard to the disagreements in the Anglican Church. However I would refer to it as "disintegration" instead, which is what happens when unity in doctrine and mission is lost. Which is what happens when everyone thinks they are right. Which is why there are bylaws and missions statements, as well as Scripture. They should consider a split unless they want to see the whole denomination disintegrate.

Why would I take the stance that only my view is the only one that counts? Why would you assume that is how I think? Why would I come to a discussion forum if I didn't want to hear any other views. My use of credible is in regard to belonging to one group and not espousing their fundamentals for what appears to be for personal gain. I have no idea what you mean by Elim and whether that includes Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, and Independent.

Yes I have read Spong's book. I feel it is a prerequisite to read a book or article in order to comment on its content. Which was why I made comments concerning it. In contrast, did you read "How to Read the Bible for all Its Worth" prior to your commenting on it?

The reason that I asked if you had read the book was that you have only mentioned page 10 in you posts and I would of thought you may of referenced more than just that.

I know your criticism seems strong to Spong and I can understand that because he is juxtaposed to much that you believe in but I do not see much that reflects the substance to your objection to him. If that substance is based on just quoting biblical passages then I believe we are back in to the area of the unproven and opinion and the result is (IMO) just your belief verses his. I would argue that just because you do not like him does not make him without credibility even as my disagreement with you takes away either of our credibility.

An argument that I would give to you is does it sound credible that a God who has enacted destruction and affliction on humanity and threatens all who do not comply with a single belief to eternal suffering sound like a God who really loves all and would be prepared to die in person to save all from his own actions.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Pete

[Bro. Hex]

Have you read the book?

Do you always answer a question with a question?

[Brother Michael Sky]

Coolhand what do you think of this article on the proof that the Scriptures were altered regarding the Trinty.

http://whatwouldjesu...671420551/item/

people are confused in the separation of the ideas of a triune representation of God, and the Doctrine of The Trinity...

The reason I was so persistent earlier in the conversation was to bring this misconception out.... and make others think of exactly what the difference IS.... It is fair to say that the Doctrine of The Trinity is not supported in the Historical beginnings of Christianity...

But I think the important question is - why IS there a triune representation forwarded? What are the purposes of the concept? And exactly how does it differ in its implementation towards our faith than do the trinity teachings?..... I think these questions are important to hold in your mind, while you search for satisfaction... whoever feels the need to search, that is.... the strange thing is - I never intended that the conversation center so focused ON the trinity.... I knew how touchy a subject it is... But Cool nailed me down on that one.... he knew that any discussion of changes to the text MUST focus on THAT concept..... It was the foundation for the rest of the Crime....

It's a long winding trail to personal satisfaction... and some never find it at all....

[Fawzo]

people are confused in the separation of the ideas of a triune representation of God, and the Doctrine of The Trinity...

The reason I was so persistent earlier in the conversation was to bring this misconception out.... and make others think of exactly what the difference IS.... It is fair to say that the Doctrine of The Trinity is not supported in the Historical beginnings of Christianity...

But I think the important question is - why IS there a triune representation forwarded? What are the purposes of the concept? And exactly how does it differ in its implementation towards our faith than do the trinity teachings?..... I think these questions are important to hold in your mind, while you search for satisfaction... whoever feels the need to search, that is.... the strange thing is - I never intended that the conversation center so focused ON the trinity.... I knew how touchy a subject it is... But Cool nailed me down on that one.... he knew that any discussion of changes to the text MUST focus on THAT concept..... It was the foundation for the rest of the Crime....

It's a long winding trail to personal satisfaction... and some never find it at all....

Changes in the early manuscripts were in abundance as is noted by the follwing text from http://www.suite101.com/content/the-early-bible-manuscripts-a117994

The original Biblical autographs no longer exist. What have survived are copies which are several generations removed from the originals. Of all the surviving manuscript copies, no two are exactly the same.

What Bible is This?

If the original Biblical autographs do not exist and not one surviving Biblical manuscript is exactly the same, which version of the Bible are modern worshipers reading? The simple answer is that today's worshipers are reading a Bible with readings chosen from various manuscripts by a handful of scholars who have voted, not always unanimously, on the reading that's most apt to be accurate.

