Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mcnc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!bch From: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: The Bible as G-d's only word. Message-ID: <2371@mcnc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 15-Nov-84 22:34:05 EST Article-I.D.: mcnc.2371 Posted: Thu Nov 15 22:34:05 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 17-Nov-84 03:20:38 EST References: Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) Distribution: net Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service Lines: 74 Summary: In article ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) writes: > >Is the Catholic Church more powerfull than G-d himself? If God wanted to tell >us the way of salvation, wouldn't He make sure that all the *inspired* works >were included? Does G-d have no power over a few men? That seems to be what folks keep asking *you!* You can't have it both ways. You mean to tell me that G-d broke the rule about not interfering with free will in this particular case only? Why not other cases. Was G-d instrumental in the authorship of the Holy Quran? If not, why not? How about Liber AL? [hi Tim!] >The ultimate power and authority that G-d has makes me believe that not only >are all the scriptures insprired by Him included in today's Bible, but also >that His word has been preserved through the ages in much the same form that >it was written. There has been considerable testimony in this newsgroup from people who understand Greek, Hebrew and presumably Aramaic that subtle shifts in translation exist. My own highly annotated New English Bible differs from the King James version, sometimes with substantial changes in meaning. There are other documents, dating from the same period as NT canon, that have also been preserved through the ages. Other than the fact that they are not bound into the same physical book, could they not also be evidence of G-d's preservation? The dead sea scrolls are a "miracle" of preservation yet they also include non-Biblical documents of a religious nature? >Most people don't seem to take into account that if the G-d of the Bible >does exist, He would be able to keep His word free from the error of man. I'm glad you qualified that as the G-d of the Bible. >My statement above meant that I do not take portions of today's Bible and use >just those to make up a theology. This is how much of today's Biblical error >has crept into the Christian faith. >I do not believe in the inspiration of any other documents besides those in >today's Bible. Why? A number of ideas you have expressed in this forum, most notably the notion that any man can know G-d, are expressed very clearly in the Gnostic literature. Incidentally, the Inquisitors would have cheerfully burnt you at the stake for daring to suggest that any man could know G-d without a priest as intermediary. That notion alone was one of the reasons the Valentineans were excluded from church canon. That's heresy, and blasphemy [:-)] In fact, any statement you have made with respect to what G-d can or cannot do would have been met with terminal (for you) disapproval. I find the circularity of Ken's argument to be interesting, to say the least. If I interpret it correctly, it goes something like this. Ken: I believe today's Bible to be completely and exhaustively inspired by G-d. Me: Why? The Bible was created by men. Men are full of sin and have political aims. Ken: I believe the G-d caused the men to select His inspired writings. For I believe today's Bible to be completely and exhaustively inspired by G-d. Me: Why? Ken: [anticipated broken-record response] I believe today's bible to be completely and exhaustively inspired by God. This could go on for a *very* long time, but what else is new? -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch