Zone1 When Was The Very First Bible Published?

[expat_panama]

Your post seems very emotional to me. We can approach you statements logically if you'd like. Personally I like logic and reason as much as the next guy although it does have some clear limits. Just the same we can go over your post logically.

People are far too easily influenced.

If that were true, how come I can't influence you and you can't influence me? What % of the world's adult population do you think is really "easily influenced" and why haven't you tried to influence them?

People are social animals therefore the good generally outweighs the bad.

What % of the world's population do you think is of good character and what % would u say is bad. Upon what info are you basing that judgement?

The more emotional, the more irrational. Religion is an emotional belief. Look at today's world and all the strife between people that is based on religious beliefs. Most hatred comes from it.

It's true that some religious activity is irrational, because some people are irrational. Let's also understand that some governments are irrational and some businesses are irrational. Fortunately most are reasonable. I can give you a LOT of examples of logical religious activity. Is that something you'd like to discuss or have you simply made up your mind on that thought?

 

[Stann]

Your post seems very emotional to me. We can approach you statements logically if you'd like. Personally I like logic and reason as much as the next guy although it does have some clear limits. Just the same we can go over your post logically.

If that were true, how come I can't influence you and you can't influence me? What % of the world's adult population do you think is really "easily influenced" and why haven't you tried to influence them?

What % of the world's population do you think is of good character and what % would u say is bad. Upon what info are you basing that judgement?

It's true that some religious activity is irrational, because some people are irrational. Let's also understand that some governments are irrational and some businesses are irrational. Fortunately most are reasonable. I can give you a LOT of examples of logical religious activity. Is that something you'd like to discuss or have you simply made up your mind on that thought?

Actually I outgrew religion when I was 12 years old. Not much to discuss about false beliefs. Civilization depends on people being civil with one another; I concluded long ago we are not civilized yet.

 

[expat_panama]

For me, 'working with it' is understanding history for what it is. Not sugar coating the bad nor exacerbating it for sociopolitical purposes, but understanding what it was, why it was, and the consequences good and bad of it. Do I think religion in the Middle Ages superior to that before Constantine? No I do not....

Please accept my apologies but we really have to stop there and work this out.

Do we understand that it was the massively popular activity to throw Christians to the lions in Rome before Constantine? Also, let's understand that the world's population was say 250+ million before Constantine, and the population of the Roman Empire was maybe 75 million. What most folks say is that the majority of the world was not Roman.

My thinking is that if we want to say one thing was better than another, we must be comparing the WORLD of 300 AD to the world of 1300. You game?

 

[Foxfyre]

Please accept my apologies but we really have to stop there and work this out.

Do we understand that it was the massively popular activity to throw Christians to the lions in Rome before Constantine? Also, let's understand that the world's population was say 250+ million before Constantine, and the population of the Roman Empire was maybe 75 million. What most folks say is that the majority of the world was not Roman.

My thinking is that if we want to say one thing was better than another, we must be comparing the WORLD of 300 AD to the world of 1300. You game?

I have been clear that there were terrible persecutions of the Christians in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries. The Apostle Paul got his start himself persecuting the Christians. All that largely stopped in the 4th Century when Constantine legalized Christianity and made it the favored religion in the Roman Empire.

There were only pockets of persecutions, however. It was not universal and most Christians did not have to endure that. If they had the Roman Empire in cooperation with the Jewish hierarchy would have stamped out Christianity early on. It never would have been able to organize and become a sociopolitical force that Constantine recognized and sought to use for his own advantage.

I have never suggested that the history of Christianity up until the Renaissance was anywhere other than in the Roman Empire or that the Roman Empire represented all or even most of the world population at that time.

Nobody says the killing of Christians in the cruelest way, especially for sport, was commendable, defensible, justifiable or not unspeakably horrible any more than we can justify the Holocaust in the 20th Century. But neither were the persecutions done by Christians to Christians or even in the name of religion. But the Crusades, sometimes justifiable but mostly not, were done in the name of religion and the Inquisition(s) were Christians persecuting Christians.