The Bible we read is not, and can never be, the original Bible in its entirety. To assume that all the words read in the Bible are the original writings of the authors is a misleading notion. It gives caution to the old famous Protestant axiom Sola Scriptura ("scripture alone"), and it's important to note that the readings contained within the Bible do not all have apostolic authority.

The original Biblical autographs no longer exist. What have survived are copies which are several generations removed from the originals. Of all the surviving manuscript copies, no two are exactly the same.

[Atwater Vitki]

You have several things going on in your post a person could “see the difference in” (as I see it).

1) In regard ...... would it not also make sense that some of the alleged unaltered texts⁽¹⁾ would have made it through as well?

2) In regard to researching something to find evidence to “prove” your argument is not done by anyone that is worth listening to, because when you go into research with the outcome already determined⁽²⁾, guess what the results are. .....But that is not research and if you are claiming that is my method⁽³⁾, then how do you account for the numerous requests that I have made in this topic for a text that evidences the alteration argument.

3) In regard to your research;..... having the equivalent to a degree is not the same as having one......if you are claiming to be an authority⁽⁴⁾ in a specific field, where are you published?

So do I see a difference in that? Yeah I do; but it is irrelevant, so who cares.

Blessings and peace to you as well my brother .

(1) interesting use of words to back the argument that none of the texts have been altered

(2) The cycle of having to repeat things is really strange...in my bio, if anyone read it, I started off as a red, white and blue 110% believer in what my parents and church taught me in my youth. When I came into the "age of reason", it didn't hold true as there were too many disparaging examples between what was taught/said and actualized/done. In no way did I set out to only find evidence to support my leeriness, quite the opposite, I wanted and desired "proof" of the Christianity I was born into and what I was taught....but could not find it.

(3) never made any such claim or even hinted of it

(4) I am published in Gild specific academic publications 1994,1996,1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2009; Uppsala University equiv. to NEJM, 2001 & 2002, authored 3 books, however never anywhere nor to any person have I ever claimed to be an authroity. Well versed, outside the box yes, but never have I made such an arrogant claim.

And I suppose I should have chosen my words much more carefully, I had hoped that you, as others did, saw the reference "equivalent to Master's Degree" as "in depth researching", not just something of momentary or casual interest.

The bottom line here friend, is keeping an open mind, accepting a point of view different than one's own as someone else's truth and not to seem fearful that they are trying to convert you or anyone. The adamant approach that only a certain view is correct is "Flat Earth Conceptualization" and was defunct many centuries ago.

No one here or in other posts has ever tried to sway your truth or belief, not once that I've seen. I guess all any of us are trying to "prove" is that there is in fact evidence to the contrary that no Biblical text were altered....a LOT of evidence...and those sources have been given here and elsewhere. IMO at least 90% of this topic has cycled and re-cycled on giving facts and resources only to have every one denied or claimed, by opinion, not to be reliable or relevant. When a Queen, a King, the heads of several colleges and numerous other scholars have indeed not only claimed, but held to all standards of academia these facts to be so, then anything else, IMO, should be deemed as wrong...even if it 100% supports my personal opinion.

From my background, I would have liked more than anything to believe that the Scriptures were 1000%, the unaltered and the unfiltered Word of God. After all, would He even need a human hand to write it down? I think not. That would end all discussion on any of the topic. But since mankind was involved in the original texts, humans with obvious and various agendas did translate and transcribe it, there can be no question as to there being blemishes in it along the way.

We are born into original sin and as such are imperfect creatures....says so in the Bible. THAT alone should be sufficient evidence to:

1) Understand the Scriptures have a inspiring, beautiful and wonderful message

2) Are indeed INSPIRED by faith and belief in "God"

3) There are going to be errors because imperfect creatures wrote it down

It can not be both ways.

And in closing, if you think that simply because I've chosen to practice a form of Paganism is the only reason I oppose the view of perfection and infallibility in the Scriptures, I should send you my 58 page discourse on Sigertsristing (the largest rune monument ever discovered) in Sweden. I started my opposition to 350 years of established, "proven" academic knowledge on that subject as I first sat upon that very piece of granite taking pictures and notes. My "published work" in Fålsfarristing was fore-worded by one of the contemporary experts (an accredited Ph.D. and professor in Nordic Mythology) validating my claim.

