sighhswolf

TERCEL:"It seems to be a singularly slanted view of history you have there.
The King James version is not exceedingly accurate as it is based on only five late (12th Century if I recall correctly) manuscripts and it was done in a hurry in order to be the first Bible released. However, for all that it’s not exceedingly bad, and is fairly accurate for the most part."

Lets take a glance at this for a second shall we.
To save some time and a lot of unecessary typing
lets check the history of the KJV once again based on the information you gave me above.

As the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) was coming to a close, we find a draft for an act of Parliament for a new version of the Bible: "An act for the reducing of diversities of bibles now extant in the English tongue to one settled vulgar translated from the original." The Bishop's Bible of 1568, although it may have eclipsed the Great Bible, was still rivaled by the Geneva Bible. Nothing ever became of this draft during the reign of Elizabeth, who died in 1603, and was succeeded by James 1, as the throne passed from the Tudors to the Stuarts. James was at that time James VI of Scotland, and had been for thirty-seven years. He was born during the period between the Geneva and the Bishop's Bible.


One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church." Here were assembled bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original."


The king rejoined that he:


"Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by he best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other."
Accordingly, a resolution came forth:


"That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service."
The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had "appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible." These men were the best biblical scholars and linguists of their day. In the preface to their completed work it is further stated that "there were many chosen, that were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise. Again, they came or were thought to come to the work, learned, not to learn." Other men were sought out, according to James, "so that our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom."


Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The translators were organized into six groups, and met respectively at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Ten at Westminster were assigned Genesis through 2 Kings; seven had Romans through Jude. At Cambridge, eight worked on 1 Chronicles through Ecclesiastes, while seven others handled the Apocrypha. Oxford employed seven to translate Isaiah through Malachi; eight occupied themselves with the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.

Fifteen general rules were advanced for the guidance of the translators:

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.

4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.

6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.

7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.

9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.

10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.

11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a Place.

12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King's Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.

14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva.

15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.


The work began to take shape in 1604 and progressed steadily. The translators expressed their early thoughts in their preface as:


"Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavor."
They had at their disposal all the previous English translations to which they did not disdain:
"We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's...or Queen Elizabeth's of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance."
And, as the translators themselves also acknowledged, they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, CHaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the COmplutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Termellius, and Beza.


Four years were spent on the preliminary translation by the six groups. The translators were exacting and particular in their work, as related in their preface:


Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.
The conferences of each of the six being ended, nine months were spent at Stationers' Hall in London for review and revision of the work by two men each from the Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford companies. The final revision was then completed by Myles Smith and Thomas Bilson, with a preface supplied by Smith.

The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading:
"THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611."
The New Testament had a separate title page, the whole of it reading:


"THE NEWE Testament of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly Translated out of the Originall Greeke: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Commandment. IMPRINTED at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611. Cum Privilegio."
The King James Bible was, in its first editions, even larger than the Great Bible. It was printed in black letter with small italicized Roman type to represent those words not in the original languages.


A dedicatory epistle to King James, which also enhanced the completed work, recalled the King's desire that "there should be one more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue." The translators expressed that they were "poor instruments to make GOD'S holy Truth to be yet more and more known" while at the same time recognizing that "Popish persons" sought to keep the people "in ignorance and darkness."


The Authorized Version, as it came to be called, went through several editions and revisions. Two notable editions were that of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638, also at Cambridge, which was assisted by John Bois and Samuel Ward, two of the original translators. In 1657, the Parliament considered another revision, but it came to naught. The most important editions were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, and the 1769 Oxford revision by Benjamin Blayney. One of the earliest concrdances was A Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation, by John Down-ham, affixed to a printing of 1632.


The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the King James text. Subsequent versions of the Bible were likewise eclipsed, for the Authorized Version was the Bible until the advent of the Revised Version and ensuing modern translations. It is still accepted as such by its defenders, and recognized as so by its detractors. Alexander Geddes (d. 1802), a Roman Catholic priest, who in 1792 issued the first colume of his own translation of the Bible, accordingly paid tribute to the Bible of his time:


"The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent. Every sentence, every work, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude; and expressed, either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision."
As to whether the Authorized Version was ever officially "authorized," Brooke Westcott, one of the members of the committee that produced the Revised Version, and the editor, with Fenton Hort, of an edition of the Greek New Testament, stated that:


From the middle of the seventeenth century, the King's Bible has been the acknowledged Bible of the English-speaking nations throughout the world simply because it is the best. A revision which embodied the ripe fruits of nearly a century of labour, and appealed to the religious instinct of a great Christian people, gained by its own internal character a vital authority which could never have been secured by any edict of sovereign rulers.
*****from the book "A Brief History of English Bible Translations" by Dr. Laurence M. Vance.


