Rescuing The Bible From Fundmentalism

[Fawzo]

Thought I would throw this in here to stir the pot a bit from Wikipedia on the results and findings of the Jesus Seminar.

Seminar proceedingsThe Jesus Seminar, like the translation committees who created the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version of the Bible and the Novum Testamentum Graece, chose voting as the most efficient means of determining consensus in an assembled group. The system also lent itself to publicity, which the Seminar actively pursued.^{[citation needed]}

The Fellows used a "bead system" to vote on the authenticity of about 500 statements and events. The color of the bead represented how sure the Fellow was that a saying or act was or was not authentic.

• Red beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did say the passage quoted, or something very much like the passage. (3 Points)
• Pink beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus probably said something like the passage. (2 Points)
• Grey beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage, but it contains Jesus' ideas. (1 Point)
• Black beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage—it comes from later admirers or a different tradition. (0 Points)

The consensus position was determined by the average weighted score, rather than by simple majority. This meant that all opinions were reflected in the decisions. The voting system means that the reader can second-guess each vote. The Five Gospels defines not only the result of the vote (red, pink, gray, or black) but also how many polls were necessary to reach a conclusion (if any were necessary at all) and why various fellows chose to vote in different ways.

Attendees, however, did more than vote. They met semi-annually to debate the papers presented. Some verses required extensive debate and repeated votes.

[edit] Sayings of Jesus

The first findings of the Jesus Seminar were published in 1993 as The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus.^[3]

[edit] Criteria for authenticity

Like other scholars of the historical Jesus, the Jesus Seminar treats the gospels as fallible historical artifacts, containing both authentic and inauthentic material. Like their colleagues, the fellows used several criteria for determining whether a particular saying or story is authentic, including the criteria of multiple attestation and embarrassment. Among additional criteria used by the fellows are the following:

• Orality: According to current estimates, the gospels weren't written until decades after Jesus' death. Parables, aphorisms, and stories were passed down orally (30 - 50 CE). The fellows judged whether a saying was a short, catchy pericope that could possibly survive intact from the speaker's death until decades later when it was first written down. If so, it's more likely to be authentic. For example, "turn the other cheek".

• Irony: Based on several important narrative parables (such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan), the fellows decided that irony, reversal, and frustration of expectations were characteristic of Jesus' style. Does a pericope present opposites or impossibilities? If it does, it's more likely to be authentic. For example, "love your enemies".

• Trust in God: A long discourse attested in three gospels has Jesus telling his listeners not to fret but to trust in the Father. Fellows looked for this theme in other sayings they deemed authentic. For example, "Ask – it'll be given to you".

[edit] Criteria for inauthenticity

The seminar looked for several characteristics that, in their judgment, identified a saying as inauthentic, including self-reference, leadership issues, and apocalyptic themes.

• Self-reference: Does the text have Jesus referring to himself? For example, "I am the way, and I am the truth, and I am life" (John 14:1-14).

• Framing Material: Are the verses used to introduce, explain, or frame other material, which might itself be authentic? For example, in Luke, the "red" parable of the good samaritan is framed by scenes about Jesus telling the parable, and the seminar deemed Jesus' framing words in these scenes to be "black".

• Community Issues: Do the verses refer to the concerns of the early Christian community, such as instructions for missionaries or issues of leadership? For example, Peter as "the rock" on which Jesus builds his church (Matthew 16:17-19).

• Theological Agenda: Do the verses support an opinion or outlook that is unique to the gospel, possibly indicating redactor bias? For example, the prophecy of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46) was voted black because the fellows saw it as representing Matthew's agenda of speaking out against unworthy members of the Christian community.

[edit] Authentic sayings, as determined by the seminar

The Red sayings (with % indicating the weighted average of those in agreement), given in the Seminar's own "Scholar's Version" translation, are:

