I have a couple questions I'd like to ask.

First, why hasn't the bible been allowed to grow? The events it describes supposedly occurred over thousands of years, yet once it was compiled into a book, nothing has been added to it in 2 millennia. Why not? Is it because it's formatted like a novel, with a beginning (Genesis), a middle, and an end (The Apocalypse)?

Secondly, if the church (or whoever decides these things) decided to add to the bible either previously unaccepted texts, or newly written ones, would you still consider this the word of God?

I'm just curious and would appreciate replies from believers and skeptics alike.

the subsequent chapter in the trilogy is called the qu'ran.

That's more or less what I meant by unaccepted texts. If the powers that be (the church, I assume) declared they were going to include such texts in the bible, how would the believers react?

If someone in the heirarchy decided to add something to what we know of as the Bible, I would read it, see what it has to say. If it contradicts what we know of through the rest of the BIble, I would not accept it because it would not be the Word of God. But if it does not..........

I mean there are plenty of Christian books out there. We do not limit ourselves solely to the Bible. But again, if these Christian books contradict the Bible, then it is obviously not true. But if it does not contradict the Bible.............

You see where I'm getting at?

gee, the whole thing was voted on by a bunch of bishops about 1700 years ago. I guess that makes it God's word, huh?

If you bother to read my posts once in a while you'll understand that if something else was added into the canon I'd review it and then make a decison to agree with it or not. Just as I've done with every other book of the Bible. Just as I've done with every Christian text ever written.

If it agrees with what we know of as the character of God, then i don't see a problem in using it. If it does not agree, then it is obviously not from God.

I agree. The entire n.t is not from God, as defined in the tanach.

So the Jews will claim. The new testament claims otherwise. But, if I understand you correct, you don't believe in what we call the Old Testament either.

Regards,

the old testament is a garbled, reworded, reordered version of the tanach, the holy scriptures of the jews.

If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that Christian faith in the bible is mutable (i.e., that it's acceptable to accept changes within the bible as long as they conform to what you believe).

I'm not trying to argue (and please forgive my ignorance of the Christian religion), I'm simply trying to understand why the bible has been heralded as the "one true word of God" by many, yet there are so many differing ways the bible is interpreted by the various Christian sects.

Suffice it to say that it would not adversely affect my faith either way. If I learn something about the Bible that I didn't know, and I get this information from a contemporary CHristian author, then I think that's God speaking to me through this person, ergo the Word of God. But I do not think that this will ever happen. The canon is tradition. It will not be changed.



True, there are many interpretations. but it is also true that some interpretations are more faithful than others. The fact that we are reading a book that was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek means there may be small inconsistncies in the translation. However, as a general rule, i try to look at the big picture of what the Bible is saying, rather than getting hung up on the insignificant points.

While each Christian denomination has some different doctrine's, most agree on the major themes of the Bible - that is to say, Jesus' death and resurrection for our sins, and God's gracious plan for the salvation of mankind.

Some of course, do not agree with that, but on the whole, these groups that preach something else have, in my opinion concentrated on the minor details of the Bible which can be translated/interpreted different ways. And it is my belief that it is fallacy to base your faith on something that can mean different things.

Does that make things clearer? I hope so. I just read over it and it looks a complete mess

All the best.