Other Books?

[Mysteryman]

Paul was not a witness of the resurrected Christ.

You are mistaken. According to Sacred Scriptures, Paul witnessed the resurrected Christ.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 1 Cor 15:3-8

You are mistaken, because you interpret scripture unskillfully.

The disciples were witnesses of the resurrected Christ, as they were his followers and were eye witnesses of Christ being raised from the dead.

Paul, who was called Saul, was not a follower, and he was not an eye witness of the resurrected Christ.

Paul was given a spiritual revealing. An awareness revealed unto his understanding. Not an eye witness !

Is 1Cor. one of the "corrupted" parts of the Bible? Is that why you don't accept Paul's words as accurate?[/quote]
---------------------------------------------------------

No.

The interpretation was incorrect by Joe (Fancis). But, of course you didn't see that I have already explained that !

 

[dadof10]

Is 1Cor. one of the "corrupted" parts of the Bible? Is that why you don't accept Paul's words as accurate?

---------------------------------------------------------

No.

The interpretation was incorrect by Joe (Fancis). But, of course you didn't see that I have already explained that !

Then what does this mean?

Many say that they trust what they read in the NT. However, trust in just the written translated bibles we possess, is not an accurate way in which one can know for sure, that which one reads, actually happened as we read about it.

What does this mean except that the "written translated bibles we possess" are inaccurate, therefore CORRUPT?

Are you just here to stir the pot?

 

[francisdesales]

Francis,

you never respond honestly to anything.

Typical response from someone who knows they cannot address the actual arguments effectively. Stop whining and attacking me personally (which is against the ToS) and just try to answer one of my questions. Otherwise, you should not bother responding anymore, since you obviously have nothing positive to add to this conversation on the study of canon.

 

[westtexas]

I said I set out the Protestant position,

M-Paul, let me get your take on this. As I stated to Francis and Dad, before this thread started I knew little about this subject, but I find it quite interesting. It seems that the first PROTESTANT discussion of canon was done by Andreas Bodenstein in his treatise "De Canonicis Scripturis Libellus" in 1520. Here he has classified Apocrypha into 2 divisions. Of 1&2 Esdras, Baruch, Prayer of Manasseh, and the additions to Daniel--he declares them without worth.
However, concerning Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and 1&2 Maccabees, he says "These are Apocrypha, that is, they are outside the Hebrew canon; YET THEY ARE HOLY WRITINGS" (sect.114- caps are mine)
What do you think, Westtexas

 

[francisdesales]

I said I set out the Protestant position,

M-Paul, let me get your take on this. As I stated to Francis and Dad, before this thread started I knew little about this subject, but I find it quite interesting. It seems that the first PROTESTANT discussion of canon was done by Andreas Bodenstein in his treatise "De Canonicis Scripturis Libellus" in 1520. Here he has classified Apocrypha into 2 divisions. Of 1&2 Esdras, Baruch, Prayer of Manasseh, and the additions to Daniel--he declares them without worth.
However, concerning Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and 1&2 Maccabees, he says "These are Apocrypha, that is, they are outside the Hebrew canon; YET THEY ARE HOLY WRITINGS" (sect.114- caps are mine)
What do you think, Westtexas

Ah, good point. You've picked up on something key that many do not realize.

I had earlier mentioned that "canon" is not directly synonymous with "inspired, holy writing", as it appears that even during the formation of the canon, there was an idea that some non-canonical books were still considered inspired and worthy of reading, but more in a private background. Seems your author recognizes this. That was the big difference, in Christian formation. Athanasius and Origen both appear to make contradictory statements on what is "canon" and what is "Scripture" - but this is based upon taking the two (canon and Scripture) to mean the exact same thing. That's anachronistic. Actually, the distinction is that "canon" THEN was a writing that could be proclaimed in public at the Mass, while an inspired work that was not canonical was worthy of study and formulation of doctrine, but meant for private study, not public proclamation. Sirach was a classic example, considered even by Jews to be Scriptures, but not canonical. There definitely appears to be two levels of writings here, but both are accepted as from God. Thus, the term "Deutero" implies a lower, yet acceptable level of inspiration and usage. The Book of Revelation is a NT example, as only relatively recently has this book been proclaimed at Divine Liturgy in the West. (the Orthodox still do not proclaim it at any Mass).

Regards

 

[M-Paul]

I said I set out the Protestant position,

M-Paul, let me get your take on this. As I stated to Francis and Dad, before this thread started I knew little about this subject, but I find it quite interesting. It seems that the first PROTESTANT discussion of canon was done by Andreas Bodenstein in his treatise "De Canonicis Scripturis Libellus" in 1520. Here he has classified Apocrypha into 2 divisions. Of 1&2 Esdras, Baruch, Prayer of Manasseh, and the additions to Daniel--he declares them without worth.
However, concerning Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and 1&2 Maccabees, he says "These are Apocrypha, that is, they are outside the Hebrew canon; YET THEY ARE HOLY WRITINGS" (sect.114- caps are mine)
What do you think, Westtexas

I don't think this is the first Protestant review of the canon. However, this position is merely repeating one from the early centuries of Christianity and continuing. The LXX in Greek was popular and relied on as inspired in north Africa, but church authorities immediately recognized problems with these books being considered canon. Still, it was hard to give them up. So two categories of canon were created to keep them. The Apocrypha was held as inspired but not suitable for doctrine. However, eventually the "not suitable for doctrine" distinction was just dropped.

People get attached to things. For instance, many people love the KJV and believe it is inspired. This contradicts Scripture on what is Scripture. I love the KJV but believe it is only anointed -- which is indicated by how important this translation has been in history and the effect it has had on Christianity. It is powerful -- but it is not a second level canon, even though that truth is just hard for many people to accept. I hold there are mistakes in the KJV, and much of this version is based on discretion in translation -- very good discretion, that I do not discard easily, but it is still just discretion.

So calling the Apocrypha a second level of holy writings was just a way of trying to deal with how much the works were loved in north Africa, while realizing they did not satisfy the Scriptural criteria for canon, and this position then became a tradition in itself.

 

[M-Paul]

Francis,

you never respond honestly to anything.

Typical response from someone who knows they cannot address the actual arguments effectively. Stop whining and attacking me personally (which is against the ToS) and just try to answer one of my questions. Otherwise, you should not bother responding anymore, since you obviously have nothing positive to add to this conversation on the study of canon.

Francis,

You are a troll!!! You post in this forum with a set agenda. This thread was too contrary to your agenda, and you set out to harass and derail the conversation with endless straw mans, constant personal attacks, always setting the train of thought into a state of confusion in order to set a context for assertions that supported the Catholic position. You just wanted to make sure no legitimate discussion occurred on the issues, as you had no honest answer to them. It is the methods of trolling.

 

[Mysteryman]

Is 1Cor. one of the "corrupted" parts of the Bible? Is that why you don't accept Paul's words as accurate?

---------------------------------------------------------

No.

The interpretation was incorrect by Joe (Fancis). But, of course you didn't see that I have already explained that !

Then what does this mean?

Many say that they trust what they read in the NT. However, trust in just the written translated bibles we possess, is not an accurate way in which one can know for sure, that which one reads, actually happened as we read about it.

What does this mean except that the "written translated bibles we possess" are inaccurate, therefore CORRUPT?

Are you just here to stir the pot?

Truth always , as you say, stirs the pot !

I know that you believe that the transaltions have no error's within them. Here is where we disagree.

There are many examples I could give you, but I am sure you would deny them. One simple example, is that punctuation is a more modern day addition. Even by the punctuation that was added, there are clear examples of influenced changes of the way in which scripture reads, just because of the punctuation.

Another simple example, is that the word "today" is not accurate, nor was it translated accurately. One of the first things we see, is that the translators wrote this word this way -> To Day. Notice the space ? Again, the word "today" is a modern day word. I am not exactly sure when this word was first used. Maybe around the 12th or 13th century.

If properly translated, this word -> "To Day" would never have been translated this way.

It should have been translated - "This day" or "That day" or "In that day, or in this day".

When Jesus told the thief on the cross, that "In that day" thou shalt be with me in paradise. The translators translated this phrase as -- "To Day", which has caused all kinds of confusion amongst those who read their bibles thinking that their translated bible is infallible.

Now we have people believing that Jesus went to paradise and not to the grave. But worse than that, it has caused people to think with a double mindedness. We now have people believing that when you die and go to the grave, you end up in paradise, which is a lie !

So if you have eyes to see, you then would agree with me, that our translations can not be trusted . One must do their homework, and find out which verses or words, or phrases were altered , so as to cause not only confusion, but deception as well.

I know for a fact, that I gave to this board, more than once, the fact that the word "aner" in Matt. 1:16 is not translated properly. The KJV translates it as the "husband" of Mary, and it should have been translated the "man" of Mary. This man of Mary, was her father, not her husband ! Then and only then do you arrive at 42 generations from Abraham unto Christ.