1. Turn the other cheek (92%): Mt 5:39, Lk6:29a 2. Coat & shirt: Mt5:40 (92%), Lk6:29b (90%) 3. Congratulations, poor!: Lk6:20b (91%), Th54 (90%), Mt5:3 (63%) 4. Second mile (90%): Mt5:41 5. Love your enemies: Lk6:27b (84%), Mt5:44b (77%), Lk6:32,35a (56%) (compare to black rated "Pray for your enemies": POxy1224 6:1a; Didache 1:3; Poly-Phil 12:3; and "Love one another": John 13:34-35, Romans 13:8, 1 Peter 1:22) 6. Leaven: Lk13:20–21 (83%), Mt13:33 (83%), Th96:1–2 (65%) 7. Emperor & God (82%): Th100:2b–3, Mk12:17b, Lk20:25b, Mt22:21c (also Egerton Gospel 3:1-6) 8. Give to beggars (81%): Lk6:30a, Mt5:42a, Didache1:5a 9. Good Samaritan (81%): Lk10:30–35 10. Congrats, hungry!: Lk6:21a (79%), Mt5:6 (59%), Th69:2 (53%) 11. Congrats, sad!: Lk6:21b (79%), Mt5:4 (73%) 12. Shrewd manager (77%): Lk16:1–8a 13. Vineyard laborers (77%): Mt20:1–15 14. Abba, Father (77%): Mt6:9b, Lk11:2c 15. The Mustard Seed : Th20:2–4 (76%), Mk4:30–32 (74%), Lk13:18–19 (69%), Mt13:31–32 (67%)

[edit] Some probably authentic sayings, as determined by the seminar

The top 15 (of 75) Pink sayings are:

16. On anxieties, don't fret (75%): Th36, Lk12:22–23, Mt6:25 17. Lost Coin (75%): Lk15:8–9 18. Foxes have dens: Lk9:58 (74%), Mt8:20 (74%), Th86 (67%) 19. No respect at home: Th31:1 (74%), Lk4:24(71%), Jn4:44 (67%), Mt13:57 (60%), Mk6:4 (58%) 20. Friend at midnight (72%): Lk11:5–8 21. Two masters : Lk16:13a, Mt6:24a (72%); Th47:2 (65%) 22. Treasure: Mt13:44 (71%), Th109 (54%) 23. Lost sheep: Lk15:4–6 (70%), Mt18:12–13 (67%), Th107 (48%) 24. What goes in: Mk7:14–15 (70%), Th14:5 (67%), Mt15:10-11 (63%) 25. Corrupt judge (70%): Lk18:2–5 26. Prodigal son (70%): Lk15:11–32 27. Leave the dead (see also But to bring a sword, Nazirite): Mt8:22 (70%), Lk9:59–60 (69%) 28. Castration for Heaven (see also Origen, Antithesis of the Law) (70%): Mt19:12a 29. By their fruit (69%) (see Antinomianism): Mt7:16b, Th45:1a, Lk6:44b (56%) 30. The dinner party, The wedding celebration: Th64:1–11 (69%), Lk14:16-23 (56%), Mt22:2-13 (26%)

[edit] Overall reliability of the five gospels

The Seminar concluded that of the various statements in the "five gospels" attributed to Jesus, only about 18% of them were likely uttered by Jesus himself (red or pink). The Gospel of John fared worse than the synoptic gospels, with nearly all its passages attributed to Jesus being judged inauthentic.^[16] The Gospel of Thomas includes just two unique sayings that the seminar attributes to Jesus: the empty jar (97) and the assassin (98). Every other authentic or probably authentic saying has parallels in the synoptics.

[Dan56]

Dan, Lets also not forget that outside of the conservative circles 2 Peter is thought to be a forgery.

That's pretty much the end-all argument for bible non-believers. They don't agree with Paul, so he had to have been a fake apostle....Peter agreed with Paul and endorsed his letters? So obviously, anything Peter wrote had to have been a forgery. Mark's gospel was tampered with, John didn't write The Gospel of John or Revelation, etc. etc. The problem is that after you throw out everything you don't agree with, there's nothing left... Which means liberals really believe in nothing biblical.

There was only one thing the byzantine scribes could be trusted to do : EXACTLY what they needed to do to make their emperor happy... and Constantine had POLITICAL motivations - he used the religious belief of the Jews and Christians as a club to keep them in line.... he had his scribes find justification for the way he wanted things, and made sure that the Text which resulted from the imprisonment of clergy, supported his desires.... and the rest was hunted down and burnt, under the people who held the documents which disagreed....

I believe the Church Fathers had a genuine desire to get things right, but in the landscape of the time, accuracy was not the primary motivation.... THERE WERE TWO POPES at the time, for crying out loud..... and the Pope in Rome was at direct odds with Byzantium - ask yourself why.....

