Quote:
Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination
Second, the books that were chosen versus the books that were excluded. The big secret is this - when they were consolidating Christianity into what it is as we know it, they contrived to select books that conformed to the version they wanted to push. Many of the books that are excluded from the Bible were left out because they contradicted the official version of Jesus the church wanted to push. Period. They needed to make sure there wasn't any doubt that Jesus was in fact the son of God. Anyone can argue WHY they did this, but the point is that they did it. What makes one book more divine than the other? The only thing believers can say is that those who chose the books were divinely inspired.
|
Source? The books that were chosen for the bible were chosen because of two key factors. The amount of scriptures found for these particular books and also the time. The four gospels were chosen because of the hundreds of more copies found as opposed to other similar books. Also the time period they were written. The four gospels were written 50-80 years after Jesus' death. Other similar books were written over 200 years after his death seriously doubting the accuracy.
The translation argument is a really bad argument as well. Hebrew and Greek words can have double meanings at times but they usually mean something similar. One of the profs at the college I attended actually was involved in the translation of the NIV (widely known as the most popular version used today). He would venture to say that 99.9% of translations are completely accurate. With the .1 that comes from the double meanings in Greek and Hebrew. That's a direct source of someone who has read the Greek and Hebrew scriptures for themself.