IN Christ - MM

 

[francisdesales]

I know that you believe that the transaltions have no error's within them. Here is where we disagree.

There are many examples I could give you, but I am sure you would deny them. One simple example, is that punctuation is a more modern day addition. Even by the punctuation that was added, there are clear examples of influenced changes of the way in which scripture reads, just because of the punctuation.

Another simple example, is that the word "today" is not accurate, nor was it translated accurately. One of the first things we see, is that the translators wrote this word this way -> To Day. Notice the space ? Again, the word "today" is a modern day word. I am not exactly sure when this word was first used. Maybe around the 12th or 13th century.

If properly translated, this word -> "To Day" would never have been translated this way.

It should have been translated - "This day" or "That day" or "In that day, or in this day".

When Jesus told the thief on the cross, that "In that day" thou shalt be with me in paradise. The translators translated this phrase as -- "To Day", which has caused all kinds of confusion amongst those who read their bibles thinking that their translated bible is infallible.

Now we have people believing that Jesus went to paradise and not to the grave. But worse than that, it has caused people to think with a double mindedness. We now have people believing that when you die and go to the grave, you end up in paradise, which is a lie !

So if you have eyes to see, you then would agree with me, that our translations can not be trusted . One must do their homework, and find out which verses or words, or phrases were altered , so as to cause not only confusion, but deception as well.

I know for a fact, that I gave to this board, more than once, the fact that the word "aner" in Matt. 1:16 is not translated properly. The KJV translates it as the "husband" of Mary, and it should have been translated the "man" of Mary. This man of Mary, was her father, not her husband ! Then and only then do you arrive at 42 generations from Abraham unto Christ.

What does this have to do with the OP???

 

[francisdesales]

You are a troll!!! You post in this forum with a set agenda. This thread was too contrary to your agenda, and you set out to harass and derail the conversation with endless straw mans, constant personal attacks, always setting the train of thought into a state of confusion in order to set a context for assertions that supported the Catholic position. You just wanted to make sure no legitimate discussion occurred on the issues, as you had no honest answer to them. It is the methods of trolling.

I see. You cannot answer any question I have asked, so you must again resort to name-calling.

One more time, and I will be speaking with the Moderators...

 

[francisdesales]

I don't think this is the first Protestant review of the canon. However, this position is merely repeating one from the early centuries of Christianity and continuing. The LXX in Greek was popular and relied on as inspired in north Africa, but church authorities immediately recognized problems with these books being considered canon. Still, it was hard to give them up. So two categories of canon were created to keep them. The Apocrypha was held as inspired but not suitable for doctrine. However, eventually the "not suitable for doctrine" distinction was just dropped.

People get attached to things. For instance, many people love the KJV and believe it is inspired. This contradicts Scripture on what is Scripture. I love the KJV but believe it is only anointed -- which is indicated by how important this translation has been in history and the effect it has had on Christianity. It is powerful -- but it is not a second level canon, even though that truth is just hard for many people to accept. I hold there are mistakes in the KJV, and much of this version is based on discretion in translation -- very good discretion, that I do not discard easily, but it is still just discretion.

So calling the Apocrypha a second level of holy writings was just a way of trying to deal with how much the works were loved in north Africa, while realizing they did not satisfy the Scriptural criteria for canon, and this position then became a tradition in itself.

There is some truth to what you said in this post, but I would like to make two comments where you are mistaken.

1. Your attempt to locate the LXX in Africa implying that the LXX was considered inspired only in North Africa. This is patently false, as the LXX was read and accepted as inspired by numerous Jews in Palestine during the time of Jesus. Do you think the Apostles had to sail to Egypt to use the LXX in their works of the NT??? They clearly had access to it and preferred it...

The theory of an Alexandrian canon - only for the Diaspora, and a Hebrew canon - only for Palestine, has faded into oblivion, thoroughly destroyed with the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls and modern archeology. For example, it is widely recognized by social scientists and archeologists that Palestine had a sizeable contingency of Greek speaking Jewish believers who utilized the Septuagint as their Bible, roughly one in three. In addition, as I said before, we have Pharisee rescinsions of Hebrew to Greek from the first century that include several of the "apocrypha", thus, making it clear that there was no fully formed "Palestinian canon" until well after the time of Christ. Why would the Pharisees make a Greek scroll of inspired writings with many of the Prophets writings, to include the longer version of Daniel and the entire Sirach writing if it was NOT inspired and there was "already a canon in existence that rejected the Apocrypha"???

