There is no such thing as The Bible

Several items.1) The dead sea scrolls restored a number of passages that have disappeard (for example, it had the missing couplets in a psalm where each passage started with a different letter of the alphabet, in order)2) Although it restored many passages that had gotten lost, it is still 15% smaller than modern Tanakh's.The Dead Sea Scroll is a marvalous resource, since it shows on how passages get both lost and added, and how close (or not so) that other
parts can be copied.

First, how have the Dead Sea Scrolls shown that there are multiple variations of the Old Covenant? Just the opposite. It shows that the copies and translations were very accurate. What was found were the exact Old Covenants and New Covenants as well as other books and writings such as Apocrypha books...and so forth.Secondly, you are very mistaken and have no understanding of the New Covenant...Jesus is not a "new" god...He is the SAME GOD of the Old Covenant. The only thing that changed was the "COVENANT". The Jewish God already revealed His Plan before Jesus came about the coming New Covenant. He already foretold the Messiah's coming and the Jews already knew Jesus was NOT bringing a NEW religion...but claiming to be "HIM".

There are variations between the scrolls in the DDS and the masoric text.Understand?And, no, Jesus is not the same god that the Jewish people envisioned. The Jewish tradition is that God is spirit, will always be spirit. God is not a man, god is not the son of man.The Jews got into a lot of trouble because they would not have images of Ceasar in their temples.. since God is not a man. That is why the Jews would consider having Jesus as "God" as a new god.This message has been edited by ramoss, 07-01-2005 09:10 AM

Heres a question for you;Why does it say God walked with man? God's angels came down and mated with that of the human race? If such demons and offspring can be produced, doesnt that require a physical existance?Just a couple of thoughts for you... This all being taken direct from the Jewish faith. The last, and God shut the door for Noah. It talks about Gods power in creation not him.

Other than the Apochryphal books (which were added by the Roman Catholic Church after the Reformation started, to support their extra-biblical doctrines of purgatory etc., so that they could point to why you couldn't be saved if you weren't a member of the Roman Catholic Church), the other distinctions in the Biblical text do not require a change in any of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Therefore, I find the arguments about the differing manuscripts pointing away from the infallibilty of the Bible as rather unconvincing. I must say, I found one of the earlier postings about the NIV being too pro 'Jesus as the Christ' (if my memory serves me correctly) as rather amusing...I remember reading a KJV only author who tried to argue that the NIV actually de-emphasised Jesus' role as the Christ! I suspect if you look at these things from either side, it can be made to look either way.

If what you say is true about Jews re. the Messiah being a man, as opposed to God as a man, may I ask how you explain the existence of Messianic Jews who believe in Jesus as God?

quote:

---

Other than the Apochryphal books (which were added by the Roman Catholic Church after the Reformation started, to support their extra-biblical doctrines of purgatory etc., so that they could point to why you couldn't be saved if you weren't a member of the Roman Catholic Church)...

---

Where did you get that idea ? The Deuterocanonical books were (and in many places still are) a standard part of the Bible - it was Protestants who removed them. The Orthodox Churches accept even more books than the Catholics.

Simple, They are not Jewz. They are Christians who are following some of the Jewish holidays and traditions.Most of the Jews for Jesus, for example, were actually Christians who converted, and don't even have the Jewish background. Look at who funds teh "Jews for Jesus". The Southern Baptists do. LOok who is on the Board of Directors.. Many Baptist ministers.The "Jews for Jesus" is a fraud trying to prostylise to the Jews.

Hi Steve,I *think* that your confusion may lie in the fact that there are Jews (nationality) and there are Jews (religion).A messianic Jew *may* be Jewish by birth and not follow the Jewish religion. A Jew who follows Judaism would easily see where Christianity has mutilated the Old Testament, and that The Messiah has not been born yet.Brian.

Can I ask you for some examples as to where Christians have 'mutilated' the OT??

Well, I can't speak for the US branch of Jews for Jesus, but as far as I know, Southern Baptists don't exist in Canada, so I guess things are different up here.

Re. the deutero-canonical books, yes , it is true, varying numbers of them are accepted in some circles today...although I do believe some of them have historical value, I noticed that the Hebrews tended to divide the writings into those for the general public and those for the 'knowledgeable and initiated' from about the first century A.D. Of course, the early Christian church ultimately rejected the Gnostic view of religion that was popular at the time, (i.e. that there are hidden meanings that could only be understood by certain initated people). So I think the Jewish distinction was a good and important one. It is true that Augustine said all should be included in the Canon and that the RCC did ultimately take his side, albeit over a thousand years later, at the Council of Trent (1546). My general rule though is to trust the majority of those from whom the manuscripts originated rather than a single man's viewpoint writing centuries later, so I would have to disagree with the RCC and the Greek Orthodox on this one.

You still haven't answered the question. Why did you say that the RC church added the deuterocanonical books during the Reformation when it was the Protestants that took them out ?

Hi Steve, This link will take you to an old discussion we had here, it mentions a handful of mutilations. There are more if you wish to discuss them but pretty much all of the NT 'prophecies' that are said to apply to Jesus are really nothing to do with him, when taken in context.Look forward to discussing things with you, and welcome to EvC.Brian.

There is no one accepted Canon. And when the first Bibles were created, no guidance was given except that they should be beautiful. No mention was made of what should be included or what was scripture, what was not.Quotes of Jesus and parts of the NT Gospels that were eventually included in most Canon show that Jesus certainly considered the Book of Enoch (usually called Enoch 1) as part of Scripture yet in most Canon it is excluded.The actual creation of the Bible was far more celebratory and self-serving than theological. They were created to be placed in the new Churches being built in Constantinople, more as decorative pieces than instructional.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion