Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
tags

who compiled the new testament?

28 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

tags

Who decided what made the cut and on what grounds?

How can we be sure that the books/letters chosen are without doubt the word of God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim88
Who decided what made the cut and on what grounds?

How can we be sure that the books/letters chosen are without doubt the word of God?

The best answer I can give you is you don't know if the New Testament is the word of God. Church leaders decided what made the canon and what didn't. They could have been wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sbradj
The best answer I can give you is you don't know if the New Testament is the word of God. Church leaders decided what made the canon and what didn't. They could have been wrong.

also the nt states that it is the divne inspiration of the holy ghost,,john 17:17 thy word it truth...im gonna say god told what to put in and leave out..since it is gods word i would also like to say he was in complete control as people put together the bible..

Edited by sbradj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude
Who decided what made the cut and on what grounds?

How can we be sure that the books/letters chosen are without doubt the word of God?

I beleive it was the First Council of Niceea.

This will get you started Nicean Council

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tags
also the nt states that it is the divne inspiration of the holy ghost,,john 17:17 thy word it truth...im gonna say god told what to put in and leave out..since it is gods word i would also like to say he was in complete control as people put together the bible..

What makes you believe that God was in control of these men as they compiled the scriptures? Is there any scripture to back this up, or is it faith?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Radian

I have issues about what books were taken out of bible and what books were left in- One vote could have made the difference in what is considered the "word of God" or not- Something about that I find troublesome. imo.

Here is a list:

http://reluctant-messenger.com/council-of-laodicea.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
randomhit10

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

this is where man received the Word of God that was written down...Divine instruction...as far as what books were chosen?....what i read tells me that the book must have a real message, must be historically accurate (verifiable), and follow the what God stands for and teaches...there are many parts of the Bible that has been take wwaaaaayyyy out of context in order to show it to be erred...when read and studied as a complete text and Work of God, there is nothing in it that i can find to be in error ( and i was one of the ones who used to take it out of context to prove it to be wrong so i could make me feel better about the life i was living....i could not justify my own bull. )...

as far as why certain books were left out, some are easy to see why, some others i would probably not had a problem with if it were me....one issue is that some of these books were written much later and the council let them out...

i hope this helps,

randomhit10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charlie Mike
also the nt states that it is the divne inspiration of the holy ghost,,john 17:17

Ah so, the old "using the bible to prove the bible" trick...LMAO that is the lamest! Men decided what to put in the bible, men that lusted for power, control over others and wealth! What is in the NT is not the word of God, but rather the word of venal men of the 4th, 5th and 6th centuies AD. What is there is too edited for political reasons, to self-contradictory and too erroneous to be the perfect word of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Mostly it was tradition that led to which books were left in and which were left out. Of all that I've read though, the only decision I may be interested in reviewing is Enoch. That is the only text not left in the Bible that I think perhaps should have been in the Bible. All others were kept out because the original compilers knew that the texts were generally too late to be included as part of the canon (gnostic gospels, for example). Enoch on the other hand has a strong case for inclusion, including a New Testament quote from the book of Jude (well, I guess the argument could be made that Jude does not belong in the Bible then......).

But I think arguing this is rather a non-issue. How many non-Christians would accept the Bible if every book to ever be written about Jesus or claim to come from the God of the Hebrews were left in? I daresay that there would be more people doubting its validity if everything ever written were simply left in.

So we're left with "damned if you do and damned if you don't". Leave them in and get panned for not being critical enough. Leave some out and get panned for censoring. The non-Christian will argue regardless of which way history went in this.

Regards, PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

I also would like to know who compiled the books of the bible and why they took out all the pictures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
randomhit10
I also would like to know who compiled the books of the bible and why they took out all the pictures.

the roman patriot act forbid pics...all kodaks were taken away at customs....

randomhit10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim
The best answer I can give you is you don't know if the New Testament is the word of God. Church leaders decided what made the canon and what didn't. They could have been wrong.