This is somewhat of a variation from my original post, but it points out to me in glaringly obvious
terms that there existed many many sources from which to draw upon in the time period.
It specifically mentions several variations of biblical text.

Most christians accept the KJV as "authentic" and presenting the original words of the authors as translated into english from the greek text, but actual historic documentation refutes that notion.

I will let your comment of my "slanted view of History slide", because I see no point in turning a civil conversation into an insult match.
So here we are again asking the very same questions I asked at the beginning of our conversation.
What validates the gospels of the NT, and invalidates the multitude of other works available.
My sources say one thing, yours say something entirely different.

The issue remains what makes the non-canonical gospels, the works of the Gnostics, the derogatory histories of Jesus, or any other of the ancient manuscripts any less accurate or any less valid than those contained in the canon?
Why are the books of Matthew Mark Luke and John considered "true" but the thousands of words written in many other manuscripts considered "falsehoods" "lies" "filled with unsupportable heresay" is it because those books present a different view of Jesus life and ministry, or is it simply that the early church fathers decided to use those works because they promoted the theological position of those who had gained some power in the early christian movement, and in order to gain converts they had to make the image of Jesus and his ministry attractive to the masses?

Can you verify the authors of the NT?
Can you tell me the exact procedure the council
used to throw out one manuscript in favor of another?
My sources say that the council of which you refer
took a vote on what to include and what not to include in the compilation.
And so far I have not run across any modern theologian that will continue to stick with the story of the gospel writers being actual witnesses to any of the ministry and/or miracles alledgedly preformed by Jesus.

Most now back off the question of who actually wrote the gospels in question, because no one can prove the authorship.

Now lets look at a certain manuscript that I found rather interesting and runs along the same general line of thought as I have been trying to get across.

ROME's
Syllabus of Condemned Opinions
The Last Blast of the Catholic Church's Medieval Trumpet
Translated from the latin by Joseph McCabe
A number of propositions condemned by Pope Pius IX

The Syllabus of Condemned Propositions
1. There is no supreme, omniscient, all foreseeing Deity distinct from the universe. God is the same thing as Nature and therefore subject to change. He becomes God in the world and man; all things are God and have the very substance of God. God is one and the same thing as the world; therefore spirit is the same thing as matter, necessity the same thing as liberty, truth the same as falseness, good the same is evil, justice the same as injustice.
2. That God acts upon man and the world is to be denied.

3. Human reason is the sole judge of truth and falseness, good and evil. It is a law unto itself and suffices, by its natural resources, to promote the welfare of nations.

4. All truths of religion have their origin in the natural use of human reason. Hence reason is the chief means by which we can and ought to arquire a knowledge of all truth.

5. Divine revelation is imperfect and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, and this corresponds to the advance of human reason.

6. The faith of Christ is opposed to human reason, and divine revelation is not merely useless but injurious to man's interests.

7. The prophesies and miracles that are contained in Holy Writ are poetic fiction, and the mysteries of the Christian faith are the outcome of philosophic inquiries; the contents of both Old and New Testaments are fiction, and Jesus Christ himself is a mythical figure.

8. Since human reason is as valuable as religion, theological matters are to be treated in the same way as philosophy.

9. All the dogmas, without exception, of the Christian religion are the subject of natural science or philosophy. Human reason can in the course of time be so developed that by its natural force and principles it can attain all knowledge, even the more profound, provided that these dogmas have been submitted to reason as its subject.

10. Since the philosopher is one thing and philosophy another, the former has the right and the duty to submit to authority which he believes to be sound, but philosophy neither can nor ought to bow to authority.

11, The Church not only must never pass judgment on philosophy but must tolerate its errors and leave it to correct them itself.

12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and the Roman Congregations are an impediment to the free advance of science.

13. The methods and principle which the older Scholastic doctors used in studying theology are not in the least in harmony with the needs of our time and the progress of the sciences.