I think your confusing the Byzantine manuscripts with the Alexandrian translations. Constantine was dead and had no influence over the majority text (Textus Receptus). Gnostic corruption occurred before the council at Nicea, this was a separate issue and it was what Irenaeus battled against long before Eusebius compiled the NT from the minority text for Constantine.

[Coolhand]

Thought I would throw this in here to stir the pot a bit from Wikipedia on the results and findings of the Jesus Seminar.

Seminar proceedingsThe Jesus Seminar, like the translation committees who created the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version of the Bible and the Novum Testamentum Graece, chose voting as the most efficient means of determining consensus in an assembled group. The system also lent itself to publicity, which the Seminar actively pursued.^{[citation needed]}

The Fellows used a "bead system" to vote on the authenticity of about 500 statements and events. The color of the bead represented how sure the Fellow was that a saying or act was or was not authentic.

• Red beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did say the passage quoted, or something very much like the passage. (3 Points)
• Pink beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus probably said something like the passage. (2 Points)
• Grey beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage, but it contains Jesus' ideas. (1 Point)
• Black beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage—it comes from later admirers or a different tradition. (0 Points)

The consensus position was determined by the average weighted score, rather than by simple majority. This meant that all opinions were reflected in the decisions. The voting system means that the reader can second-guess each vote. The Five Gospels defines not only the result of the vote (red, pink, gray, or black) but also how many polls were necessary to reach a conclusion (if any were necessary at all) and why various fellows chose to vote in different ways.

Attendees, however, did more than vote. They met semi-annually to debate the papers presented. Some verses required extensive debate and repeated votes.

[edit] Sayings of Jesus

The first findings of the Jesus Seminar were published in 1993 as The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus.^[3]

[edit] Criteria for authenticity

Like other scholars of the historical Jesus, the Jesus Seminar treats the gospels as fallible historical artifacts, containing both authentic and inauthentic material. Like their colleagues, the fellows used several criteria for determining whether a particular saying or story is authentic, including the criteria of multiple attestation and embarrassment. Among additional criteria used by the fellows are the following:

• Orality: According to current estimates, the gospels weren't written until decades after Jesus' death. Parables, aphorisms, and stories were passed down orally (30 - 50 CE). The fellows judged whether a saying was a short, catchy pericope that could possibly survive intact from the speaker's death until decades later when it was first written down. If so, it's more likely to be authentic. For example, "turn the other cheek".

• Irony: Based on several important narrative parables (such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan), the fellows decided that irony, reversal, and frustration of expectations were characteristic of Jesus' style. Does a pericope present opposites or impossibilities? If it does, it's more likely to be authentic. For example, "love your enemies".

• Trust in God: A long discourse attested in three gospels has Jesus telling his listeners not to fret but to trust in the Father. Fellows looked for this theme in other sayings they deemed authentic. For example, "Ask – it'll be given to you".

[edit] Criteria for inauthenticity

The seminar looked for several characteristics that, in their judgment, identified a saying as inauthentic, including self-reference, leadership issues, and apocalyptic themes.

• Self-reference: Does the text have Jesus referring to himself? For example, "I am the way, and I am the truth, and I am life" (John 14:1-14).

• Framing Material: Are the verses used to introduce, explain, or frame other material, which might itself be authentic? For example, in Luke, the "red" parable of the good samaritan is framed by scenes about Jesus telling the parable, and the seminar deemed Jesus' framing words in these scenes to be "black".

• Community Issues: Do the verses refer to the concerns of the early Christian community, such as instructions for missionaries or issues of leadership? For example, Peter as "the rock" on which Jesus builds his church (Matthew 16:17-19).

• Theological Agenda: Do the verses support an opinion or outlook that is unique to the gospel, possibly indicating redactor bias? For example, the prophecy of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46) was voted black because the fellows saw it as representing Matthew's agenda of speaking out against unworthy members of the Christian community.