Certainly those horrors were not all or even most of what the Church was in those times. But to deny the power and authority of the Church and that, especially hand in hand with the monarchy, it ruled as much as it fed the people is simply to deny the history that is. It even extended into Protestantism to some extent. During the reigns of the Tudor Dynasty, the Archbishop of Canterbury exercised almost as much power as the Pope. The early Puritans were certainly no bastions of religious liberty or thought in the New World maintaining little theocracies until they all voluntarily dissolved by the end of the 18th Century.

And this does not mean there is no good to be found in all of this, that God was not with us, that there was no spiritual growth or positive influence from the Church. And what our ancestors were is not us. But understanding the history, the good and the bad, helps us understand why we are the way we are now.

 

[zaangalewa]

I personally subscribe to beliefs of some of the Gnostics.
In that, the Bible is not nearly as relevant or important as Christianity places it.
The only thing that matters is your personal actions, how you led your own life and your own personal relationship with God. PERIOD.
Jesus left no instructions. Nothing. Remarkably odd. But did not. So after he left - an army of men seeking personal gain went about to set up churches all over the place. Each one claiming to be the expert on what people need to do to gain Gods grace.

Long story short, the Bible is not a book at all. It is a heavily edited

And this is totally wrong. The bible has many dozends of authors including some hundreds of co-authors and thousands of sources and helpers over hundreds of years. That's why many people argue the bible is wrong because it seems to be full of contradictions. But it is in the opposite: The writers of the bible took care about authenticity. How every criminologists knows: The witnesses who wrote the bible show a typical variation for witnesses in general. What was reported was written down.

This is by the way in the Quran totally different. This book has only one author - and the words of this author had been taken out of the historical context and grouped into abstracta when the third caliph Osman edited the Quran.

tiny collection of writings written by only a handful of people. It is not ordained by God.

It is a book about basic experiences and adventures of many people with god during long hundreds of years.

It is not the word of God. It is the word of mostly completely unknown people whose biggest motive was to set themselves up to live like kings and control the masses. Not really a debatable point.

Okay. Do you know what drives crazy ET's in contact with human beings? Their loud heart beat in the white noise all around.

So what do you believe know? In aliens? In heart beats? In white noise all around? In some laws of perception?

What not exists in this story are aliens and their perception - but does this mean aliens don't exist and their story was not inspired from this what I think about aliens? Indeed I doubt that aliens exist at all (on very detailed reasons) - nevertheless is it astoinihsing that we correct white noise in our perception and that we eliminate our own heart beat in our perception.

I could give you now also a spiritual dimension of a nothing which is something - basing on the bible and many things I learned about the Jewish-Christian religion and spirituality in general. But you are not interested in this what I could say to you because I live like a king and like to manipulate masses of people (including your mass)? ...

But you are right: I live like a king. I am the most rich man on the whole planet because I always had a Euro more than I needed - but I fear I have to thank god much more than anyone else for this situation. Nevertheless will come a day and an hour where my unbelievable richdom will help me nothing at all - even if you will throw an Euro on my coffin lid.

-----
Als ich in meiner ersten Ursache stand, da hatte ich keinen Gott und gehörte mir selbst; ich wollte nichts, ich begehrte nichts, denn ich war ein blosses Sein und ein Erkenner meiner selbst nach göttlicher Wahrheit; da wollte ich mich selbst und wollte kein anderes Ding; was ich wollte, das war ich, und was ich war, das wollte ich, und hier stand ich ledig Gottes und aller Dinge. Aber als ich aus meinem freien Willen hinausging und mein geschaffenes Wesen empfing, da bekam ich einen Gott; denn als keine Kreaturen waren, da war Gott nicht Gott; er war was er war. Als die Kreaturen wurden und ihr geschaffenes Wesen anfingen, da war Gott nicht in sich selbst Gott, sondern in den Kreaturen war er Gott. Nun sagen wir, dass Gott danach dass er Gott ist, nicht ein vollendetes Ziel der Kreatur ist und nicht so grosse Fülle, als die geringste Kreatur in Gott hat. Und gäbe es das, dass eine Fliege Vernunft hätte und vernünftig den ewigen Abgrund göttlichen Wesens, aus dem sie gekommen ist, suchen könnte, so sagen wir, dass Gott mit alledem, was Gott ist, die Fliege nicht ausfüllen und ihr nicht genug tun könnte. Deshalb bitten wir darum, dass wir Gottes entledigt werden und die Wahrheit vernehmen und der Ewigkeit teilhaft werden, wo die obersten Engel und die Seelen in gleicher Weise in dem sind, wo ich stand und wollte was ich war, und war was ich wollte. So soll der Mensch arm sein des Willens und so wenig wollen und begehren wie er wollte und begehrte, als er nicht war. Und in dieser Weise ist der Mensch arm, der nichts will.

