A similar question was asked only minutes earlier
This is the source quoted
http://www.freewebs.com/parasit-e/truebible.htm
It is not that I believe it, but this article does have a valid point
2007-01-28 01:36:56 · 6 answers · asked by Jack 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Well, the books of the bible were chosen out of a fairly large pool of possible choices in order to get across a message that the church fathers wanted to say (at that particular time).
It's a political tool. Books such as the gospel of Thomas, and the Revelation of Peter protrayed a view of Christianity that the people in charge didn't like, so they were discarded as being false and uninspired (though the only criteria for inclusion was their own feelings and opinions).
The bible used today is a political acheivement meant to sway the believers in a certain direction, and one that was not universally accepted in the early years of the church. Why else do you think the complete bible wasn't done being compiled (that's compiled, not written) until almost 400 AD?
Even now, look at the difference between a Catholic bible and a Protestant one. Why are there extra books in the Catholic version? Both sides will give you a long list of why these books are or aren't apocryphal. This is because they are politically bent in different directions, and the bible is a work of man.
(Just an add on here for Wayne. You know what other books are of doubtful authorship? The Gospel of John, and half the epistles attributed to Paul; not to mention that many of the passages in the Q-document gospels are of a very dubious nature. Yet they're still in the New Testament. Oh, and it is very well documented that the finished bible didn't come about until four centuries after Jesus' birth)
2007-01-28 01:45:31 · answer #1 · answered by Eldritch 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are areas where earlier manuscripts said something different. Those areas are clearly marked in most Bibles (like the ending to Mark) but in themselves make a lousy basis for denying the authority of Scripture or its authenticity.
2007-01-28 02:24:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
My boss in the 80's had done his PhD work on the bible, he read it in the origional Hebrew and Aramaic. He told me that in the 5th century a Greek translation was made to fit the needs of the priesthood that existed at that time, and that translation is what the modern bible is based on.
2007-01-28 02:08:04 · answer #3 · answered by sudonym x 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the 6 day thing adam and eve the arc and the animals the bloke in the whale the hole book needs a re write see if you can have a few words with the writers
2007-01-28 02:28:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't want to attack the Bible at all, but if you are interested in hearing some opposing views about the Bible and the story of Jesus/God/Christianity you should check out this link.
http://godisimaginary.com/i7.htm
If you are a Christian, please don't automatically discount it. Just read it and it kind of goes along with the link you provided. It's interesting, whether you buy into it or not.
2007-01-28 01:45:48 · answer #5 · answered by eastchic2001 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
God and his word are w/o fault but man is plum full of faults and doubts.
2007-01-28 01:43:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