Do we even know what the bible actually originally said? I know that it is supposed to be copied unchanged through the ages, but let's face it - it probably hasn't been. It get's written in hebrew originally, translated to other languages, then one king decides to make a little change here another there, transcription errors slip by and 2,000 years later, we have a book that probably bears no resemblance to the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
Do we even know what the bible actually originally said? I know that it is supposed to be copied unchanged through the ages, but let's face it - it probably hasn't been. It get's written in hebrew originally, translated to other languages, then one king decides to make a little change here another there, transcription errors slip by and 2,000 years later, we have a book that probably bears no resemblance to the original.

I posted some articles in a previous post on this thread. They provide some great information and I believe answe the question you are asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John from Lowell
Mostly it was tradition that led to which books were left in and which were left out. Of all that I've read though, the only decision I may be interested in reviewing is Enoch. That is the only text not left in the Bible that I think perhaps should have been in the Bible. All others were kept out because the original compilers knew that the texts were generally too late to be included as part of the canon (gnostic gospels, for example). Enoch on the other hand has a strong case for inclusion, including a New Testament quote from the book of Jude (well, I guess the argument could be made that Jude does not belong in the Bible then......).

But I think arguing this is rather a non-issue. How many non-Christians would accept the Bible if every book to ever be written about Jesus or claim to come from the God of the Hebrews were left in? I daresay that there would be more people doubting its validity if everything ever written were simply left in.

So we're left with "damned if you do and damned if you don't". Leave them in and get panned for not being critical enough. Leave some out and get panned for censoring. The non-Christian will argue regardless of which way history went in this.

Regards, PA

These are good points PA.

I would describe myself as a Christian without a religion. The biggest problem I have with the Bible are the teaching about the concepts presented by Jesus. My feeling has been that truth is relative. We are birthed into bias for a purpose. That purpose could be to respect and then learn to appreciate other points of view. I was brought up as a Roman Catholic were unmarried men and their points of view determined the concepts that were best for all of us to follow. The word of God/Jesus was framed to support their thinking and taught accordingly. There is much real truth in their findings however I would find it hard to expect their feminine side was working as purely as the truest Mind of God would wish.

So we have what we have. A traditionalist will hold on to that and live or die with it. Others have a desire to understand more. Both are cherished by God.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim
I posted some articles in a previous post on this thread. They provide some great information and I believe answe the question you are asking.

Actually, no they don't. All they do is point to the same dogma that the church has always put forth. It still doesn't answer the central question - what changes have crept their way into the bible in the last 2 thousand years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
Actually, no they don't. All they do is point to the same dogma that the church has always put forth. It still doesn't answer the central question - what changes have crept their way into the bible in the last 2 thousand years?

Actually they do, Wookietim, they are written by scholars who have researched the topic, they may not be providing the answers that support your view, but they are quite valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
randomhit10
Actually, no they don't. All they do is point to the same dogma that the church has always put forth. It still doesn't answer the central question - what changes have crept their way into the bible in the last 2 thousand years?

all i have been able to find is small differances in choice of wording in the translations...if you find something you are having trouble with you can look up the actual greek and hebrew translations and read them for yourself...there is nothing in the Bible that is in error.

randomhit10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim
Actually they do, Wookietim, they are written by scholars who have researched the topic, they may not be providing the answers that support your view, but they are quite valid.

So, you are saying that these scholars were able to set down with a copy of the newest edition of the bible and compare it to the original manuscript? That is what I am talking about.

What we have today probably bears very little relation to the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
randomhit10
So, you are saying that these scholars were able to set down with a copy of the newest edition of the bible and compare it to the original manuscript? That is what I am talking about.