Meister Eckhart
-----
When I stood in my first cause, there I had no God and belonged to myself; I wanted nothing, I desired nothing, because I was a mere being and a recognizer of myself according to divine truth; there I wanted myself and wanted no other thing; what I wanted, that I was, and what I was, that I wanted, and here I stood alone of God and all things. But when I went out of my free will and received my created being, then I got a God; for when there were no creatures, God was not God; he was what he was. When the creatures became and began their created being, then God was not God in himself, but in the creatures he was God. Now we say that God, after that he is God, is not a perfected end of the creature, and has not such great fullness as the least creature has in God. And if there were that a fly could have reason and reasonably seek the eternal abyss of divine being from which it came, we say that God with all that God is could not fill the fly and do enough for it. Therefore we ask that we may be emptied of God and hear the truth and become partakers of eternity, where the chief angels and the souls are in like manner in that where I stood and willed what I was, and was what I willed. So man should be poor of will and want and desire as little as he wanted and desired when he was not. And in this way, the man who wants nothing is poor.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
-----

 

[surada]

I have been clear that there were terrible persecutions of the Christians in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries. The Apostle Paul got his start himself persecuting the Christians. All that largely stopped in the 4th Century when Constantine legalized Christianity and made it the favored religion in the Roman Empire.

There were only pockets of persecutions, however. It was not universal and most Christians did not have to endure that. If they had the Roman Empire in cooperation with the Jewish hierarchy would have stamped out Christianity early on. It never would have been able to organize and become a sociopolitical force that Constantine recognized and sought to use for his own advantage.

I have never suggested that the history of Christianity up until the Renaissance was anywhere other than in the Roman Empire or that the Roman Empire represented all or even most of the world population at that time.

Nobody says the killing of Christians in the cruelest way, especially for sport, was commendable, defensible, justifiable or not unspeakably horrible any more than we can justify the Holocaust in the 20th Century. But neither were the persecutions done by Christians to Christians or even in the name of religion. But the Crusades, sometimes justifiable but mostly not, were done in the name of religion and the Inquisition(s) were Christians persecuting Christians.

Certainly those horrors were not all or even most of what the Church was in those times. But to deny the power and authority of the Church and that, especially hand in hand with the monarchy, it ruled as much as it fed the people is simply to deny the history that is. It even extended into Protestantism to some extent. During the reigns of the Tudor Dynasty, the Archbishop of Canterbury exercised almost as much power as the Pope. The early Puritans were certainly no bastions of religious liberty or thought in the New World maintaining little theocracies until they all voluntarily dissolved by the end of the 18th Century.

And this does not mean there is no good to be found in all of this, that God was not with us, that there was no spiritual growth or positive influence from the Church. And what our ancestors were is not us. But understanding the history, the good and the bad, helps us understand why we are the way we are now.

Foxfyre

Have you forgotten about the Nestorians and the Mandeans?

 

[expat_panama]

Actually I outgrew religion when I was 12 years old. Not much to discuss about false beliefs. Civilization depends on people being civil with one another; I concluded long ago we are not civilized yet.

You're really clear on what you don't like but you're not saying much about what u do like. For me that's not useful for much except for quarreling and I try to avoid that.

First, are u willing to consult/discuss this w/o fighting?