14. Philosophy must be studied without regard to supernatural revelation.

15, Every man is free to adopt and profess any religion which, under the guidance of reason, he believes to be true.

16. Men can find the way to eternal salvation and attain it in any religion.

17. At least we have good ground to hope for the eternal salvation of men who do not belong to the true Church of Christ.

18. Protestantism is only another form of the one true Christian religion, and God is just as pleased for men to join it as to join the Catholic Church.

19. The Church is not a true, perfect, and entirely free body, and it cannot decide in virtue of the rights conferred upon it by its divire founder what are the limited times within which it can exercise its rights, but must leave this decision to the civil power.

20. Ecclesiastical authority must not use its powers without the permission and consent of the civil government.

21. The Church has no power to lay down dogmatically that the relegion of the Catholic Church is the one true religion.

22. The obligations which strictly bind Catholic teachers and writers are confined to matters which have been declared by the infallible judgment of the Church to be dogmas of the faith to be believed by everybody.

23. Roman Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils have exceeded their powers, usurped the rights of princes, and erred even in defining questions of faith and morals.

24. The Church has no power to use force or any temporal power, direct or indirect.

25, Apart from the authority which is inherent in the office of bishop, any secular power is conferred upon him expressly or tacitly by the civil power and may therefore be withdrawn by that power when it pleases.

26. The Church has no native and legitimate right to acquire and hold property.

27. The sacred ministry of the Church and the Roman Pontiff must be entirely excluded from concern about ownership and secular things.

28. Bishops cannot be allowed to publish even the Pope's letters without permission of the government.

29. Privileges conferred by the Roman Pontiff must be regarded as null unless they were asked for through the government.

30. The immunity of the Church and of eceelesiastical persons has its origin in civil law.

31. The ecclesiastical court for hearing secular charges, either civil or criminal, against clerics must be entirely abolished, without consulting or even against the protest of the Apostolic see.

32. The personal immunity from the duty of military service which clerics enjoy may be revoked without any violation of national law and equality, and this revocation is necessary for social progress, especially in countries with a more liberal constitution.

33. It is not the exclusive right of ecclesiastical jurisdiction to regulate the teaching of theological matters.

34. The idea that the Roman Pontiff may be compared to a free prince acting in the universal Church is medieval.

35. There is no reason why the Supreme Pontificate should not be transferred by the decision of a General Council or the action of all nations from the Bishop of the city of Rome to some other bishop and city.

36. The decision of a National Congress is not subject to further discussion, and the civil administration may demand this.

37. It is lawful to establish National Churches that are not subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and are, in fact, entrely separated.

38. The arbitrary action of the Roman Pontiffs is in part responsible for the division of the Church into Eastern and Western.

39. A republic, as the origin and power of all rights, has an unlimlted power.

40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is opposed to the welfare of human society.

41. The civil power, even if the ruler be an infidel, has an indirect negative right to interfere in sacred things, and it therefore had the right which is called exequatur (permission to carry out an ecclesiastical order) and what is called the right to appeal against abuses.

42. In a conflict of law between the two powers the civil law takes precedence.

43. The lay government has the power to rescind or to declare null and void the solemn agreements usually called Concordats about the use of rights pertaining to ecclesiastical immunity entered upon with the Apostolic See without the consent or even against the protest of Rome.

44. The civil authority may intervene in matters that refer to religion, morals and the spiritual order. Hence it has the right to criticise the instructions which the Church gives to priests for the guidance of consciences and even to lay down rules for the administration of the divine sacraments or the disposition required for receiving them.

45. Public schools in which the youth of a republic are trained with the exception of episcopal seminaries to some extent, are and ought to be controlled by the civil authority; and to such an extent that no other authority has the right to interfere in the curriculum, the discipline, the awarding of degrees, or in the choice and approval of masters.

46. Even in seminaries for the priesthood the arrangement of the studies is subject to the civil authority.

47. The best interests of society demand that public schools, which are open to all children of every class, and public institutions generally that give higher education and train youths, shall be free from all clerical authority, control, or interference and shall be left entirely to the dictates of the civil political authority as the rulers and the general opinion of the public shall decide.

48. Catholic men may approve of a kind of education that is separated from the Catholic faith and the power of the Church and that looks only, or at least primarily, to the interests of the natural sciences and the social welfare.

