spider:

You are doing it again... You are citing a Catholic historical account.

Let us all then, brother...shall we?

All of your furthered writing is mute beyond that.

someone is reaching.......cough cough creative......

I'm siteing historians who have dated documents. Give it up man, seriously. You are wrong. The NT was formed outside of today's Catholic church. Catholic was used to refer to the church created by Jesus. This name was adopted by the paganized catholocism that was created by Constantine to control the masses.

Latin Vulgate (St. Jerome) c.400: the Bible of the Western Church through the middle ages; still the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.


Wycliffe (& Purvey) c.1385: first translation of whole (or most of) Bible from Vulgate into vernacular, medieval English -- [n.b. complete Wycliffe Bible not published until 1850].

Martin Luther c.1522: translation of the Greek N.T. and Hebrew O.T. into vernacular German; still the standard Bible of German Protestants [Lutheran].

Tyndale c.1525: translation of Greek N.T. [consulting Vulgate and Luther's German translation] and parts of Hebrew O.T. -- fixed the English translation style.

Coverdale c.1535: little change from Tyndale's, but with new translations for previously undone portions of O.T. from Vulgate and Luther's [not orig. Hebrew]; Coverdale's PSALMS still used by Anglicans and Episcopalians in Book of Common Prayer.

Matthew c.1537: Essentially Tyndale's but a publication authorized by the king (Henry VIII); the first authorized or licensed English Bible - [though license was extended to Coverdale's later editions].

Great Bible (Cranmer) c.1540: revision of Matthew's Bible produced in a large size; undertaken at Cromwell's suggestion and claimed the "Bible appointed to the use of the churches".

Geneva c.1560: revision/collation of Tyndale's and the Great Bible; first English translation to use the division into verses; considered most scholarly of early English versions; commonly used for many years - especially among Puritans - and commonly brought to America.

Bishops' c.1568: a rebuttal by the bishops to the Geneva Bible (which they didn't like); borrowed heavily from Great Bible and, actually, also from Geneva Bible - including use of verses; uneven quality but formed basis for KJV.

Rheims/Douay c.1582/1610: the official [English] Roman Catholic Bible; translation from Vulgate [n.b. Bishop Challoner revised in mid 1700's, sometimes called "Challoner-Rheims Version"].

King James (or Authorized ) Version (KJV or AV) 1611: the standard authorized Bible of most Protestant churches for 2+ centuries; used the original Hebrew and Greek to inform comparison/revision of earlier English versions - [leaned heavily on Bishop's Bible; much of the language actually goes back to Tyndale's].


Modern - Major English Language Versions (1800-1990)

Revised Version or English Revised Version (RV or ERV) N.T. 1881, O.T. 1884: first major revision of KJV; done by lengthy committee process including Anglican and most Protestant faiths but NOT Roman Catholics.

American Revised Version or American Standard Version (ARV or ASV) N.T. 1900, O.T. 1901: a re-edited version of the RV, basically the same.

Moulton (Modern Readers') Bible 1907: a rearrangement of texts rather than a significantly new version, but an early attempt to "update" the Bible.

Moffat Bible N.T. 1913, O.T. 1924: a new translation from early Greek and Latin texts - considered flawed because of the choice of source texts and the occasional rearrangement of verses but still a major work and fairly popular in it's time.

Smith-Goodspeed or "Chicago " Bible c.1930's: [The Bible: An American Translation (AT)] first significant attempt to make truly modern language version.

Knox Bible N.T. 1945, O.T. 1948: a new translation of the Vulgate bible; the New Testament was officially approved by the Roman Catholic church, though not supplanting the Rheims N.T. (first translation done by a single individual).

Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1946-1957: an attempt to improve on the language of the RV/ASV; more widely accepted, but not supplanting KJV.

Modern Language Bible (New Berkeley) (MLB) 1959, rev. 1969: another attempt at a modernization of the language leaning especially toward an American audience and working from the Greek and Hebrew texts.

Jerusalem Bible (JB) 1966: Catholic translation based on ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts, but closely following the French "Bible de Jerusalem" [n.b. begun well after the NAB NT (1941) was done, but finished before the NAB OT (1970)].

New American Standard Bible (NASB) N.T. 1963, O.T. 1970: conservative, fairly literal translation from mainly Greek texts; attempt to repeat the RV process with more contemporary language; not very well-received.

New English Bible (NEB) 1970: first completely new [Protestant] translation from original Bible languages into English since Tyndale.

New American Bible (NAB) O.T. 1969, complete 1970 [added "Confraternity Version" N.T. of Douay]: The first significant Catholic translation since Douay-Rheims; working from original Greek texts mainly, rather than Vulgate (Latin); O.T. also made use of Dead Sea Scrolls; original N.T. rushed and mostly from Vulgate and later (1987) greatly revised/retranslated.

Living Bible 1971: most popular "paraphrase translation".

New International Version (NIV) 1973: a conservative, evangelically oriented translation from Greek and Hebrew texts.