Second, if ur willing to continue on the same side as a team then please tell me if you believe with good/bad, right/wrong, true/false, where one person can see/describe, and somewhere else another person can see the same thing separately and report the same description. In contrast there are many that believe what's good/bad right/wrong true/false for one can be totally different to another.

Which understanding do you have?

 

[expat_panama]

I have been clear that there were terrible persecutions of the Christians in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries. The Apostle Paul got his start himself persecuting the Christians. All that largely stopped in the 4th Century when Constantine legalized Christianity and made it the favored religion in the Roman Empire.

There were only pockets of persecutions, however. It was not universal and most Christians did not have to endure that. If they had the Roman Empire in cooperation with the Jewish hierarchy would have stamped out Christianity early on. It never would have been able to organize and become a sociopolitical force that Constantine recognized and sought to use for his own advantage.

I have never suggested that the history of Christianity up until the Renaissance was anywhere other than in the Roman Empire or that the Roman Empire represented all or even most of the world population at that time.

Nobody says the killing of Christians in the cruelest way, especially for sport, was commendable, defensible, justifiable or not unspeakably horrible any more than we can justify the Holocaust in the 20th Century. But neither were the persecutions done by Christians to Christians or even in the name of religion. But the Crusades, sometimes justifiable but mostly not, were done in the name of religion and the Inquisition(s) were Christians persecuting Christians.

Certainly those horrors were not all or even most of what the Church was in those times. But to deny the power and authority of the Church and that, especially hand in hand with the monarchy, it ruled as much as it fed the people is simply to deny the history that is. It even extended into Protestantism to some extent. During the reigns of the Tudor Dynasty, the Archbishop of Canterbury exercised almost as much power as the Pope. The early Puritans were certainly no bastions of religious liberty or thought in the New World maintaining little theocracies until they all voluntarily dissolved by the end of the 18th Century.

And this does not mean there is no good to be found in all of this, that God was not with us, that there was no spiritual growth or positive influence from the Church. And what our ancestors were is not us. But understanding the history, the good and the bad, helps us understand why we are the way we are now.

You didn't answer my question but what I'm getting is that you're not talking about the world but rather you're focusing on just the Christianity and Europe. If that's true then then that would explain our cross-communication. I was talking about the human race throughout the entire world while u were talking about one small part of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre

Have you forgotten about the Nestorians and the Mandeans?

No. They just don't add anything important to the discussion we have been having.

 

[Foxfyre]

You didn't answer my question but what I'm getting is that you're not talking about the world but rather you're focusing on just the Christianity and Europe. If that's true then then that would explain our cross-communication. I was talking about the human race throughout the entire world while u were talking about one small part of it.

I am discussing the history of Christianity and every now and then addressing the OP that suggested a history of the Bible. If I don't address something different that you are discussing I'm sorry, but I don't see how the entire world figures in to the part of it where the faiths that produced and used the Bible developed. Maybe you could start a different thread on world history?

 

[Clyde 154]

The first published Bible was the Gutenberg Bible printed in 1455. 180 copies were printed, most on paper, some on a writing surface made of calfskin. I think there are something like 48 of these Bibles still in existence and some of those are fragments of the original.

Gutenberg also invented the printing press with the first operational one put to use in 1440. This was the catalyst of the Renaissance as for the first time most people were able to read classical literature like the Bible for themselves without having to go through an intermediary who too often 'edited' the contents.

The Renaissance freed minds making the Reformation possible in the 16th Century changing the traditions of Christianity, even in the Roman Catholic Church, forever.

Trivia: It is estimated that a Gutenberg Bible would sell for more than $5 million today.

The first English translated Bible to be published was a Hand Written translation by John Wycliffe....(1324-1384) Published in 1382

As far as the original text goes......the text of the Bible can be traced back to the late 1st century as there are over 5800 complete or mostly complete manuscripts existing with over 13,000 fragments of the early manuscriptes/letter existing, there are over 10000 complete translations from the Greek into Latin that exist dating back to the 2nd and 3rd century with another 8,000 copies existing in other languges ranging from Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, Coptic, Gothic, Slavic, Sahidie, and Georgian.....existing in the Brithish Musem there exists a record of over 89,000 historical references to these early manuscripts that eludes directly to the authors of the N.T. manuscripts.