And I'm not bringing this up to prove anything, other than to let you know just because something is written by an "expert" that I swallow it 100%...whether that be Pagan, Christian or Martian. I didn't even begin to want to go against the established order in my field of runes, it just presented itself. And if not I, then perhaps someone else. And it's the same with the Scriptures...I never started by desire to find fault, the fault presented itself.

Logical observation, calculated examination and an open mind can glean more FACTS out of any written material than anyone's opinion....anyone's.

"The general facts concerning what we know, are what they are today. That is until tomorrow, when someone may find those facts deficient. That is why I love mathematics....." - Albert Einstein

Blessings of Peace,

[Coolhand]

Coolhand what do you think of this article on the proof that the Scriptures were altered regarding the Trinty.

http://whatwouldjesu...671420551/item/

It reminds of Cronshaws article.

I can't seem to find who produces the site, or what their acedemic credentials are.

Still no text, which is the same issue I have with Cronshaw's article.

The use of the word "proof" seems a bit strong for this discussion.

That is what I think.

I also think what we should do is have some lenghty discussion on each of these citations.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Coolhand

[Brother Michael Sky]

It reminds of Cronshaws article.

I can't seem to find who produces the site, or what their acedemic credentials are.

Still no text, which is the same issue I have with Cronshaw's article.

The use of the word "proof" seems a bit strong for this discussion.

That is what I think.

I also think what we should do is have some lenghty discussion on each of these citations.

sometimes it's a year later and I'm STILL modifying my opinion of what i FIND says... I could see long conversations there... much less, processing out the OPINIONS we have been taught, that have zero basis in truth...

But I have to say... Lack of credentials means very little to me - a clear line of reasoning is my only qualification...

It makes ones task a little easier to go about, IMO, when someone is arguing a point - you must find where it is supported or denied...

searching for themes within a host of texts is an impossible qualification for forum conversations - it's dry dusty work, and takes more time and energy than most will commit... no judgement, just truth...

[Pete]

sometimes it's a year later and I'm STILL modifying my opinion of what i FIND says... I could see long conversations there... much less, processing out the OPINIONS we have been taught, that have zero basis in truth...

But I have to say... Lack of credentials means very little to me - a clear line of reasoning is my only qualification...

It makes ones task a little easier to go about, IMO, when someone is arguing a point - you must find where it is supported or denied...

searching for themes within a host of texts is an impossible qualification for forum conversations - it's dry dusty work, and takes more time and energy than most will commit... no judgement, just truth...

I agree Brother Sky.

We are being asked to accept a given text (the bible) just as its given and not to doubt it or to question it. Something that prevents reason in my view. 

[Brother Michael Sky]

I agree Brother Sky.

We are being asked to accept a given text (the bible) just as its given and not to doubt it or to question it. Something that prevents reason in my view. 

neither do we understand prevailing sentiment, The structure of daily life, or the colloquiality of Life ( The Common, everyday fluxes of language ) pertaining to a world two thousand years in our Past... The Average Joe doesn't put himself in the place of the Early Jew who was part of the beginning of the Christian Faith...

And in my personal opinion - all the elaborate belief structures built on a shaky footing will tumble before solid reasoning, common sense, and awareness of the subject matter.... and the POINT is : we can most positively be aware of the INTENTIONS people have edited into the book, while we go about deciphering the meaning for ourselves - because, again IMO, there is enough to study on and question within the MESSAGE of the books, that arguing meaning which was printed INTO the books simply takes up useful time..... but until we start answering these question, we have no choice but to simply share what has been shared with us.... handing out a range of beliefs so that folks can choose one that " feels right "..... uncomfortable fact... but a fact nonetheless....

[Pete]

neither do we understand prevailing sentiment, The structure of daily life, or the colloquiality of Life ( The Common, everyday fluxes of language ) pertaining to a world two thousand years in our Past... The Average Joe doesn't put himself in the place of the Early Jew who was part of the beginning of the Christian Faith...