49. The civil authority may prevent prelates and the Catholic laity from communicating freely with the Roman Pontiff.

50. The secular authority has the intrinsic right of appointing bishops and it may demand of them that they visit their dioceses before they themselves receive canonical institution and Letters from the Holy See.

51. Moreover the secular government has the right to deprive Bishops of the exercise of their pastoral ministry and is not bound to obey the Roman Pontiff in matters concerning the office of bishops.

52. The government has the right to change the age fixed by the Church for entering the religious orders of both men and women; and to forbid these orders to admit anybody to take the solemn vows without its permission.

53. Laws that protect the status of religious communities and relate to their rights and duties should be abrogated; the secular government may assist all who wish to abandon the religious life and break their solemn vows; it may suppress religious cominunities as well as collegiate and parish churches and hand over their property and revenue to the administration and disposal of the secular authority.

54, Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church but in deciding questions of jurisdiction they are above the Church.

55. The Church must be separated from the State and the State from the Church.

56. Moral law does not need a divine sanction, it is not at all necessary that human laws should conform to the Law of Nature or derive their binding force from God.

51. Philosophy, the science of ethics, and human laws may or ought to be independent of divine and ecclesiastical authority.

58. No forces are to be recognized which are not inherent in matter, and all moral and decent effort ought to be expended in accumulating wealth and procuring, pleasure in any way.

59. Right consists of a material fact, 'duties of man' is an empty phrase, and all man's acts have the force of right.

60. Authority is merely the sum of numbers and material forces.

61. A fortunate outcome of an unjust act does no harm to the sanctity of right.

62. The principle of Non-intervention is to be recommended and observed.

63. It is lawful to refuse to obey and even rebel against legitimate princes.

64. The violation of the most sacred oaths and any criminal and disgraceful action in violation of the eternal law are not to be censured but are entirely lawful and worthy of the highest praise if they are done out of love of one's country.

65. It must by no means be admitted that Christ raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament.

66. The sacrament of matrimony is something added to the contract and Separable from it, and the sacrament consists in a single nuptial blessing.

67. By natural law the bond of matrimony is not indissoluble and on various grounds the civil authority may grant divorce.

68. The Church has no power to create nullifying impediments to marriage; that power belongs to the civil authority, and it must abolish existing impediments.

69. In earlier ages the Church began to create nullifying impediments by the powers entrusted to it by the civil authority, not by any power of its own.

70. The canons of the Council of Trent which impose the censure of anathema on those who dare to deny that the Church has the right to create nullifying impediments are either not dogmatic or are to be understood as deriving force from this delegated authority.

71. The Tridentine formula with its penalties is not binding when the civil authority provides a different form and insists that if this is followed the marrage is valid.

72. Boniface VIII was the first to lay down that the vow of chastity taken at ordination invalidates a marriage.

73. There can be true marriage for Christians on the strength of the civil contract alone; and it is false to say either that between Christians the contract of marriage is always a sacrament, or that the contract is null if there is no sacrament.

74. Matrimonial and espousal cases belong by their very nature to the civil court.

75. Whether the secular power can be reconciled with the spiritual is disputed in Christian and Catholic circles.

76. The destruction of the temporal power that the Apostolic See holds would greatly promote the freedom of the Church.

77. In our age it is no longer expedient to have the Catholic faith as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all others.

78. Hence it is rightly provided by law in certain nominally Catholic countries that men who migrate to them shall be allowed the public practice of the religion of each.

79. For it is false to say that the civil liberty of all cults and the concession of full power to men to discuss in public any sort of opinion and ideas leads to the corruption of the minds and morals of the people and the spread of the pest of indifferentism.

80. The Roman Pontiff can and ought to be reconciled and come to terms with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To these theologians add 11 theses:
1. That the highest public interest and the progress of society emphatically demand that human society be constituted and governed without any regard for religion, as if there were no such thing, or at all events without making any distinction between true and false religions.

2. That the best form of society is that in which the government does not recognize any duty to punish offenders against the Catholic religion except in so far as public order requires this.

3. That freedom of conscience and religion are the right of every man, and it ought to be decreed by law in every properly- constituted society that all citizens have the right to all freedom without the coercion of either civil or ecclesiastical authority, so that thay may publicly declare their opinions either vocally or in print or in any other way.