Good News Bible [Today's English Version] (TEV) 1966: "common language" translation from modern Greek/Hebrew texts; emphasis on effective and accurate communication to the common reader.

New King James Version (NKJV) N.T. 1979, O.T. 1982: a revision of KJV to improve readability of text .

New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) 1985: a revision following on the changes made in the French revision of the Bible de Jerusalem (1973) reflecting some new scholarship in research of the original texts and translations.

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) 1989: the result of continuing revisions from the committee(s) who made RSV .

Revised English Bible (REB) 1989: a revision of the New English Bible (1970), updating according to new scholarship in translation.



I use the NIV version in case you would like to know....

Now can you two please stop fighting....

spider:

I have read the arguments for and against the dating of the MF.
In addition to reading it... all by myself... are you proud?

I will concede at the 170 date. Not a problem.

So, we just established an agreement about when it was originally written, as you will accept this concession.

Now then, shall we examine the contents for accuracy?


EDIT:

Oh darn... we do not have all of it's content...do we?

So what HAVE we established here?

feral has added nothing of substance that is on topic...

spider has been attempting verbal ridicule of another while basing his own foundation of belief on an incomplete codex that has no author, no beginning, and no end...

I am waiting for Eljay to respond.

And I am reaching?

Creativesoul, please be honest. I stated that most of the books of the NT were accepted before Nicea. You asked for proof and I linked you to the Muratorian Fragment. My beliefs aren't based on that document, but that document does prove that most of the NT was accepted as canon by 170 AD. The beginning is missing the first two gospels. We see that from the text, because in the second legible line, the author says "The third book of the gospel: according to Luke." So two gospels missing from the beginning of the document. I guess you would say it's a stretch (but I think it's a sure thing) to assume that they were Matthew and Mark. The document ends abruptly, while discussing books that the Christians rejected.

You say "Oh darn... we do not have all of it's content...do we?", but we clearly have enough to prove that 21 of the 27 books of the NT were already accepted as canon. We know that the author of the fragment accepted four gospels (same as Christians today). We can learn a lot from this little fragment. Why don't you mention that the Gospel of Mary that you were trying to push earlier is missing ten pages? I'm sure you have a very good excuse for that minor oversight.

Detailed, clever hogwash, but hogwash nevertheless. Bits and pieces of real stories, embellished to beyond credulity, beyond plausibility, and sold en masset coerce confuse the gullible into praise/glory hogwash. obuscation taken to new heights. Utter nunsense. Bad pizza dreams, brought to light.

Not to mention the exorbitant profits to be made from the primitive fears of the faithful

Whom?

spider:

The progression of this conversation is aimed towards the establishment of dating and the possible verification of the authorship concerning the gospels, is it not?

Yes, the MF does indeed contain several internal references towards confirming it's date of origin, one of which is nearly irrefutable. It is usually accepted as being the earliest known 'copy' of canonization. I have no argument there spider.


A dating of 170 would establish the texts mentioned within it would have to have been written prior to this date. That is really about all one can truly surmise, and there are errors in it are there not?


What do you believe it's significance is spider?

nothingness is exactly what I see being accomplished here....

blah blah blah

Just catching up here C.S. Been plowing through pages of trivia on the other threads.



My objection has been your "widely accepted" claims. I won't recount them here - but I'm sure you recall. I just don't agree with it. When you cited your sources, I thought them questionable at best, and noted it, and wondered why you hadn't examined some of the more notable Christian "authorities" - if you will.



Here again - you establish premises in your arguments that are questionable, yet you establish them as givens - how can we agree with your conclusions as truth if we're in disagreement on the premises?



The Catholic church maintains authority over those who claim to be adherants - nothing more. It matters not to me what the Catholic church deems acceptable or not. If I agree with any tennents they support, it is because I do so through examining the scriptures - not because it came from the Vatican. Their account of church History means nothing to me.



First off - I feel your claims are improperly supported because of your premises. When asked where you got your premises, I felt your exegesis could have been expanded.

As to claiming "my organization" as acceptable - I made no such claim. i merely suggested you expand your perception of your "widely accepted" premises by examining the organizations that disagree with you to determine why that is, and that your premises may not be as "widely accepted" as you think.

I think Feral has given us a fairly accurate breakdown on the history of the printed bible - unless there's something you'd like to add to it.



You do yourself a tremendous diservice dismissing Spider's posts, He has an excellant grasp of sound exegesis, a firm foundation of Historical Christianity, and the wisdom to know when and what to post.



So here I am. Is my previous post what you were refering to? If not - I've missed something.



You are? For what?

Feral;

Thanks for that list. Quite interesting.

Oh, and less we forget the ancient scrolls - which would preceed 400 A.D.

Where would you like to look for an accurate historical account of the canon?

Would I be mistaken if I said 'widely-accepted' and it agreed with your conclusion?

Would you be mistaken if you said it and it disagreed with mine?

Of course not. Widely accepted does not equal truth, it equals widely accepted.

If this conversation's only accepted evidence has to be held within the sciptures, what is the point?

spider listed Luke as a source... he was not an eye-witness

Paul was not an eye-witness...