And in my personal opinion - all the elaborate belief structures built on a shaky footing will tumble before solid reasoning, common sense, and awareness of the subject matter.... and the POINT is : we can most positively be aware of the INTENTIONS people have edited into the book, while we go about deciphering the meaning for ourselves - because, again IMO, there is enough to study on and question within the MESSAGE of the books, that arguing meaning which was printed INTO the books simply takes up useful time..... but until we start answering these question, we have no choice but to simply share what has been shared with us.... handing out a range of beliefs so that folks can choose one that " feels right "..... uncomfortable fact... but a fact nonetheless....

For me trying to tease out meaning is the key to my view of scripture. Take for instance the story of the Women found in adultery and the response those without sin cast the first stone, does it matter whether Jesus actually said it, the church made it up, that it is not in the original text, or that it was just an addition, in my view no. I still believe the story is within the spirit of God, whether or not it was true. Where I start to differ is when questionable text is not being used to teach in a spiritual sense but is being used to control and assert one opinion above all other. Cool has talked about a disintegration of the faith but I have to disagree, as the Spirit and voice within each of our hearts is stronger than just basing all on a given text (IMO) being true or not. There is gold in many passages, much that speaks to heart, and debates as to whether a text is accurate, or true come a poor second (IMO) but they become necessary when dogma takes over instead of spiritual growth.  

[Brother Michael Sky]

For me trying to tease out meaning is the key to my view of scripture. Take for instance the story of the Women found in adultery and the response those without sin cast the first stone, does it matter whether Jesus actually said it, the church made it up, that it is not in the original text, or that it was just an addition, in my view no. I still believe the story is within the spirit of God, whether or not it was true. Where I start to differ is when questionable text is not being used to teach in a spiritual sense but is being used to control and assert one opinion above all other. Cool has talked about a disintegration of the faith but I have to disagree, as the Spirit and voice within each of our hearts is stronger than just basing all on a given text (IMO) being true or not. There is gold in many passages, much that speaks to heart, and debates as to whether a text is accurate, or true come a poor second (IMO) but they become necessary when dogma takes over instead of spiritual growth.  

It was also a very fine example of teaching basic Karmic principles....

It's a big circular thing.... that religious thought will have such a wide range of belief.... all we know is : Religion - control=bad , freedom=good ........

and we state our belief clearly........

because there will ALWAYS be a forum to do so...

[Coolhand]

Do you always answer a question with a question?

Does that bother you?

[Dan56]

We are being asked to accept a given text (the bible) just as its given and not to doubt it or to question it. Something that prevents reason in my view.

In my view, it doesn't prevent reason, it just interferes with what we think is reasonable. People generally question the bible because they have trouble reconciling some of whats written. There's nothing wrong with questioning what we don't understand or what we struggle to agree with, but the liberal claim is that the bible can't be true because it conflicts with what they think. Isn't that why most people question the bible just as it is written? "Thou shalt not commit murder" is a law that makes sense, so liberals accept that the bible is dead right about that rule. But a rule like "do not commit fornication" might interfere with a persons personal pleasure, so it would obviously need to be the result of biblical altercation. Whats agreeable is true, and whats not agreeable is an inconvenient truth.

..... but until we start answering these question, we have no choice but to simply share what has been shared with us.... handing out a range of beliefs so that folks can choose one that " feels right "..... uncomfortable fact... but a fact nonetheless....

If only the bible handed out a range of beliefs for us to choose from, then we would all be home free. But unfortunately, Jesus preached one God, one Truth, and one Life.

Without any tangible proof one way or the other, I suspect that those who have concluded that the bible was altered, have based their conclusion solely on their dislike of what the bible says. By convincing themselves that scriptures were tampered with, it allows the reader to cherry-pick what "feels right" while disregarding what feels wrong.

we can most positively be aware of the INTENTIONS people have edited into the book

I'm not from Missouri, but "show me" who edited the scriptures? Cool has repeatedly requested this, but I've seen no evidence that shows me where it happened, just conjecture and opinion. There's zero evidence that Constantine influenced church leaders to change scripture. To the contrary, many NT manuscript fragments have been found which predate Constantine by over a hundred years, which strongly suggest that the council at Nicea preserved the word.