4. That the will of the people, made known either by public opinion or in any other way, is the supreme law apart from any divine or human right, and that in the political order accomplished facts have, by the very fact that they are accomplished, the force of law.

5. That monistic orders have no legitimate reason to exist.

6. That the law which forbids manual labor on certain days in order that people may go to church should be abolished.

7. That domestic society or the family derives the whole reason for its existence from civil law, hence all rights of parents in their children, especially the right of seeing to their edueation, depend upon civil law.

8. That the clergy, being hostile to true and useful science and the advance of civilization, must be excluded from all share in the training and education of the young.

9. That the laws of the Church are not binding in conscience unless they are issued by the civil power; that the acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs concerning religion and the Church need the sanction and approval or at least the consent of the civil power; that the Apostalic Constitutions which condemn secret societies, whether or not they require an oath of secrecy, and punish their members and promoters with anathema have no force in those parts of the world where such societies are allowed by the civil government; that the excommunication passed by the Council of Trent and the Roman Pontiff against those who invade or seize the property of the Church is based upon a confusion of the spiritual and the civic or political order and the protection of worldly goods; that the Church must not pass any decree that may coerce the consciences of the faithful in questions of the use of secular property: that the Church has no right to punish transgressors of its laws with material penalties; that it is in harmony with the principles of sacred theology and public law for the civil authority to take over the ownership of property taken from the Church.

10. That the ecclesiastical authority is not distinct from and independent of the civil authority by divine right, and such distinction and independetice could not be maintained without the Church invading and usurping essential right of the civil power.

11. It is lawful to refuse to obey those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See the object of which is said to be the general good of the Church and its rights and discipline, provided they do not deal with matters of faith and morals, without simony or abandoning the Catholic religion.
A number of propositions condemned by Pope Pius IX

I find these condemned propositions by Pope Pius
IX to be interesting. Now whether or not these were actually written by the Pope and are his words I dont know, and even the validity of the document itself may be questionable,
But should I reasonably be expected to believe these propositions?

There is a sound basis for disbelief in documents
from antiquity..... that being based on Language itself and the early church fathers use of and concept of the origins of language.

My questions have to do with the validity of ancient manuscripts, and the interpretations of those manuscripts for use by religious authorities.
Why should there be any difference in any material
that cannot be authenticated from the same time period?
Is it in fact "lies" or is it a misunderstanding
of language itself? Or was it a combined effort by those who made the translations and compilations to use language to decieve the reader?
A very learned man explored the origins of many aspects of religious doctrines, and writings and theories of the early church.

Andrew White Dickson LL.D.(Yale) L.H.D.(Columbia)
P.H.DR. (JENA) And President and professor of History at Cornell University spent much of his life researching Biblical writings.
His Book "A History of Warfare of Science with
Theology in Christendom" is an astonishing work.
It cronicals the history of the church in it's long struggle with science and is especially helpful when considering the motivations of the early church fathers.

You may enjoy reading the following sections of his book.

COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY.

I. THE SACRED THEORY IN ITS FIRST FORM.

Difference of the history of Comparative Philology from that of other sciences as regards the attitude of theologians Curiosity of early man regarding the origin, the primitive form, and the diversity of language The Hebrew answer to these questions The legend of the Tower of Babel The real reason for the building of towers by the Chaldeans and the causes of their ruin Other legends of a confusion of tongues Influence upon Christendom of the Hebrew legends Lucretius's theory of the origin of language The teachings of the Church fathers on this subject The controversy as to the divine origin of the Hebrew vowel points Attitude of the reformers toward this question Of Catholic scholars.--Marini Capellus and his adversaries The treatise of Danzius

II. THE SACRED THEORY OF LANGUAGE IN ITS SECOND FORM.

Theological theory that Hebrew was the primitive tongue, divinely revealed This theory supported by all Christian scholars until the beginning of the eighteenth century Diasent of Prideaux and Cotton Mather Apparent strength of the sacred theory of language

III. BREAKING DOWN OF THE THEOLOGICAL VIEW.

Reason for the Church's ready acceptance of the conclusions of comparative philology Beginnings of a scientific theory of language Hottinger Leibnitz The collections of Catharine the Great, of Hervas, and of Adelung Chaotic period in philology between Leibnitz and the beginning of the study of Sanskrit Illustration .