[edit] Authentic sayings, as determined by the seminar

The Red sayings (with % indicating the weighted average of those in agreement), given in the Seminar's own "Scholar's Version" translation, are:

1. Turn the other cheek (92%): Mt 5:39, Lk6:29a 2. Coat & shirt: Mt5:40 (92%), Lk6:29b (90%) 3. Congratulations, poor!: Lk6:20b (91%), Th54 (90%), Mt5:3 (63%) 4. Second mile (90%): Mt5:41 5. Love your enemies: Lk6:27b (84%), Mt5:44b (77%), Lk6:32,35a (56%) (compare to black rated "Pray for your enemies": POxy1224 6:1a; Didache 1:3; Poly-Phil 12:3; and "Love one another": John 13:34-35, Romans 13:8, 1 Peter 1:22) 6. Leaven: Lk13:20–21 (83%), Mt13:33 (83%), Th96:1–2 (65%) 7. Emperor & God (82%): Th100:2b–3, Mk12:17b, Lk20:25b, Mt22:21c (also Egerton Gospel 3:1-6) 8. Give to beggars (81%): Lk6:30a, Mt5:42a, Didache1:5a 9. Good Samaritan (81%): Lk10:30–35 10. Congrats, hungry!: Lk6:21a (79%), Mt5:6 (59%), Th69:2 (53%) 11. Congrats, sad!: Lk6:21b (79%), Mt5:4 (73%) 12. Shrewd manager (77%): Lk16:1–8a 13. Vineyard laborers (77%): Mt20:1–15 14. Abba, Father (77%): Mt6:9b, Lk11:2c 15. The Mustard Seed : Th20:2–4 (76%), Mk4:30–32 (74%), Lk13:18–19 (69%), Mt13:31–32 (67%)

[edit] Some probably authentic sayings, as determined by the seminar

The top 15 (of 75) Pink sayings are:

16. On anxieties, don't fret (75%): Th36, Lk12:22–23, Mt6:25 17. Lost Coin (75%): Lk15:8–9 18. Foxes have dens: Lk9:58 (74%), Mt8:20 (74%), Th86 (67%) 19. No respect at home: Th31:1 (74%), Lk4:24(71%), Jn4:44 (67%), Mt13:57 (60%), Mk6:4 (58%) 20. Friend at midnight (72%): Lk11:5–8 21. Two masters : Lk16:13a, Mt6:24a (72%); Th47:2 (65%) 22. Treasure: Mt13:44 (71%), Th109 (54%) 23. Lost sheep: Lk15:4–6 (70%), Mt18:12–13 (67%), Th107 (48%) 24. What goes in: Mk7:14–15 (70%), Th14:5 (67%), Mt15:10-11 (63%) 25. Corrupt judge (70%): Lk18:2–5 26. Prodigal son (70%): Lk15:11–32 27. Leave the dead (see also But to bring a sword, Nazirite): Mt8:22 (70%), Lk9:59–60 (69%) 28. Castration for Heaven (see also Origen, Antithesis of the Law) (70%): Mt19:12a 29. By their fruit (69%) (see Antinomianism): Mt7:16b, Th45:1a, Lk6:44b (56%) 30. The dinner party, The wedding celebration: Th64:1–11 (69%), Lk14:16-23 (56%), Mt22:2-13 (26%)

[edit] Overall reliability of the five gospels

The Seminar concluded that of the various statements in the "five gospels" attributed to Jesus, only about 18% of them were likely uttered by Jesus himself (red or pink). The Gospel of John fared worse than the synoptic gospels, with nearly all its passages attributed to Jesus being judged inauthentic.^[16] The Gospel of Thomas includes just two unique sayings that the seminar attributes to Jesus: the empty jar (97) and the assassin (98). Every other authentic or probably authentic saying has parallels in the synoptics.

Didn't like this part?

6. Composition of the Seminar and qualifications of the members

Luke Timothy Johnson[29] argued that while many members of the seminar are reputable scholars (Borg, Crossan, Funk, others), others are relatively unknown or undistinguished in the field of biblical studies.[30] One member, Paul Verhoeven, holds no Ph.D. but a M.Sc. in mathematics and physics,[31] not biblical studies, and is best known as a film director. Johnson also critiqued the seminar for its attempts to gain the attention of the media for the 2000 ABC News program "The Search for Jesus" hosted by news anchor Peter Jennings.