In Total..........the Bible has existed for well over 3500 years in recording a running history of the Judeo/Christian philosophy. The earliest copies that still exist are the fragments and text found to have been written 200 years before Jesus was born...Jesus taught scripture from O.T. using a Greek translation the "Septuagint" that translated the O.T. from Hebrew into Greek....between 200 and 400 years prior to Jesus birth.

 

[Foxfyre]

The first English translated Bible to be published was a Hand Written translation by John Wycliffe....(1324-1384) Published in 1382

As far as the original text goes......the text of the Bible can be traced back to the late 1st century as there are over 5800 complete or mostly complete manuscripts existing with over 13,000 fragments of the early manuscriptes/letter existing, there are over 10000 complete translations from the Greek into Latin that exist dating back to the 2nd and 3rd century with another 8,000 copies existing in other languges ranging from Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, Coptic, Gothic, Slavic, Sahidie, and Georgian.....existing in the Brithish Musem there exists a record of over 89,000 historical references to these early manuscripts that eludes directly to the authors of the N.T. manuscripts.

In Total..........the Bible has existed for well over 3500 years in recording a running history of the Judeo/Christian philosophy

Gentle correction. Some manuscripts included in the Bible date back over several thousands of years, but those and all other manuscripts included in the Old and New Testaments were individual manuscripts not intended to be part of a 'book'. There is no firm agreement on when the collection of manuscripts included in what we call the Old Testament and the manuscripts in what we call the Apocrypha were canonized or 'closed'. Some argue that it was before the beginning of the Christian era, others argue centuries later.

Most historians agree that the collection of manuscripts that make up the New Testament were closed with no more to be included beginning with the Muratorian Canon in the 2nd Century and it finalized I believe by Athanasius in the mid 4th Century.

In both cases the manuscripts were laboriously hand copied by scribes to be taught and read in the synagogues and churches. Because pretty much all of the New Testament was written by Christianized Jews well versed in their own Jewish manuscripts, many references in the New Testament are not explained but just assumed that those hearing would fill in the blanks. (I'm pretty sure they had no idea they were writing what we call 'scripture' when they wrote those manuscripts.)

Which is why when I teach Bible and Bible history, I cannot stress enough that the New Testament cannot be fully understood and appreciated without a good grounding in Old Testament content. And it is always good to remember that much of the Old Testament content was written from oral tradition as there was no written language during the Hebrew people's earliest history.

 

[Clyde 154]

Gentle correction. Some manuscripts included in the Bible date back over several thousands of years, but those and all other manuscripts included in the Old and New Testaments were individual manuscripts not intended to be part of a 'book'. There is no firm agreement on when the collection of manuscripts included in what we call the Old Testament and the manuscripts in what we call the Apocrypha were canonized or 'closed'. Some argue that it was before the beginning of the Christian era, others argue centuries later.

Most historians agree that the collection of manuscripts that make up the New Testament were closed with no more to be included beginning with the Muratorian Canon in the 2nd Century and it finalized I believe by Athanasius in the mid 4th Century.

In both cases the manuscripts were laboriously hand copied by scribes to be taught and read in the synagogues and churches. Because pretty much all of the New Testament was written by Christianized Jews well versed in their own Jewish manuscripts, many references in the New Testament are not explained but just assumed that those hearing would fill in the blanks. (I'm pretty sure they had no idea they were writing what we call 'scripture' when they wrote those manuscripts.)

Which is why when I teach Bible and Bible history, I cannot stress enough that the New Testament cannot be fully understood and appreciated without a good grounding in Old Testament content. And it is always good to remember that much of the Old Testament content was written from oral tradition as there was no written language during the Hebrew people's earliest history.