NT Manuscripts

[Pete]

In my view, it doesn't prevent reason, it just interferes with what we think is reasonable. People generally question the bible because they have trouble reconciling some of whats written. There's nothing wrong with questioning what we don't understand or what we struggle to agree with, but the liberal claim is that the bible can't be true because it conflicts with what they think. Isn't that why most people question the bible just as it is written? "Thou shalt not commit murder" is a law that makes sense, so liberals accept that the bible is dead right about that rule. But a rule like "do not commit fornication" might interfere with a persons personal pleasure, so it would obviously need to be the result of biblical altercation. Whats agreeable is true, and whats not agreeable is an inconvenient truth.

Actually Dan, liberalism is a reaction against those who assert that the five fundamentals are hard facts and are beyond debate. There is a big difference (IMO) in saying that truths can be found in the bible and saying its all true because its all God spoken and any discrepancies found are due to misunderstanding or problems with translation. I do not say that the whole bible cannot be true but I do say that the fundamentalists interpretation and assertions are flawed. I just seek God's help in my understanding rather than accepting the bible on face value. I do believe that the bible was written about God by man and therefore carries with it flaws rather than asserting it is all true and all from God and written as dictated. I also feel the far right republican so called Christian right has done so much damage to the reputation of the Christian movement as whole and most flack that I receive about my beliefs seems to be because others mistakenly believe I and others think as they do. I am unable to give assertion of the five fundamentals and others like the belief that Moses wrote the first books of the Old testament and it is that reason that I am a liberal.

See:- http://en.wikipedia....st_Christianity

and

"American Protestants

Fundamentalism as a movement arose in the United States, starting among conservative Presbyterian theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary in the late 19th century.[6][7] It soon spread to conservatives among the Baptists and other denominations around 1910-1920.[6][7] The movement's purpose was to reaffirm older beliefs of Protestant Christianity and zealously defend them against the challenges of liberal theology,higher criticism, Darwinism, and other movements which it regarded as harmful to Christianity.[6][7]

The term "fundamentalism" has its roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) which defined those things that were fundamental to Christian belief. The term was also used to describe "The Fundamentals", a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 and funded by Milton and Lyman Stewart[6][7] This series of essays came to be representative of the "Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy"which appeared late in the 19th century within the Protestant churches of the United States, and continued in earnest through the1920s. The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs canbe traced to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":[8]

The inspiration of the Bible by theHoly Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.

The virgin birth of Christ.

The belief that Christ's deathwas the atonement for sin.

The bodily resurrection of Christ.

The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

By the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around the Five Fundamentals came to be known as "fundamentalists." In practice, the first point was thefocus of most of the controversy.

It is important to distinguish between"Fundamentalism" as the name of a militant style and"fundamentalism" as a theology. Evangelical groups typically agree on the theology "fundamentals" as expressed in The Fundamentals, but often are willing to participate in events with religious groups who do not hold to the essential doctrines.Fundamentalist groups generally refuse to participate in events with any such groups who don't hold to the essential doctrines."

http://en.wikipedia..../Fundamentalism

Edited November 9, 2010 by Pete

[Fawzo]

Does that bother you?

The intention behind such behavior, if is to avoid or deflect from giving an honest answer might bother us all!

[Fawzo]

Without any tangible proof one way or the other, I suspect that those who have concluded that the bible was altered, have based their conclusion solely on their dislike of what the bible says. By convincing themselves that scriptures were tampered with, it allows the reader to cherry-pick what "feels right" while disregarding what feels wrong.

Dan if you don't consider having 100,000 early Biblical manuscripts and the fact that no two are exactly the same evidence that the Bible has been altered then I wonder about your reasoning faculties.

The last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark which appear in none of the earliest manuscripts should be proof enough as well. The Johannine Comma is another, the addition of the story of the adulterous woman taken to Jesus is another.

Look at the earliest known extant copy of the Bible that exists, Codex Sinaiticus, and just the listing of books as compared to the version you cherish.

Dan it is basically proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt that the BIble has been altered. Please tell me which of the earliest extant manuscripts you treasure is the perfect unaltered word of God and then I can help prove the case.