My whole point is what makes your Bible any more believable than the Jewish works, or the Koran,
or any of the non-canonical works?
And was it planned deception and covert use of language sprinkled with incompetence and mistranslations?
I'll save the rest of this for later.
Wolf

Perchance

Wow.

That was some post.

If a church considered the ideas of free speech, free progress of science, democracy and so on, and deliberately turned away from them, how could you trust them? That wouldn't be blindness, or even the special kind of blindness that a dearly held belief imposes on someone, making him unable to see beyond the limits of his thoughts. It would be lying, and slamming the door shut on thoughts that the church had decided were dangerous to its continued existence.

And if a church starts worrying more about continuing to exist then whether it is encouraging its flock to be good people or whether it is telling the truth... doesn't that say it is worrying more about temporal things than spiritual things?

This is highly interesting. Thank you for posting that, Wolf .

-Perchance.

sighhswolf

Yes, highly informative in a conceptual way.
Please understand that my aim is not to engage in a contest of oneupmanship.
My questions are valid, and Tercel is only repeating what he has read, just as I am repeating what I have read.

The whole point is how can you believe anything that has been touched by the motives of man?
Nothing is written without motivation, it is either informative with a slant in the direction of the presenter, or it is a rebuttal of a statement made in an effort to dismiss or discredit a hostile or contrary position.
It really does not matter what sources we use to back a position, because those sources are going to be discriminatory in some fashion.

Every time someone makes a derogatory statement
concerning the Bible and it's "truthfulness", or it's historical accuracy, or concerning christian doctrine, or questioning the source and validity of the NT gospels they are immediately swarmed by christians who are no more educated or who can no more validate their own sources of material as those presenting the opposing view.

Yet our society being transfixed by the mythology of a long dead age, and led around by a ring in the nose, placed there by religious leadership
and clergy are much more prone to believe the religious propaganda rather than the secular propaganda.
And neither can prove themselves to have sources beyond being suspect or clearly not motivated by
man.

And why believe that people who have never met the person in question could be so learned about the life and ministry of said subject,
when they cant even agree on what the subject actually taught and preached during his ministry and relate different interpretations of said teachings?
The one failsafe position of the church is "faith".
You must have "faith" in order to accept things for which there is no proof, or have questionable origins.
That does not answer my questions.

Wolf

Perchance

Weeeell...

I suppose I have one quibble with that. I would argue that fiction and poetry are either written with another purpose in mind (to entertain), or are just written for the delight that their writers find in telling the stories or playing with words.

Granted, someone can take a piece of fiction too seriously and do awful things because of that, but I don't think that's the author's fault.

On the other hand, if someone writes something he or she knows is fiction or poetry and presents it as the truth (as may have happened with some of the Bible stories), then I would agree that is definitely "slanted in the direction of the presenter."

-Perchance.

sighhswolf

Granted and accepted I should have been more specific as to the material.
And that statement was a sweeping kind of generalization ( It's terribly difficult to steer
clear of those stupid generalizations cause they are, at least in my case, always blowing up in my face,Ha!)

After spending time in a religious bubble, surrounded by the scriptures and delusions when I finally awoke from the deep slumber of christianity and took at really long hard look at all the actual facts, stripping away layer after layer of deception and exaggeration trying to find the "truth", and being quite vocal and militant about my views It dawned on me very slowly that I could not disprove the existence of this christian god.
But at the same time I also realized that neither could it's existence be proven.

So the direction of my inquirey took another turn
and I began asking how did those who assembled this "Bible" do it?
Who was involved, and where did the information contained in the document originate?
And what have learned and educated people found in their research into the validity of the information presented?

I am not a scholar, I'm not even a very good investigator but I knew that there were many people who were suffering from a self delusional
assumption that the gospels were written by the men who were named as the authors, and that they had been eyewitnesses to the life and ministry of this person Jesus. And this I knew to be false.

And after finding this forum and continually reading new information from many different sources, I realized one more thing.

We can engage in all kinds of debunking, we can tear into each and every comment made by a theist
or a non-theist, we can follow each and every argument with another and present equal evidential information and try to discredit each other, but..........the goal is not to "BE RIGHT"
the goal is not to establish credability with our peers, the goal is to determine whether the information is correct and contains truth as we understand truth.
I think that we get so wrapped up in trying to discredit each other, we lose sight of the original questions.

