as actually happened
2006-09-13 01:31:58 · 19 answers · asked by phil_the_sane 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
as actually happened.
Those of you who argue against this may like to consider when the bible was completed, when the great schism happened and when the reformation happened.
2006-09-13 01:52:31 · update #1
theodore r....really if God asks you to? i think JW, morman, univeral life church, children of god etc. if God asks you to, you personally I guess.
2006-09-13 01:55:43 · update #2
This question seems to be arguing that all of Christendom should accept the "Apocrypha".
Currently, only Catholicism believes these books to be part of the Holy Scriptures. Interestingly, even Catholicism itself calls these books "deutero-canonical" rather than "proto-canonical". The fact remains that these books do not answer any questions which are not already answered by the established 66 books of the "proto-canonical" bible.
True Christians, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, reject the idea that the Apocrypha is part of the inspired Bible.
Learn more:
http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/2000/5/15/article_02.htm
2006-09-13 10:26:06 · answer #1 · answered by achtung_heiss 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Today there would be a " Special" on both Dateline NBC and 60 Minutes. The Liberals would be for it especially if it left out any or all of the letters of Paul.
The History Channel would run a week-long series. And Fox would have an Expose'.
There would be a new political party started that would take in all of the "True Bible" believers and they would become more powerful than the Republican Party and Unite many "True" Christians against the Heretics.
In the long run it could have a good effect. But I would never want to be the one who "took away" from the words in the "Book" because I wouldn't want to face God with that on my conscience
2006-09-13 01:47:28 · answer #2 · answered by dom316 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Uhhh... pardon me? We never deleted some of the Bible, nor introduced "a new Bible".
We simply did not include the Deuterocanon nor the Apocrypha. Neither are defined as inspired works of God. They make for an interesting read, valuable history and whatnot, but are not considered part of the Torah, and hence they are not considered part of the Bible.
Now, lemme reverse the question in a more accurate form... What would the backlash be if the Catholics introduced a new Bible with non-Biblical books introduced, and then Protestants put it back into its actual form?
2006-09-13 01:43:02 · answer #3 · answered by seraphim_pwns_u 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"as actually happened" ???????
Hard to find that fact......
A primary attack against divine Bible origin is that the books of the New Testament were agreed upon (canonized) by men hundreds of years after the books were written. Actually, the fathers of the early Christian church reveal that most of the New Testament books were accepted as scripture almost immediately. For instance, in 2 Peter 3:16, the writer takes for granted that Paul's letters were already considered inspired scripture on the same level as the Old Testament. In 1Timothy 5:18, Paul joins an Old Testament reference and a New Testament reference and calls them both Scripture. The need for official canonization of the New Testament scriptures only came about because of certain heresies that were being spread throughout the church starting in the mid to late second century. For instance, Marcion created his own religion by only teaching from ten of Paul's letters and certain portions of Luke. In addition, the Gnostics, especially in Alexandria, were introducing new "secrets" to the standard Christian doctrine, including new gospel accounts altogether.
For the church leaders in the mid second century, the four Gospels were baseline authority in their teachings. In about 170 AD, Irenaeus cited 23 of the 27 New Testament books, omitting only Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. The Muratorian fragment, written about the same time, attests to the widespread use of all the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. However, other church fathers had already cited those omitted books in various writings defending against Gnostic doctrines. The Codex Barococcio from 206 AD includes 64 of the 66 books of today's Bible. Esther and Revelation were omitted, but they had already been declared as inspired scripture by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian and the Muratorian Canon. In 230 AD, Origen declared that all Christians acknowledged as scripture the four Gospels, Acts, the epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation.
By the early 300's, all of the New Testament books were being used in the mainstream church body. In 367 AD, Athanasius formally circulated the Easter Letter that listed all 27 books as canonical. The Synod of Hippo (393 AD) and the third Synod of Carthage (397 AD) also recognized these 27 books as canonical. In addition, during this time, the highly influential church fathers, Jerome (340-420 AD) and Augustine (354-430 AD) published their lists of 27 books completing the New Testament.
It's important to remember that the canon of the New Testament was not the result of any pronouncement by any official of the church or any organizational body. Rather, the canon was determined by the authoritative use of these books right from the start by the rapidly expanding church of the first and second centuries. The New Testament canon was merely a process of formal recognition of already recognized scripture, to defend against the various forms of Gnosticism and heresy that were starting to creep throughout the ever-expanding church
2006-09-13 01:40:11 · answer #4 · answered by williamzo 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Backlash from who? Other protestants? They are free to do whatever they like within their own religion. A Roman catholic bible is not the same as an Russian Orthodox bible or the same as a Methodist bible. Why do you ask, did you think there was a Bible council that publishes one single bible. That only happens when people like Bill Clinton want to show their own version of the truth.
2006-09-13 01:38:21 · answer #5 · answered by Colorado 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Revelations 22:18-19
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Enough said.
2006-09-13 01:49:01 · answer #6 · answered by wlkonwtr1014 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
lol - many holy activities by men of God now a Felony offense so we don't like to mention what the Bible really says..
still happening today..they issue old Bible and color code it and put footnotes in there to eliminate what doesn't match thier particular faith or what has been 'outmoded' with scriptrues like this
"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)
A priest's daughter, if found to have lost her virginity without marriage, can receive the death penalty, but in the form of incineration.
How many fundamentalist priests who so easily condemn others would carry out the burning of their daughters if they found them "whoring"?
(See also Genesis 38:24)
2006-09-13 01:40:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
you would have to question the reasoning behind it. if it is because they have translated from a more precise manuscript than they presantly have, then it would actually be for their benefit as they would be correcting the mistakes of people who have changed Gods word for their own means
2006-09-13 01:39:33 · answer #8 · answered by iamalsotim 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
God warns about this. If things are added, then plagues will be added, and if things are taken out, then their name will be blotted out of the Book of Life.
2006-09-13 01:39:14 · answer #9 · answered by RB 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only some of the book deleted , its a start i suppose
2006-09-13 01:48:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