Seminar critic William Lane Craig has argued that the self-selected members of the group do not represent the consensus of New Testament scholars. He writes:

Of the 74 [scholars] listed in their publication The Five Gospels, only 14 would be leading figures in the field of New Testament studies. More than half are basically unknowns, who have published only two or three articles. Eighteen of the fellows have published nothing at all in New Testament studies. Most have relatively undistinguished academic positions, for example, teaching at a community college.[32]

Others have made the same point and have further indicated that thirty-six of those scholars, almost half, have a degree from or currently teach at one of three schools, Harvard, Claremont, or Vanderbilt: all considered to favor "liberal" interpretations of the New Testament.[33]

According to Greg Boyd, a prominent evangelical pastor and theologian:

The Jesus Seminar represents an extremely small number of radical-fringe scholars who are on the far, far left wing of New Testament thinking. It does not represent mainstream scholarship.[34]

Garry Wills, a vocal proponent of liberal Catholicism, nonetheless strongly critiques the Seminar:

This is the new fundamentalism. It believes in the literal sense of the Bible—it just reduces to what it can take as literal quotation from Jesus. Though some have called the Jesus Seminarists radical, they are actually very conservative. They tame the real radical, Jesus, cutting him down to their own size...the sayings that meet with the Seminar's approval were preserved by the Christian communities whose contribution is discounted. Jesus as a person does not exist outside of the gospels, and the only reason he exists there is because of their authors' faith in the Resurrection. Trying to find a construct, "the historical Jesus," is not like finding diamonds in a dunghill, but like finding New York City at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.[35]

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

..wonder why?

This is the NEW FUNDAMENTALISM.....you gotta love that....lol.

[Fawzo]

That's pretty much the end-all argument for bible non-believers. They don't agree with Paul, so he had to have been a fake apostle....Peter agreed with Paul and endorsed his letters? So obviously, anything Peter wrote had to have been a forgery. Mark's gospel was tampered with, John didn't write The Gospel of John or Revelation, etc. etc. The problem is that after you throw out everything you don't agree with, there's nothing left... Which means liberals really believe in nothing biblical.

That is not quite true Dan. One is still left with a historical human named Yeshua ben Yosepf aka Jesus, who inspired people in ways that brought about the stories.

This transformation is most evident in those who like Peter who cowardly denied and abandoned Jesus but were later transformed into fearless men and women by the life and death of Jesus. Something surely happened back then but we have to dig deep to find it. For twenty years after his death until Paul wrote Corinthians the story of Christ grew and was retold orally in Jewish Synagouges where evidence was sought in the cherished scriptures to see how Jesus might fit in and these people could explain their fantastic experiences with the man Jesus. They used the only words and things they knew to try and convey that message to us. Their Scriptures retold with Jesus as the hero. It is clear Matthew and Mark turn Jesus into the new Jewish hero, a combination of Moses and Elijah.

Spong does an excellent layout of how the stories in the Gospel of Mark coincide with the Jewish Liturgical calendar for 6 months and why Matthew and Luke picked up the pen to add the other 6 months worth of Sabbaths and stories. Matthew for a Jewsih Audience and Luke for Gentiles and dispersed Jews .

Each chapter and story theme in the Gospel of Mark coincides with a Sabbath and Jewish Holiday of the year. He gives some pretty good evidence.

Some people are seekers of truth no matter where it leads them and others are seeking for security within their adopted truth no matter what evidence comes knocking on their doors. That is why we still have folks who believe the earth is only 6000 years old and when given mountains of irrefutable contradictions and errors from within the pages of the Bible do backflips to attempt at justifying them.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Fawzo

[Fawzo]

Didn't like this part?

..wonder why?

This is the NEW FUNDAMENTALISM.....you gotta love that....lol.

Would you think these people were less informed or knowledgable then the 54 learned men who worked on the King James Version or Erasmus who created the Textus Receptus? If I remember correctly all 54 learned men were Anglicans.

I would say these people have access to way more knowledge regarding such things just from the sheer volue of information available to them? Unless of course you feel none where filled with the Spirit of God. Are we sure any of King James men or even if Erasmus himself was. Wy would Erasmus need 6 Byzantine manuscripts and sections of the Vulgate to do his job if he were Spirit filled. The process he used seems to be of pure human cognitive abilities just as these folks used.

I actually was hoping someone would bring that up so I could make the points above.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Fawzo

[Coolhand]

Would you think these people were less informed or knowledgable then the 54 learned men who worked on the King James Version or Erasmus who created the Textus Receptus? If I remember correctly all 54 learned men were Anglicans.

I fail to see ANY relevance.

I would say these people have access to way more knowledge regarding such things just from the sheer volue of information available to them? Unless of course you feel none where filled with the Spirit of God. Are we sure any of King James men or even if Erasmus himself was. Wy would Erasmus need 6 Byzantine manuscripts and sections of the Vulgate to do his job if he were Spirit filled. The process he used seems to be of pure human cognitive abilities just as these folks used.