There is a false claim that the first Bible canon was introduced by the Universal Church....i.e., the Roman Catholic church. And its a well known historical fact that the RCC fought against publishing the Holy Scriptures into a modern translation format because the church would no longer be in control of the actual content of the Bible. In other words only a few "supposedly enlightened individuals" should be able to read from the Holy Scriptures. This practice brought the world such noble Christian Traits as the Spanish Inquisitions and the Crusades.

Factual correction: There was a time when the early RCC passed judgment upon the canon, there are at least "2" historical facts that prove the RCC was not responsible for the content of an offical canon.

1. Both the Old and New Testament canons were recongized prior to the founding of the RCC with its position that only the Clergy should have access to the text of the Holy Bible.....this trait was distinct to the RCC, such as claiming that Peter was the first POPE...etc.

2. The various church concils (i.e., synods of Hippo in 393 A.D., and Carthage in 397 A.D.) were simply stating they agreed to what had already been accepted as the offical canon.

Clearly the early manuscripts existed long before any Universal Canon.......for instance the scriptures themselves (the offical canon) states clearly that even while some of the authors of the N.T. were still alive, these early letters/epistles were passed around the church to different congregations ..example (Col. 4:16). Paul informing those who was reading his letter should also know that another letter to the church at Laeodica was avalible. Also take note of (1 Thess. 5:27).......telling those who was reading this letter to "pass it among the bortherhood."

Its absurd to claim that these letters were not recognized as SCRIPTURE long before 393 or 397........such as Peter telling everyone that Paul's letters should be considered as SCRIPTURE. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Reality: The offical canon came about using all the existing known letters/espistles..........that were in agreement with the entirety. In other words the scientific method used was much like compartive analysis. The manuscripts that were rejected were rejected for a reason, the writings and authorships could not be varified as originating from any Apostle of Christ....these works are called Gnostic or Apocryphal..........they cannot be confirmed when compared to the messages/text of the letters that were accepted into the canon. Some deny the deity of Jesus.........and claim He was simply another prophet.

Why did these Gnostic and Aprocryphal works exist? The same reason that continues to exist today...........Yellow Journalism sells books, false power and authority can be established if someone is gullible enough to believe and accept the yellow journalism as truth......its the same ole story that has existed since the beginning of time. Greed, Fame, Power, Authority........

Strange that someone would claim they created the offical canon..........but today of some the books they use were today not even included in the supposed canon they first created.

The RCC is in the same boat as the Mormons and the Muslims.......they calim to have special access to new revelations from God.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is a false claim that the first Bible canon was introduced by the Universal Church....i.e., the Roman Catholic church. And its a well known historical fact that the RCC fought against publishing the Holy Scriptures into a modern translation format because the church would no longer be in control of the actual content of the Bible. In other words only a few "supposedly enlightened individuals" should be able to read from the Holy Scriptures. This practice brought the world such noble Christian Traits as the Spanish Inquisitions and the Crusades.

Factual correction: There was a time when the early RCC passed judgment upon the canon, there are at least "2" historical facts that prove the RCC was not responsible for the content of an offical canon.

1. Both the Old and New Testament canons were recongized prior to the founding of the RCC with its position that only the Clergy should have access to the text of the Holy Bible.....this trait was distinct to the RCC, such as claiming that Peter was the first POPE...etc.

2. The various church concils (i.e., synods of Hippo in 393 A.D., and Carthage in 397 A.D.) were simply stating they agreed to what had already been accepted as the offical canon.

Clearly the early manuscripts existed long before any Universal Canon.......for instance the scriptures themselves (the offical canon) states clearly that even while some of the authors of the N.T. were still alive, these early letters/epistles were passed around the church to different congregations ..example (Col. 4:16). Paul informing those who was reading his letter should also know that another letter to the church at Laeodica was avalible. Also take note of (1 Thess. 5:27).......telling those who was reading this letter to "pass it among the bortherhood."