2. Also, this comment is incorrect: The Apocrypha was held as inspired but not suitable for doctrine

The Apocrypha was held as inspired AND suitable for doctrine. Whether you agree with the doctrine of Purgatory or not, the Catholic Church for hundreds of years prior to Trent referred to 2 Maccabees as a proof of the idea. Would you like some citations from St. Augustine (c. 400 CE), perhaps?

Your statement should read "The Apocrypha was held as inspired AND suitable for doctrine, useable for private teaching and reading, but NOT for proclamation at Divine Liturgy (public use).

It is nice to see you make some positive statements to this discussion for a change. Thank you.

 

[Mysteryman]

I know that you believe that the transaltions have no error's within them. Here is where we disagree.

There are many examples I could give you, but I am sure you would deny them. One simple example, is that punctuation is a more modern day addition. Even by the punctuation that was added, there are clear examples of influenced changes of the way in which scripture reads, just because of the punctuation.

Another simple example, is that the word "today" is not accurate, nor was it translated accurately. One of the first things we see, is that the translators wrote this word this way -> To Day. Notice the space ? Again, the word "today" is a modern day word. I am not exactly sure when this word was first used. Maybe around the 12th or 13th century.

If properly translated, this word -> "To Day" would never have been translated this way.

It should have been translated - "This day" or "That day" or "In that day, or in this day".

When Jesus told the thief on the cross, that "In that day" thou shalt be with me in paradise. The translators translated this phrase as -- "To Day", which has caused all kinds of confusion amongst those who read their bibles thinking that their translated bible is infallible.

Now we have people believing that Jesus went to paradise and not to the grave. But worse than that, it has caused people to think with a double mindedness. We now have people believing that when you die and go to the grave, you end up in paradise, which is a lie !

So if you have eyes to see, you then would agree with me, that our translations can not be trusted . One must do their homework, and find out which verses or words, or phrases were altered , so as to cause not only confusion, but deception as well.

I know for a fact, that I gave to this board, more than once, the fact that the word "aner" in Matt. 1:16 is not translated properly. The KJV translates it as the "husband" of Mary, and it should have been translated the "man" of Mary. This man of Mary, was her father, not her husband ! Then and only then do you arrive at 42 generations from Abraham unto Christ.

What does this have to do with the OP???

Joe, did you even read the OP ? Yes, it talked about books, but also about what is divine and what is inspired.

Are our translations, no matter how many books you want to add to the so called canon, or how few books you want to take away from the so called canon, inspired , or divine ? I say neither !

Our translations, no matter which one you use or consider to be canon, is not inspired by God, nor divine. These were man made attempts to take what notes they could find, and put them in a manner in which they felt comfortable within their own belief system. Thats right, if you are reading between the lines, they are all influenced by someone's belief system when put together !

There are many greek texts, and we know which were translated from in order to come up with a certain translation. However, these texts are copies of copies of copies over such a long period of time, that influence of the many years crept into the text. Not only that, but the same holds true with the many translations. The translators were heavily influenced when doing their translated material.

Put a comma here or a parenthesis here or there, or end a verse here or there, or start a chapter where they thought a chapter should start, or end. As there were no punctuation marks, nor chapters , nor verses from the text from which the translations were taken from.

Considering which books to make a part of the canon is done in the same manner. A man made attempt to which they considered either divine or inspired. None of which was God inspired. God did allow, but He did not inspire the work.

What we have today is man's attempt to do that which they wanted , without the authority of God behind the action taken to even make a canon, let alone translated all the many translations from differing text as well as the influence of their day entering into the translations !

If within the first century, God was able , without any bibles or books put into man made canon's ; was able to see the church grow, and His Word reach those whom he deemed had eyes to see and ears to hear, without any bibles. I would think God could do the same in our day and time without any bibles available for man to read.

Canon's as well as the differing translations do not bring us closer to God. God draws us closer to himself, without a canon I might add .

Holy script can not be found today, as anything that was considered scripture has been skewed throughout history.

 

[francisdesales]

Joe, did you even read the OP ? Yes, it talked about books, but also about what is divine and what is inspired.

This OP is not about translations, but which books belong in a translation.

I have no desire in arguing about your knowledge of what the translations REALLY are supposed to say...

If you think we cannot know what Sacred Writ is, perhaps you should start another thread about how the Bible is really not the Bible and you are going to provide us with the proper meaning of it.

 

[dadof10]

Francis,

You are a troll!!! You post in this forum with a set agenda. This thread was too contrary to your agenda, and you set out to harass and derail the conversation with endless straw mans, constant personal attacks, always setting the train of thought into a state of confusion in order to set a context for assertions that supported the Catholic position. You just wanted to make sure no legitimate discussion occurred on the issues, as you had no honest answer to them. It is the methods of trolling.

Could you please answer ONE question before you get banned? The Christian Church was founded by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit. What gives the "Jews" the authority to set the canon of Scripture after Pentecost? Don't you think that the canon the CHRISTIAN CHURCH sets is more relevant and important than the canon the "Jews" set?

OK, that's two. Take your pick, but, for the love of God, at least answer one.

 

[dadof10]

Truth always , as you say, stirs the pot !

I know that you believe that the transaltions have no error's within them. Here is where we disagree.

That is correct. The Holy Spirit keeps the translators from error.

There are many examples I could give you, but I am sure you would deny them. One simple example, is that punctuation is a more modern day addition. Even by the punctuation that was added, there are clear examples of influenced changes of the way in which scripture reads, just because of the punctuation.

Try me. List a couple, if there are so "many".

Another simple example, is that the word "today" is not accurate, nor was it translated accurately. One of the first things we see, is that the translators wrote this word this way -> To Day. Notice the space ?

How does the space in between change the meaning in context? You have to give me the verse(s) in question. Did the author mean that someone or something was going toward "day" as opposed to away from it? Give me chapter and verse, please.

Again, the word "today" is a modern day word. I am not exactly sure when this word was first used. Maybe around the 12th or 13th century.

As long as the words used mean the day in between yesterday and tomorrow, what difference does it make if there is a space or not? Again, context.

If properly translated, this word -> "To Day" would never have been translated this way.

It should have been translated - "This day" or "That day" or "In that day, or in this day".

When Jesus told the thief on the cross, that "In that day" thou shalt be with me in paradise. The translators translated this phrase as -- "To Day", which has caused all kinds of confusion amongst those who read their bibles thinking that their translated bible is infallible.

How so? I thought you said the word was accurately translated "To [space] day", which somehow changes the meaning from today.

Now we have people believing that Jesus went to paradise and not to the grave. But worse than that, it has caused people to think with a double mindedness. We now have people believing that when you die and go to the grave, you end up in paradise, which is a lie !

So SCRIPTURE IS WRONG??? Let me try to enlighten you, MM

The word used in Lk. 23:43 is "s?meron", which, according to Thayer's means ONLY:

1) this (very) day)
2) what has happened today

So, I either trust the Greek and Hebrew scholars at Thayer's, or....you

You need to change your thinking to conform to the plain words of Scripture not vice-versa.

So if you have eyes to see, you then would agree with me, that our translations can not be trusted .

Then the answer to my second UNANSWERED question from about a month ago ("who is the corrector of Scripture?"), is YOU? You are the center of Scripture interpretation and translation.

One must do their homework, and find out which verses or words, or phrases were altered , so as to cause not only confusion, but deception as well.

Deception? Thayer's is deceiving us? Please. Even you can't really think that.

I know for a fact, that I gave to this board, more than once, the fact that the word "aner" in Matt. 1:16 is not translated properly. The KJV translates it as the "husband" of Mary, and it should have been translated the "man" of Mary. This man of Mary, was her father, not her husband ! Then and only then do you arrive at 42 generations from Abraham unto Christ.

Joseph was Mary's FATHER? :help From Thayer's again:

Aner:

1) with reference to sex
a) of a male
b) of a husband
c) of a betrothed or future husband

2) with reference to age, and to distinguish an adult man from a boy

3) any male

4) used generically of a group of both men and women

What word is missing from the above definition? That's right...FATHER. This, then begs the question, is there another Greek word for "father" that could have been used if Matthew wanted to convey that thought and agree with you? The answer is YES, of course there is. If Joseph was Mary's father, Matthew could have simply continued with the "begats" which started at the beginning of the Chapter.

Even if he didn't want to use that word, he could have used the common word "pater".

WOW, MM. I really think you need to rethink this...

 

[dadof10]

I know that you believe that the transaltions have no error's within them. Here is where we disagree.