My personal opinion is that we have been victims
of the aspirations of supposedly pious men that presented information they said emanated from god.
And that those men used the gospels to further their own ambitions and to editorialize, and impose their private ideas and concepts into documents designed to sway the populace to their own grand designs of power.

Now maybe it did not begin this way, and maybe those early christians were seeking their idea of god and were nobel in their search, but those that started the movement, are not around to see the utter destruction, violence, misuse of power
and the garnering of massive amounts of wealth, that have been the hallmark of christianity throughout history.
And I cannot believe for one instant that the figure of Jesus as portrayed by the NT would have been proud of any part of the modern church, if in fact he was an actual historic figure.
That is why I broke from the church and that is why I do not believe anything that is written in the Bible.
Thanks for listening to the ravings of an old dude.
Wolf

Tercel

Sighhswolf,
Have I ever mentioned how much I dislike dealing with looong posts?

As far as the KJV goes, I'm not sure we've got any points of disagreement. On reflection I think I misunderstood what you were meaning by "Then along comes King James who commissions a total rewrite of the bible with instructions to the writers to protect the interests of the King at all costs."
I can see nothing significantly wrong with your large copy + paste on the history of the KJV translation, so I'll take it we're agreed on that matter.

Hmm... For a while the KJV was taken as the translation, but I think that view is changing and I'm not sure it's correct any longer to say "most" christians.

What validates any writings compared to other ones?
1. The author's ability to accurately record the events -especially important being the proximity of the author to the events described.
2. The author's intention to accurate record the events.

In the case of the Gospel writings vs other Gospels. With regard to 1, the 4 canonical gospels are generally regarded as being composed in the 1st Century, while the apocryphal gospels are generally regarded as being composed in the 2nd Century. Early Church tradition regards the writers of the canonical gospels as being apostles or companions of apostles, whilst the apocryphal gospels were almost certainly composed by people comparatively distant to their subject matter. With regard to 2, most of the other Gospels are Gnostic, the Gnostics having somewhat of a reputation for having random and crazy beliefs, not caring about the human Jesus, and not meaning what they wrote in their Gospels to be taken at all literally. And then of course there is Marcion's "Gospel of Luke" - Marcion took Luke and removed the bits of it that didn't fit his theological agenda. Of course by this stage he had already been kicked out of the catholic Church for heresy, so we need not take him seriously.
But basically, by the middle of the 2nd Century when the apocryphal forgery mill was beginning, the catholic Church was already using our 4 Gospels as standard ones throughout the world, and wasn't about to drop them in favour of forgeries being produced in their own time under such names as "The Gospel of Peter" and "The Gospel of Mary" etc.

What would you have done in their position? Dropped something accepted worldwide for forgeries being produced in your own time? I understand that Eusebius, the Church historian (writing in the 4th Century and recording the events of the contemporary Council of Nicea), records that the four gospels were completely undisputed with regard to their canonization.

The "early church fathers" were not simply writing in a vacuum it must be remembered. They themselves had been brought up within the catholic (which means "universal") christian faith. To suggest that there was any promotion of "the theological position of those who had gained some power in the early christian movement" seems absurd where you consider what the nature of the arguments were that were actually occuring. The first big conflict within the Church seems to have been as to whether the Gentiles should be circumsized or not. In the early second century the major conflict was to whether the date of the Christian observance of Easter should be kept the same as used by the Jews, or whether the Christians should change it just to be different. And Polycarp travelled to Rome to talk to the Pope on the matter. It is interesting to me to note that that was the level of "theological" dispute among the early church. When we have these minor differences clearly recorded, it seems pretty clear that there was no large "theological position promotion" going on. And to view the early church as one large well structured group is a bit misleading too. The church seems to have consisted of a church in each city with Bishops in the major cities who exchanged letters with the othere churches where necessary. The Council of Nicea was the first time the leaders ever got together and decided doctrine. Yet nethertheless the doctrine of the church before Nicea seems to have been remarkably unified - witness the fact that the disputes were really pretty petty. It is educational to note that Origen (c230AD) upon hearing of a Bishop in Arabia expressing unorthodox views about the divinity of Christ, went to Arabia himself and successfully changed the Bishop's mind.