What we have today probably bears very little relation to the original.

actually my copy of the KJV has proven to be very accurate to the original greek and hebrew that i have searched out....my NIV had some issues but i think it was more of an issue of the right words from our english to the wording of the greek but the idea/s and my understanding of what God is saying to me when i read them is what He meant...praying for wisdom and understanding before you spend time in the Bible reading and studying is critical in hearing the message that God intended...there are many Bibles out there and i have not read them all...i hope that people have not taken any liberties with the Word of

God...from all my study the KJV has proven to be very accurate and i am satisified with using it...i hope this helps you with your question although i know your reply was not directed to me, i felt like i could give you some info on your question....

randomhit10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
So, you are saying that these scholars were able to set down with a copy of the newest edition of the bible and compare it to the original manuscript? That is what I am talking about.

What we have today probably bears very little relation to the original.

I am saying that given the language differences, which can be addressed with a good exhaustive concordance and a good Bible dictionary, the Bible I have in English conveys the same message that the earliest manuscripts do. It is not God's fault that people want to understand His Word while dismissing the guidance of His Spirit and the study tools which have been developed by those who earnestly sought to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanph
Who decided what made the cut and on what grounds?

In 367 CE, Athanasius of Alexandria listed all twenty-seven books of the existing New Testament (the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius). It was his canon that was widely accepted and approved in 382 CE (Rome). However, it wasn't until the prominent Christian writer and theologian, Augustine (354-430 CE), gave his okay, that it [NT] was accepted by the North African churches. So, it wasn't until around 400 CE that most Christian churches finally recognized the NT as we have it today. Over yet? Nope! Various Churches to this day all have different books making up their version of the Nt--called Apocrypha.

Closing the Canon in the West

http://www.ntcanon.org/closing-west.shtml

How can we be sure that the books/letters chosen are without doubt the word of God?

You can't--although the bishops/popes would have told you they were guided by the Holy Spirit. Total bunk! The process was lengthy, bishops voted and bickered, fought and complained that this or that book should be included. It was not an easy process.

... The history, as covered in this survey, spans the first four centuries of Christianity, and was a long continuous process. It was not only a task of collecting, but also of sifting and rejecting. It was not the result of a deliberate decree by an individual or a council near the beginning of the Christian era. The collection of New Testament books took place gradually over many years by the pressure of various kinds of circumstances and influences, some external and others internal to the life of congregations. Different factors operated at different times and in different places. Some of the influences were constant, others were periodic; some were local, and others were operative where the Church had been planted.

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament

http://www.ntcanon.org/index.shtml

Just an aside here ... In 391 CE, Christian Emperor Theodosius, ordered all non-Christian works eliminated.

Kindly,

Sean

Edited by seanph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanph
(Wookietim @ Apr 20 2007, 07:31 AM)

So, you are saying that these scholars were able to set down with a copy of the newest edition of the bible and compare it to the original manuscript? That is what I am talking about.

What we have today probably bears very little relation to the original

:yes:

Variations among the NT texts are significant, number in the hundreds of thousads. Here's what the Anchor Bible Dictionary mentions about the myriad of variant NT readings:

Within this context, what NT textual materials have come down to us? As early as 1707, John Mill claimed that the (relatively few) NT mss examined by him contained about 30,000 variant readings (Vincent 1903: 6); 200 years later B. B. Warfield (1907:13) indicated that some 180,000 or 200,000 various readings had been 'counted' in the then existing NT mss, and in more recent times M. M. Parvis reported that examination of only 150 Greek mss of Luke revealed about 30,000 readings there alone, and he suggested that the actual quantity of variant readings among all NT manuscripts was likely to be much higher than the 150,000 to 250,000 that had been estimated in modern times (Parvis IDB 4: 594-95). Perhaps 300,000 differing readings is a fair figure for the 20th century (K. W. Clark 1962: 669). The textual critic must devise methods by which to sort through these myriad readings and to analyze the many mss that contain them.--David Noel Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary On CD-ROM, 1997, New York: Doubleday

Again, the Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible:

It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform.--George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.),The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible, Volume 4, 1962 (1996 Print), Abingdon Press

The Neglect of the Firstborn in New Testament Studies by Professor Bart D. Ehrman (Presidential Lecture, Society of Biblical Literature, SE Region)