There are many examples I could give you, but I am sure you would deny them. One simple example, is that punctuation is a more modern day addition. Even by the punctuation that was added, there are clear examples of influenced changes of the way in which scripture reads, just because of the punctuation.

Another simple example, is that the word "today" is not accurate, nor was it translated accurately. One of the first things we see, is that the translators wrote this word this way -> To Day. Notice the space ? Again, the word "today" is a modern day word. I am not exactly sure when this word was first used. Maybe around the 12th or 13th century.

If properly translated, this word -> "To Day" would never have been translated this way.

It should have been translated - "This day" or "That day" or "In that day, or in this day".

When Jesus told the thief on the cross, that "In that day" thou shalt be with me in paradise. The translators translated this phrase as -- "To Day", which has caused all kinds of confusion amongst those who read their bibles thinking that their translated bible is infallible.

Now we have people believing that Jesus went to paradise and not to the grave. But worse than that, it has caused people to think with a double mindedness. We now have people believing that when you die and go to the grave, you end up in paradise, which is a lie !

So if you have eyes to see, you then would agree with me, that our translations can not be trusted . One must do their homework, and find out which verses or words, or phrases were altered , so as to cause not only confusion, but deception as well.

I know for a fact, that I gave to this board, more than once, the fact that the word "aner" in Matt. 1:16 is not translated properly. The KJV translates it as the "husband" of Mary, and it should have been translated the "man" of Mary. This man of Mary, was her father, not her husband ! Then and only then do you arrive at 42 generations from Abraham unto Christ.

What does this have to do with the OP???

I saw this after I posted my response. I actually ASKED him for the clarification. Since you are doing such a great job explaining the canon here, I'll take it to another thread...if MM responds, that is. Sorry, Joe. Didn't mean to derail the thread...Carry on...

 

[dadof10]

Joe, did you even read the OP ? Yes, it talked about books, but also about what is divine and what is inspired.

MM, I'll start another thread entitled "Is Scripture Corrupt?" We can finish there.

 

[M-Paul]

Francis,

You are a troll!!! You post in this forum with a set agenda. This thread was too contrary to your agenda, and you set out to harass and derail the conversation with endless straw mans, constant personal attacks, always setting the train of thought into a state of confusion in order to set a context for assertions that supported the Catholic position. You just wanted to make sure no legitimate discussion occurred on the issues, as you had no honest answer to them. It is the methods of trolling.

Could you please answer ONE question before you get banned? The Christian Church was founded by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit. What gives the "Jews" the authority to set the canon of Scripture after Pentecost? Don't you think that the canon the CHRISTIAN CHURCH sets is more relevant and important than the canon the "Jews" set?

OK, that's two. Take your pick, but, for the love of God, at least answer one.

I have posted repeatedly, that the significance of the Jewish position is lexicographical, not conciliar, that the authority is Scripture not the Jews. You respond as if I never stated what I already have. This is another form of a straw man argument and a manner of setting the train of thought into confusion. Dad, I could write it out 100 more times and you would still make posts on the basis that I have never set it out. But you do it with other issues as well. This is not honest conversation, but posting for the sake of creating appearances. And why should I answer any question by you, if you always then respond on the basis of completely ignoring my answers?

Now that I have essentially stopped posting, as it is only game playing on your part and that of Francis, you guys are still just trying to manipulate the thread for the sake of appearances.

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi M-Paul

I was wondering if you have had the pleasure of reading this book -- The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Bart D. Ehrman ?

 

[M-Paul]

Hi M-Paul

I was wondering if you have had the pleasure of reading this book -- The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Bart D. Ehrman ?

I have not. However, I just now found a complete copy of it on line. I quickly looked at some pages. This appears to be written from a liberal view point that does not admit to divine inspiration. In other words, liberals use a completely different method of interpretation based on certain assumptions that are completely contrary to what conservative Christians believe. From the conservative view point, liberal explanations of religion are merely rationalistic positions on what a belief in Christ means, so that he really is not the son of God but an event in history. Conservatives defend that Scripture is divine according to the test that Scripture sets out -- prophecy. This test does create a problem for liberals. I have a link to an article I wrote on how prophecy confirms Scripture on my web site, but again, I keep these articles short for the sake of people who do not have a lot of time to read.

However, perhaps, you are a liberal. Well, then you disagree with the conservative position. Of course, you have that right. But this is all another topic really, and not something I really want to get into just now. I started in this thread by trying to answer a question, but one thing led to another.

At any rate, do you recommend I read this book? If so, why? I'll think about it.