Being spirit filled has nothing to do with textual studies or exegesis. What we call "illumination" is how being filled with the spirit will show us the significance the scripture has. I would argue that if a person can desconstruct the text the way the Jesus seminar people try to, they may not see the significance of the narrative they are deconstructing.

I actually was hoping someone would bring that up so I could make the points above.

Really? If that were the case, I would have presented it with the other parts in effort to show my objectivity.

[Pete]

That's pretty much the end-all argument for bible non-believers. They don't agree with Paul, so he had to have been a fake apostle....Peter agreed with Paul and endorsed his letters? So obviously, anything Peter wrote had to have been a forgery. Mark's gospel was tampered with, John didn't write The Gospel of John or Revelation, etc. etc. The problem is that after you throw out everything you don't agree with, there's nothing left... Which means liberals really believe in nothing biblical.

Not believing every word in the bible is spoken by God in person is not the same as being a none believer in that voice that speaks to the heart of a reader. As I mentioned earlier that just because Jesus may of not said those without sin cast the first stone and that this was a later addition to John's gospel does not take away any of the impact the story has (IMO). I thank Jesus for drawing my attention to the language of the spirit that supersedes that which is written in text. It would have been easy for me reading the Old Testament horrors and come to the conclusion that God is not loving, just, or a source of goodness and to miss so much if Jesus had not lived. If you ask me do I believe every word of the book is the word of God then I am a none believer, but if you ask me whether God spoke through the stories of Jesus and can change the heart of mine and others in a powerful way then I am a believer.

Yes, of course 2 Peter agrees with Paul. I believe it was written to give support to the Paulian school of thought but not by Peter (IMO and others who maybe bible believers or not).One does not have to have your take on things.

"The great majority of scholarship agrees that Peter could not have written this letter.^[18] For example, textual critic Daniel Wallace (who maintains that Peter was the author) writes that, for most experts, "the issue of authorship is already settled, at least negatively: the apostle Peter did not write this letter" and that "the vast bulk of NT scholars adopts this perspective without much discussion"^[19] Werner Kümmel exemplifies this position, stating, "It is certain, therefore, that 2 Pet does not originate with Peter, and this is today widely acknowledged."^[20], as does Stephen L Harris, who states that "[v]irtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter."^[21] Evangelical historians D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo wrote that "most modern scholars do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. Indeed, for no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author"

From:- http://en.wikipedia....etrine_epistles

Edited November 17, 2010 by Pete

[Brother Michael Sky]

I think your confusing the Byzantine manuscripts with the Alexandrian translations. Constantine was dead and had no influence over the majority text (Textus Receptus). Gnostic corruption occurred before the council at Nicea, this was a separate issue and it was what Irenaeus battled against long before Eusebius compiled the NT from the minority text for Constantine.

ummm, wasn't it Origin who created the Hexapla? Which contained all the previous versions in one? what could be clearer than that? how could that be considered misleading in any way?

you're jumping all over here dan....

It was Marcion who prompted the Early Chruch to specify their authoritative sources... And Montanus as well... they had enough followers to be trouble... and they were definitely gnostic... It was almost the 200's before the church started talking about " official scripture"

and it was Irenaeus who decided " for since there are four zones to the world in which we live, and four principal winds... it is fitting that the church should have four pillars." making Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John the Gospel, because in his view, the gospels symbolized in the four cherubim in Ezekial 1:5-10 and Revelation 4:7. Each Face represented both an aspect of Jesus' work and a characteristic of a particular gospel...

The argument involving Origin and Clement and others was allegorical interpretation of the Gospels... The Damage was done when they went after Valentinus and produced the Apostle's Creed... and Irenaeus went crazy..

[Dan56]

ummm, wasn't it Origin who created the Hexapla? Which contained all the previous versions in one? what could be clearer than that? how could that be considered misleading in any way?

you're jumping all over here dan....

Well, we're talking about centuries of early church father corruption, so its hard not to jump around when weeding out all the culprits. To keep it simple, Origen is right up there with Eusebius as a heretic imo. Bottomline, I personally don't trust the corrupt Alexandrian texts. I believe the reliable text stream comes from the Antioch line. My original purpose was to simply explain my preference for the KJV, because it was produced from the Majority text (Masoretic Text & Textus Receptus) and not a product influenced by the church fathers.