Its absurd to claim that these letters were not recognized as SCRIPTURE long before 393 or 397........such as Peter telling everyone that Paul's letters should be considered as SCRIPTURE. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Reality: The offical canon came about using all the existing known letters/espistles..........that were in agreement with the entirety. In other words the scientific method used was much like compartive analysis. The manuscripts that were rejected were rejected for a reason, the writings and authorships could not be varified as originating from any Apostle of Christ....these works are called Gnostic or Apocryphal..........they cannot be confirmed when compared to the messages/text of the letters that were accepted into the canon. Some deny the deity of Jesus.........and claim He was simply another prophet.

Why did these Gnostic and Aprocryphal works exist? The same reason that continues to exist today...........Yellow Journalism sells books, false power and authority can be established if someone is gullible enough to believe and accept the yellow journalism as truth......its the same ole story that has existed since the beginning of time. Greed, Fame, Power, Authority........

Strange that someone would claim they created the offical canon..........but today some the books they use were not even included in the supposed canon they first created.

The RCC is in the same boat as the Mormons and the Muslims.......they calim to have special access to new revelations from God.

I think we can't criticize the RCC for presenting itself as the 'one true faith' for those who so criticize it believe their own beliefs to be the 'one true faith'. I personally allow anybody their beliefs that comfort and sustain them because I don't think any of us represent the 'one true faith' or know all there is to know or understand what we most likely have wrong.

I doubt there is any Christian group/body/denomination anywhere that did not attempt to establish a 'one true church' that got it right. All the schisms we now see among catholics and protestant groups alike are due to disagreement on what the one true church should believe, preach, teach. And frankly I believe that each one, even those religions that are not Christian, have come to at least bits and pieces of truth.

There is no official canon of the body of works that what we call the New Testament but only agreement that no new writings would be added to it and that was via custom/tradition more than doctrine. And what we call Scripture was declared to be Scripture by groups who lived long after those who first wrote down the words. Certainly the Apostle Paul had no clue that his personal letters to the various churches would be compiled in a book and considered 'Holy Scripture' by people in the 21st Century.

The first time we even had references to a "New Testament" and "Old Testament" are in the writings of Tertullian in the third century. Sources vary on when the cojoined compiled manuscripts were first referred to as "The Holy Bible" which never appears in the manuscripts themselves.

 

[expat_panama]

I am discussing the history of Christianity and every now and then addressing the OP that suggested a history of the Bible. If I don't address something different that you are discussing I'm sorry, but I don't see how the entire world figures in to the part of it where the faiths that produced and used the Bible developed. Maybe you could start a different thread on world history?

ok, this is making more sense now. I went back over our convo and this entire discussion began last Thursday in your post #4 when u said

...in much of the Middle Ages, it served the Church to keep the people as ignorant as possible and dependent on the Church for their knowledge, religious training, salvation...

--and from there we wandered all over in a convoluted discussion. So what I should have just said at first was:

Right, that was the case in much of the Middle Ages. My take was that most of Christendom in the Middle Ages things were a bit more complicated. Some scholars will say that the beginning was before Islam and before the Catholics, and by the end (a thousand years later) saw gun powder and colonies in America. There was a lot happening.

 

[alang1216]

There is a false claim that the first Bible canon was introduced by the Universal Church....i.e., the Roman Catholic church. And its a well known historical fact that the RCC fought against publishing the Holy Scriptures into a modern translation format because the church would no longer be in control of the actual content of the Bible. In other words only a few "supposedly enlightened individuals" should be able to read from the Holy Scriptures. This practice brought the world such noble Christian Traits as the Spanish Inquisitions and the Crusades.

Factual correction: There was a time when the early RCC passed judgment upon the canon, there are at least "2" historical facts that prove the RCC was not responsible for the content of an offical canon.

1. Both the Old and New Testament canons were recongized prior to the founding of the RCC with its position that only the Clergy should have access to the text of the Holy Bible.....this trait was distinct to the RCC, such as claiming that Peter was the first POPE...etc.

2. The various church concils (i.e., synods of Hippo in 393 A.D., and Carthage in 397 A.D.) were simply stating they agreed to what had already been accepted as the offical canon.