I cannot prove them beyond all doubt. However I believe there is very good reason to believe the books of Mark and Luke were written by there namesakes. There is universal agreement as such from the early Church (heretics such as Marcion included). If your going to forge books you do it under the name of someone conspicuous (eg Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of James etc) - The vast majority of the Apocryphal gospels are named after disciples or other prominant relations of Jesus. But Mark and Luke are almost utter nobodies by comparison. That there should be universal attestation that 2 non-famous people authored 2 of the Gospels strongly helps the validity of the claim.
Gospel of John is a difficult kettle of fish, is it written by John the apostle, or John the presbyter? Are they the same person, different people, or did one edit the work of the other? The early records are not exactly unambiguous on the matter. However, since John's gospel does interesting things - eg contradicts the synoptics as to the date of Jesus' death and gets it right, it certainly seems likely to contain at least some input from someone close to Jesus.
The Gospel of Matthew, I don't like at all: It also contains several bits which seem to me to be more than a little suspect. Papias says Matthew wrote the teachings of Jesus in the Jewish native tongue: Our Matthew is Greek. Hmm... The best I could say for Matthew is that it's probably based on some of the things Matthew wrote (after all, it contains the largest amount of Jesus speaking of any of the synoptics).

At the council, some things were universally agreed upon by all present (eg the Gospels) while other things were disputed (ie different Churches had been using differing books as "scripture"). The main disputed writings which made it into the canon seem to have been James, Hebrews and Revelation. The question being as to whether the Church could adequately trace the writings to the apostles or their companions. James, I haven't looked at myself, Hebrews is rather ironic in that everyone seems to agree that a companion of Paul wrote it although there seems to be absolutely no agreement whatsoever as to which, and as for Revelation I personally think the Church made a mistake with that one...
But as I understand it, the Church voted on what to include. If I understand what you have posted earlier correctly, they actually managed to get a majority vote as to the final list of canonical books. (Amazing when you consider the number of possible combinations for even 3 borderline books)

Matthew's been dealt with above. Mark and Luke are normally agreed to have not been witnesses to any of Jesus' life. That leaves John. He claims to be an eyewitness, I see nothing compelling against such, so believe him as you will.

Just remind me again why should I give two figs on the decrees of Medieval Catholic Popes? I'm a liberal protestant, remember? No suprise then that I disagree with many of the statements made. Find a Catholic and get them to comment on the list.

I believe that the Bible is more true because of my own experiences and of the experiences of other Christians who I have talked to and whose writings I have read.

Tercel

Anunnaki

Tercel:
Could you please elaborate on these experiences you`ve had that led you to believe the bible is true?

Enlighten Me

Tercel says:
I believe that the Bible is more true because of my own experiences and of the experiences of other Christians who I have talked to and whose writings I have read.

And you would believe the Koran to be more true if you had been born in Saudi Arabia due to your Saudi Arabian experiences and the experiences of other Muslims with whom you had talked and whose writings you had read....

I just think it's so ironic that after presenting evidence of your extensive research you would admit that it all comes down to ethnocentricity and subjectivity

Perchance

Well, I've made generalizations myself in the past- including ones that got me into a lot of trouble - so I know what you mean. I thought you might have been referring to just Biblical material, but I wasn't sure, so I thought I would put my two cents in.


That's been my position for quite a long time. And because I haven't read many well-thought-out arguments one way or the other, I'm now more interested in how people think about God than whether God exists.

Granted, I do think it's fun to ask someone who's never thought about it- and who assumes everyone's Christian- "Why do you believe in God?" and see if they can justify their beliefs or not.

I didn't even realize that anyone had ever questioned this belief until I started looking up religion on the Internet. I know many people who've either never thought about it, or simply say, "Oh, of course they knew Jesus!"

I'm more cynical than that, I suppose. I'm uncertain about so many things that I don't think the truth can ever really be achieved. But it's fun to argue .

I like listning to 'ravings' when they make good points. And while I don't agree with everything you say, what you say is interesting.

Thanks again.

-Perchance.

Perchance

Isn't that the argumentum ad populum fallacy, though? (I may have gotten the name wrong. I'm thinking of the one that basically says: Just because a large number of people believe it doesn't make it so).

And a consensus could also mean that a large number of people had been fooled into thinking that Mark and Luke were the authors of the gospels, or found something in the position that promoted their own power (as sighhswolf has been suggesting about other things), or believed because someone who believed it whether or not it was true but was very persuasive told them so...

The possibilities are endless. Why cut them off for no reason?

-Perchance.