This guy pretty much summarizes how I feel about it; David Berman

And here's another site I just found that crystallizes my thoughts on the subject; TEXTUAL CORRUPTIONS

[Fawzo]

Well, we're talking about centuries of early church father corruption, so its hard not to jump around when weeding out all the culprits. To keep it simple, Origen is right up there with Eusebius as a heretic imo. Bottomline, I personally don't trust the corrupt Alexandrian texts. I believe the reliable text stream comes from the Antioch line. My original purpose was to simply explain my preference for the KJV, because it was produced from the Majority text (Masoretic Text & Textus Receptus) and not a product influenced by the church fathers.

This guy pretty much summarizes how I feel about it; David Berman

And here's another site I just found that crystallizes my thoughts on the subject; TEXTUAL CORRUPTIONS

Dan the first link has some errors and it seems as if the guy doesn't know what he is talking about.

For instance:

The Old Latin Vulgate was from the Textus Receptus and it was not until 1546 that it was "revised" by Jerome into what is now called The "Latin Vulgate

The Vulgate was used to fill in the missing pieces of the Byzantine manuscripts to help create the Textus Receptus and the second link wasn't even worth reading when it starts off with there is Satanic attack

Edited November 19, 2010 by Fawzo

[Dan56]

The Vulgate was used to fill in the missing pieces of the Byzantine manuscripts to help create the Textus Receptus and the second link wasn't even worth reading when it starts off with there is Satanic attack

Satan misquoted scripture when he tempted Christ in Matthew 4:6, he slightly twisted Psalms 91: 11&12. Satan as the Serpent also contradicted the first rule God gave to Adam and Eve. So is it surprising that the adversary of the written Word would seek to pollute it by changing a jot or tittle here and there?

I'm a bit surprised myself to see you and Michael adamantly defending the infallibility of the Catholic bible. One minute your attacking the errancy and corrupt agenda of the church fathers, while concurrently attesting that their translations are preferable to everything else? I suspect your both secretly die-hard Catholics

Greek Textus Receptus- A CWM publication

EXAMINING the TOUGH ISSUES

[Pete]

Satan misquoted scripture when he tempted Christ in Matthew 4:6, he slightly twisted Psalms 91: 11&12. Satan as the Serpent also contradicted the first rule God gave to Adam and Eve. So is it surprising that the adversary of the written Word would seek to pollute it by changing a jot or tittle here and there?

I'm a bit surprised myself to see you and Michael adamantly defending the infallibility of the Catholic bible. One minute your attacking the errancy and corrupt agenda of the church fathers, while concurrently attesting that their translations are preferable to everything else? I suspect your both secretly die-hard Catholics

Greek Textus Receptus- A CWM publication

EXAMINING the TOUGH ISSUES

So are you now saying God has not protected his word (as you see it)?

It seems even some conservatives do not think the KJV is a good version. see:- http://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

Edited November 19, 2010 by Pete

[Dan56]

So are you now saying God has not protected his word (as you see it)?

Absolutely not, but I am convinced that certain church fathers tampered with scripture.

It seems even some conservatives do not think the KJV is a good version. see:- http://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

I am one of those conservatives who agree that the KJV is the most accurate, as demonstrated by similar links that I posted. There are a few mistranslated words in the KJV, like "Easter", but all-in-all, there's no deliberate altercations or corruption.

*A Bible that’s falling apart usually belongs to someone who isn’t.*

[Pete]

Absolutely not, but I am convinced that certain church fathers tampered with scripture.

I am one of those conservatives who agree that the KJV is the most accurate, as demonstrated by similar links that I posted. There are a few mistranslated words in the KJV, like "Easter", but all-in-all, there's no deliberate altercations or corruption.

*A Bible that's falling apart usually belongs to someone who isn't.*

Did you read the link:- http://bible.org/art...available-today

Some quotes:-

"Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus. He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. " "Third, the King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Which King James Bible is inspired, therefore?"

He goes on to add that things had been added with no Greek scripts to draw from and many other changes and additions.

Surely with this in mind, and your saying the King James Version is the most accurate then it appears to me we are saying we have no accurate bible or trustworthy edition or trustworthy source to draw from.

ps// I have worn out a number of bibles in my time and I do not think it helped my sanity

Edited November 21, 2010 by Pete