John? Which John?

We need to establish the credibility of the evidence.

I do myself a disservice ignoring spider's assumptive nature? I think not. He likes to tell people what their intentions are. So I allow him the room to fight with himself, because he knows not what mine are. I ask if he had read the gospel of Mary or Thomas. His later responses were that I had 'swallowed them' and was 'pushing' Mary???? All of that because I asked if he had read them.

One cannot have a logical conversation when assumptive thinking is at the forefront. I never claimed belief either way.

Then you come out patronizing someone who has personally made insults towards me throughout this thread?

All three of you have made at least one personal judgement about me during this thread and others.

Stay in your illogical belief(s) and thought processes.

You can have them....

Is it so difficult to put aside a belief, to put a little logical thought into the disucssion?

There was only ONE organized Christian church, yet according to the above quote, some 350 years after the beginning of this ONE orgainized group, there is suddenly, mysteriously, an infallible set of writhings. WHO EXACTLY do you suppose supported these scriptures? We are not talking about a small countryside, we are talking about a huge amount of territory that is being covered while this 'book' is being put together. Do you suppose a letter including some new 'account' of a story made it from one area to another in just a few days? How do you think all these books came together?

The reason for the Eucumenical Council was becasue there were so many varying texts being used - there was no 'actual' Bible. The variance in texts caused a variance in belief. Perhaps, the CHURCH agreed that the scripture of Matthew was of good accounting, and so it was added to the list of 'accepted' documents. The problem was, not all accounts of Matthew were the same.

Apart from 'accepted' text the scattered churches were using other non-approved texts in their teachings. THINK - what was the point of the Nicene Creed? It was a doctrine meant to unite ALL of Christianity. It was a declaration that ONLY these beliefs were consistant with Biblical teaching.

Creative has already explained the illogical idea that you can use the Bible as it was 'Created' by the Catholic church, but the Catholic church was in error when they created it????

PERHAPS this discussion should be in regards to Church doctrine. No matter how many Biblical copies, or re-writed or vocabulary updates are made, there is only one thing that TRUELY separates and divides Christians - doctrine.

If the nature of the ORIGINAL Biblical canon is infallible, how can it possibly have so many interpretations.

If the Catholics are not right, and the Eastern Orthedox (the only remaining, nearly perfect form of the ONE AND ONLY ORIGINAL CHURCH, is not right, what has made modern man so much more adept in understanding the meaning of scriptures when they have undergone such a vast amount of writing and re-writing? And if someone has to have a right, what doctrine would determine the right? For obviously, the Bible alone is not a good doctrine for people follow, that their needs must be fulfilled by the man made interpretation of that canon referred as doctrine?



It took the Council reviewing ALL various 'related' texts, and MAKING SURE there would be connectivity and consistancy, to the best of their abilty to do so, in choosing which texts would be 'canon'.



The only reason you can make such comparison is becasue the authorities who put the book together, made it flow that way, by CHOOSING, the texts best suited to get that job done. For all we know, some distant Bishop created their 'very own' idea of what should be input and sent it to the Church authorities as authentic and THAT is what was decided to be the text used.???

What I see is that many of you believe there was more than one 'perfect' man. Your 'faith' in the integrity, honesty and sinless nature of a large group of men runs deeper than your faith in God. It seems to me you will support, with your dying breath, the 'perfect' nature of every single person who ever verbally told a biblical story, through the people who first wrote them, onto those who re-wrote them, passed them on and began group them, the authorities that chose them, and then 1500 years of re-writing, through vocabulary changes, definition changes and DOCTRINE, that no one error has ever occured.

Now be honest, if God intended for you to have that much faith in man, why would the Bible have been a testimony declaring that there is only one true faith; God? (or three, depending on you view the Trinity)!

Question, why do we hold in such high esteem the 'original' language in which Shakespeare wrote? Why do we not see it read or taught in 'modern' English? I would venture to say that reading Shakespeare in any other way, would not maintain the value of the scripts.

How many times can stories be voiced, written, verbally changed, told, and rewritten before they are no longer valid representations of the first telling - much less a valid first telling as percieved in the first person?

If you have that much faith in man, than what was purpose of Jesus?

Circular logic at best, that is how you support your faith.

It is yours to support, but attempting to provide reason for your faith by proof, is not logical either, yet for some reason so many feel the need to prove their own validity, by proving to others that what they 'beleive' has merit. It has merit; only to you.

Redykeulous,

From what we see in history and writings of scholars and Catholics, we see that the Catholic church started to change after 325 AD. The Catholic church went from being various churches run by the locals to a unified body with extra-biblical beliefs. The lists of books aren't in question. There were no books that are rejected today on those lists as accepted. We have the lists and while the first two gospels are missing from MF, we know that they were gospels, which exludes many of the rejected books.



I've stated this many times, read Romans 14. Christianity isn't one size fits all. Most doctrinal issues are MINOR.

We 'know' jack spider...

Pure speculation.

Get your logical processes honed a little will ya?