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/ehrman-pres.html

The Textual Reliability of the New Testament (1) by Steve Carr

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm

The Textual Reliability of the New Testament (2) by Steve Carr

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli2.htm

"Interpreters of the NT are faced with a discomforting reality that many of them would like to ignore. In many instances, we don't know what the authors of the NT actually wrote. It often proves difficult enough to establish what the words of the NT mean; the fact that in some instances we don't know what the words actually were does more than a little to exacerbate the problem. I say that many interpreters would like to ignore this reality; but perhaps that isn't strong enough. In point of fact, many interpreters, possibly most, do ignore it, pretending that the textual basis of the Christian Scriptures is secure, when unhappily, it is not... It is difficult to know what the authors of the Greek New Testament wrote, in many instances, because all of these surviving copies differ from one another, sometimes significantly... No one knows for sure how many differences there are among our surviving witnesses, simply because no one has yet been able to count them all. The best estimates put the number at around 300,000, but perhaps it's better to put this figure in comparative terms. There are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the NT" (Text and Tradition, Lecture to Duke Divinity School, 1997).

SOURCE: TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (Emory University)

http://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu/scripts/T...-clarklec1.html

From Duke Divinity:

Text and Tradition: The Role of New Testament Manuscripts in Early Christian Studies (The Kenneth W. Clark Lectures Duke Divinity School 1997): Lecture One: Text and Interpretation: The Exegetical Significance of the "Original" Text by Professor Bart D. Ehrman (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol05/Ehrman2000a.html

Text and Tradition: The Role of New Testament Manuscripts in Early Christian Studies (The Kenneth W. Clark Lectures Duke Divinity School 1997): Lecture Two: Text and Transmission: The Historical Significance of the "Altered" Text by Professor Bart D. Ehrman (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol05/Ehrman2000b.html

Respectfully,

Sean

Edited by seanph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mako

The KJV used the Textus Receptus which was based on the Vulgate translation of the NT, along with 6 Greek manuscripts of the Byzantine textbase. Most contemporary translations (RSV, NASV, NIV, etc) utilize all 4 major textbases (Caesarean, Western, Alexandrian and Byzantine) which actually brings the text closer to what the original probably was. Partly because the first three textbases mentioned are (more often than not) more ancient than the Byzantine textbase. However randomhit10, you are quite correct; your KJV is fairly accurate. 90% of the NT readings are identical which ain’t shabby, in the remaining 10% MOST of the differences are minor things (Christ Jesus vice Jesus Christ, addition of “the” before a noun, etc) Less than 2% would significantly alter the meaning of a passage. It is to noted that none of the 2% would contradict or alter any of the basic points of Christian doctrine. That said, this does not mean that the KJV (or any other version) is an accurate document. The lack of the autographs (term for the original copies) and only bits and pieces (mostly very small fragments) of any NT documents prior to the 4th Century CE would put the accuracy of any version of the NT into question. We quite frankly don’t know what the original documents said (although circumstantial evidence shows that there was a high probability of substantial editing and re-editing of these documents to correspond with early church politics and changing dogma). Even if you could find the autographs, that would not change the fact that there isn’t any evidence that Jesus ever lived, much less was the Son of God, and that the gospels can not be dated before the late 1st century and quite probably the middle of the 2nd century. Basically, until multiple source secular evidence is forthcoming on the divine nature of one Jesus of Nazareth, all versions of the Bible are only be considered nothing more than mythology; on a par with Greek, Roman, Muslim, etc mythology. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something Like Laughter
Constantine I, tired of the various gospels/epistles floating about, convened the Council of Nicea in 325 CE in order to obtain some semblance of orthodoxy. He ordered the attending bishops to agree on what books were to be included in the new canon, and ordered fifty copies to be made.
First Nicea was over the Arian controversy and some other matters unrelated to what books were to be included in the New Testament. It did not issue any canon regarding the NT books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.