Clearly the early manuscripts existed long before any Universal Canon.......for instance the scriptures themselves (the offical canon) states clearly that even while some of the authors of the N.T. were still alive, these early letters/epistles were passed around the church to different congregations ..example (Col. 4:16). Paul informing those who was reading his letter should also know that another letter to the church at Laeodica was avalible. Also take note of (1 Thess. 5:27).......telling those who was reading this letter to "pass it among the bortherhood."

Its absurd to claim that these letters were not recognized as SCRIPTURE long before 393 or 397........such as Peter telling everyone that Paul's letters should be considered as SCRIPTURE. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Reality: The offical canon came about using all the existing known letters/espistles..........that were in agreement with the entirety. In other words the scientific method used was much like compartive analysis. The manuscripts that were rejected were rejected for a reason, the writings and authorships could not be varified as originating from any Apostle of Christ....these works are called Gnostic or Apocryphal..........they cannot be confirmed when compared to the messages/text of the letters that were accepted into the canon. Some deny the deity of Jesus.........and claim He was simply another prophet.

Why did these Gnostic and Aprocryphal works exist? The same reason that continues to exist today...........Yellow Journalism sells books, false power and authority can be established if someone is gullible enough to believe and accept the yellow journalism as truth......its the same ole story that has existed since the beginning of time. Greed, Fame, Power, Authority........

Strange that someone would claim they created the offical canon..........but today of some the books they use were today not even included in the supposed canon they first created.

The RCC is in the same boat as the Mormons and the Muslims.......they calim to have special access to new revelations from God.

In the early centuries of Christianity, there were many texts circulating, at least one of which was lost. Before there was a formal Church structure and hierarchy, every Church had their own unique collection of scripture. The collection depended on, not only theology, but access as well. Books back then were hand written and very expensive.

As the Church in Rome became the richest and most influential it began imposing order on the small Churches in the provinces.

 

[Foxfyre]

ok, this is making more sense now. I went back over our convo and this entire discussion began last Thursday in your post #4 when u said

--and from there we wandered all over in a convoluted discussion. So what I should have just said at first was:

There was not a lot of intellectualism or scientific advancement in the Middle Ages but it certainly wasn't all bad. There were bright spots. Most historians agree that the Middle Ages began in the late Fifth Century with the fall of the Roman Empire and ended with the Renaissance in the late Fifteenth Century. Most historians agree that Islam developed in the Seventh Century and in the next 300 years would achieve sufficient power that eventually putting it down became the primary catalyst for the Crusades.

Again history, the good and the bad, does not represent who and what we are now, but it does help explain how we got from 'there' to 'here'.

 

[BreezeWood]

The first English translated Bible to be published was a Hand Written translation by John Wycliffe....(1324-1384) Published in 1382

As far as the original text goes......the text of the Bible can be traced back to the late 1st century as there are over 5800 complete or mostly complete manuscripts existing with over 13,000 fragments of the early manuscriptes/letter existing, there are over 10000 complete translations from the Greek into Latin that exist dating back to the 2nd and 3rd century with another 8,000 copies existing in other languges ranging from Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, Coptic, Gothic, Slavic, Sahidie, and Georgian.....existing in the Brithish Musem there exists a record of over 89,000 historical references to these early manuscripts that eludes directly to the authors of the N.T. manuscripts.

In Total..........the Bible has existed for well over 3500 years in recording a running history of the Judeo/Christian philosophy. The earliest copies that still exist are the fragments and text found to have been written 200 years before Jesus was born...Jesus taught scripture from O.T. using a Greek translation the "Septuagint" that translated the O.T. from Hebrew into Greek....between 200 and 400 years prior to Jesus birth.

there is not a single original copy for any of the text used to write the 4th century christian bible and certainly there does not exist the archive of material used by them to write their fully unauthenticated document - as would in the final anallysis be the motive for the lack of such an archive to have been preserved.

to say otherwise is the height of deceit - or simply produce the documents claimed.

 

[presonorek]

really ...



interesting when they only began compiling the c-bible in the 1st quarter of the 4th century that lasted that entie century till completion. the state religion of the roman empire.

Were you there?

 

[ding]

And THAT, Virginia, is what low hanging fruit looks like.