Posted on 12/28/2007 9:27:50 AM PST by restornu
Should be interesting read!
Not to mention words have changed meanings over the last 2000 years.
Other than changing the order, I don’t see the point. The author is counting the Minor Prophets as one book instead of twelve, and lumping together Joshua and Judges, and I/II Samuel and I/II Kings, into one book. If the content of the writings aren’t changed, then that all just seems like formatting and semantics IMO. But I don’t pretend to be a scholar, I just read the Word and try (sometimes even successfully!) to follow it.
}:-)4
The author is mistaking the Masoretic Text, a 4th-century publication with the actual bible.
Following the death of Christ and the destruction of the Temple, the Jews held a council at Jamnia to decide why God would unleash such horrific punishments apon the Jews as they were then suffering. They decided that Jesus had exposed the dangers of Hellenistic thought creeping into Judaism, so to obliterate any traces of what they considered the heresies which led to Jesus, they removed the portions of the bible which most directly pointed to Jesus.
But the real Old Testament did consist of the three parts mentioned. The three parts are referred to as the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. And among the Writings existed the books which the Jews expunged.
Interesting note: because the Pharisees didn’t consider the Writings on an even level with the Prophets and the Law, Jesus rarely quotes any of the Writings. The one exception was the Book of Psalms, which is the most quoted passage, and which may have been considered one of the Books of the Prophets.
Things that make you go hmmmmmmm...
Plus, There are many sacred writings mentioned in the scriptures that we do not have today, among which are these books and writers:
Ex. 24: 7 took the book of the covenant.
Num. 21: 14 book of the wars of the Lord.
Josh. 10: 13 (2 Sam. 1: 18) book of Jasher.
1 Sam. 10: 25 Samuel . . . wrote it in a book.
1 Kgs. 11: 41 book of the acts of Solomon.
1 Chr. 29: 29 book of Samuel the seer.
2 Chr. 9: 29 book of Nathan the prophet.
2 Chr. 12: 15 book of Shemaiah the prophet.
2 Chr. 13: 22 acts of Abijah . . . in the story of the prophet Iddo.
2 Chr. 20: 34 book of Jehu.
2 Chr. 33: 19 written among the sayings of the seers.
Matt. 2: 23 spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
1 Cor. 5: 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle.
Eph. 3: 3 as I wrote afore in few words.
Col. 4: 16 read the epistle from Laodicea.
Jude 1: 3 when I gave all diligence to write unto you.
Jude 1: 14 Enoch also . . . prophesied of these.
Some day, I know all things will be revealed by God.
This article is less a “revelation” of the Bible as it is an exercise in post-Christian Jewish numerology combined with a rather extensive assortment of historical errors, half-truths and inaccuracies. Thanks anyway.
right on.
Most of Paul’s epistles were actually written prior to the Gospels, and Luke is the author of Acts.
Many religious scholars believe that John is a somewhat inauthentic Gospel with little or no actual words of Jesus.
Also, other Gospels were excluded, likely in order to make the theology what the authorities wanted it to be.
And even those were in part translated, as Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew or Greek.
James was the head of the Church in Jerusalem. And what evidence is there that Peter ranked below him? That's exactly the opposite of history.
And I think modern scholarship about Markan priority actually supports that. Mark writes Peter's teaching, and then Matthew or one of his disciples...who it will be remembered already had a collection of sayings (logia) of Christ...then adds the teaching of Peter in Mark's Gospel to his own testimony, thus producing what we know as the Gospel of Matthew.
This is sheer foolishness. The "added" books were in the Septuagint, they were in Jerome's Vulgate, they were widely considered canonical both before and after the 5 century councils which settled the canon of the NT (all of which agreed on the "apocrypha").
And there aren't 11 such books, there are 7, making the total 73, not 77.
If the author can't get trivial facts like these right, why should we trust him anywhere else?
They are silly, silly people. On what evidence do they make such a claim...other than John espouses a theology they don't particularly like?
Also, other Gospels were excluded, likely in order to make the theology what the authorities wanted it to be.
Those "other Gospels" of which you speak are late. I don't believe a single one was written in the 1st century--and some were composed in the 3rd or 4th. So I find it a little odd that some of the same scholars who are always clamoring about how the earliest writings are the most reliable, are nevertheless the first to prefer the Gnostic writings over Paul and the Synoptics.
Here's a different interpretation. The four evangelists were either Apostles or companions of the Apostles who actually went around with Jesus and knew what they were talking about. The later writers, with no connection to the people who were there, made stuff up that fit their particular Gnostic theology but which twisted what actually happened.
Again, if scholars want to be consistent on this, then it's precisely the Synoptics and Paul that should give more weight than, say, the Gospel of Judas and all that other nonsense.
Let’s play “pin the tail on the heterodoxy”, Google on names and buzzwords and try to figure out where this guy is coming from.
I’ll play. IN addition to kooky conspiracies about 911 and the Iraq war, I found this on the link provided on his wikipedia entry:
We believe in:
The validity of the Bible
Universal Reconciliation
The Family of God
Biblical End-Time Prophecy
The Second Coming of Christ
The establishment of the Kingdom of God on this earth
Education on all subjects
We do not believe in:
The doctrine of the Trinity
The Immortality of the Soul (heaven and hell)
Traditional Christian Holy Days and Holidays
Tithing
Political activism
Participation in the military
I’ll take Armstrongism split off for 500, Alex.
Before he translated the OT...he read it in the language it was written in for a number of years before he translated it. He grasp with an understanding those languages...which I think makes for a great translation.
Which, of course, it's been well established that they were not.
Excellent very few recongized the influence the Hellenist had and corrupted many sacred things of the Lord.
I would ponder that again about using the word rank when all of the prophet and apostles are to one in mind with the Lord!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.