Hi Terry,
The following takes your points one by one. My comments follow the repeating of your claims. I agree with soe of your assertions and others are very wrong historically or use absurd logic. Other claims ignore the times and culture of the day. I welcome a response. 1. Credibility of manuscript affects its reliability. Age helps but is not the most important. 2. Why should there be "autograph" texts? That was never practiced by Bible writers from Moses onward. 3. There are manuscripts that are close to the originals. There are virtually no original New World translations from the 1950s anywhere. And that is only 50 years ago. So, I do not see the issue here. 4. You claim that no two manuscripts agree. What is your source for this? 5. You stated that the Bible as we know it only came together in the form it now holds because certain men decided it should do so. The Bible as we know it was largely compiled by the Roman Catholic Church. The basis they used is the basis that governs all western Bibles. The Eastern Orthodox Catholic uses basically the same Bible, but recognizes that it contains errors. 6. It is a pointless argument to talk about Jesus and his apostles or disciples not carrying bibles. They didn't drive cars either. So what. They didn't even carry scrolls with them, as scrolls were maintained by the scribes at the temple and synagogues. Paper and printing machines were not available to make Bibles a common feasible product. 7. You state that the Apostle Paul didn't carry a bible. Same response as above. 8. You state that none of Paul's letters were in any of the scrolls considered Holy Scripture at the time he was preaching and forming Christian theology as it is now understood to be. So what. His letters were later determined to be canonical by the Catholic Church. 9. You state that the Bible today is the result of certain men with certain agendas who had the authority to make their project happen. What agenda? What evidence do you have for this claim? The Bible was compiled and decided upon by Church scholars. So what. Men were used to write the Bible too. 10. You claim that these men also had the power to destroy writings which did not agree with their agenda. Any who disagreed with the conclusions of these powerful men, in the case of the Councils convened by Constantine, were harried, persecuted and abused by the majority. Again, what evidence do you have for this absurd claim. You need to read history. You will discover that the Bible is a products of time, not a few men in Constantines day. Furthermore, the non-canonical books are still retained at the vatican, and were NOT destoryed. 11. You aksed, "Did you know these councils and their orthodoxy constantly shifted from one extreme to another? One day Arius might be on top and soon after Athanasius might be considered afoul of the "truth" of doctrine. Or, the reverse!" This too is an absurd claim. Arius was given a fair hearing as were others who had various theories which conflicted with long accepted teachings. The Ecumenical Councils were far different than that painted by the conspiracy theorists like Russell and others ignorant of history. 12. You also say that the men who attended important policy meetings invoked by the Christian Emperor (self-styled) were often devout men scarred from persecution and lamed or blinded by their righteous stand against impure Roman policy. THEY COULDN'T AGREE with each other!" The first ecumenical council in 325 did involve Constantine, but it was not as you claim. Where si your evidence? 13. You claim, "How could their differences of opinion be reconciled? Only by force; only by decree; only by the certitude of Authority." What is your source, you evidence for this claim? 14. You continue by saying, "Largely, what non-Catholic believers in Christianity hold to be the inerrent word of Divine Authority is the result of the Catholic bishops and their representations." True. However, the Bible was not delcared inerrant until a Roman Catholic Pope did so centuries after its split with Eastern Orthodox Catholicism. Orthodoxy and the Roman Church accept the Bible as having some errors prior to their schism in 1054 a.d. The Eastern Orthodox still holds that the Bible contains some errors as the Church always did from its inception. 15. You stated that "the Synod of Laodecia and the ratification by the Synod of Carthage gave us the final form of what is held today in the hands of millions of Christians." Would you please cite a few references for this? I have other sources that this is not so. I want to compare these sources and then respond. 16. You stated that among the many many struggles, arguments, opinions and battles that took place to establish an orthodoxy concering which writings were to be included and excluded it was never a clear-cut case of proof; only assertions that flew about. It is all guesswork and politics. What evidence do you have for politics? What guesswork? What criteria can you cite that was used to compile the Bible? Do you have any idea? 17. You stated that the majority of Christians for a thousand years could not even read the Bible! They either did what they were told by Priests and Bishops or they exchanged opinions about what scripture was purported to say. It was a totem; a magic book and a supernatural icon. This claim is misleading on your part. They did not have printing presses. So, the Bible had to be painstakenly copied by hand. So, the few copies were held by church scholars and teachers. The rest was found in letters and oral tradition as had been done since the time of Moses. So what? Why imply all this conspiratorial crap. People were also largely illiterate because schools were not plentiful. Life was hard, people did not live long, so getting food and surviving were higher on their personal agenda. Actually, the Church did a fairly good job leading the people ... that is ... until Roman Catholicism became too powerful and arrogant. But, the Orthodox Catholic did not go this route. Once Rome was slapped down hard, it eventually moderated and became a rational religion. But this has little to do with the Bible. 18. You stated that until the Bible was translated into language the average person could read and understand the Dark Ages held mankind in the grip of supernatural awe and fear of invisible forces and mysterious laws unknown. What is so special about this. This would have happened anyway because science was so little understood and was so far behind what we have today. People living all over the world in various non-Christian religions were even more superstitious and ignorant. 19. You stated that soon after, however, men began to question authority of scripture. (At their peril!) The real questioning and higher criticism came into vogue in the 19th century. As a result, numb-nuts like Miller, Russell, and Joseph Smith emerged with cock-eyed theories and led people into serious problems. The Bible had some problems and contains things with which I find troubling, but by and large it is a good and important work ... and serves Christians fairly well. 20. You stated that the so-called Age of Enlightenment followed fast upon the ability of men to think for themselves at last. The Age of Reason, the Renaissance and the Age of Science brought mankind into a new era of advancement, longer lives, understanding of what health consisted of and how to protect themselves from contagions. Labor saving devices gave men leisure time to read and learn and develop their minds once chained to the drudgery of a workaday labor. Yep, I guess so. 21. You continued, "the Protestant Reformation split off the power of the single institution of Catholicism. The Catholic and Byzantine Church had been the only authority to rule the minds of men until that time." Actually, there were many splits and schisms along the way. There were far eastern Christians who split long before the schism of 1054 between Rome and Constantinople. There are also various African Christian branchs that are not part of mainline Catholicism or Orthodoxy. So your claim lacks historical merit. There were also protestant-like groups before Luther, but these were small and had little effect. 22. You stated that confident Protestants brought science to bear upon scripture, so confident were they that it would stand all tests of purity and holiness. Would you please cite some credible references for this claim? 23. You contiued, "The Church launched its own strikeforce of intellectuals to meet the onslaught." Again, please cite some credible source references. 24. You said that both branches of Christianity reeled from the blows of what followed! Please cite some credible source references. 25. You claims that it soon became clear it had all been a tissue of fabrications as to the integrity of the texts! Please cite credible source references. 26. You continued, "The Documentary Hypothesis soon followed and earnest research by archaeologists and semanticists began to unravel the tangled skein that was once the terra firma of belief." PLease cite credible references for this. 27. You continued, "Today we have thousands of Bible Scholars tripping over each other on both sides of many issues of what constitutes the ACTUAL word of God." References please. 28. You said that the Jesus Seminar on the one hand and the hardcore inerrency specialists on the other in a tug of war over the same issues: Who really was Jesus? What is the true messege of Christianity? What is the mind of God as revealed in various holy texts. How can we know what we believe is true. Please cite credible references for what this is all about. 29. You say that, "The matters are not settled matters at all! ... It is a matter that is beset by opinions just as it was in the 3rd Century with blasts of savage hubris on both sides. ... The words are in dispute. The texts cannot prove what they purport to prove because the words and the texts cannot be established. ... We only have the insistence of experts from a certain persuasion who will shake his finger in your face in his classroom and inculcate future theologians with a fixed point of view. ... The battle continues." Please cite some references for this, and expand on what you are taling about. 30. You ask in conclusion, "DID YOU KNOW THIS about the BIBLE?" Some of your statements have some merit, others are wrong or absurd. I fail to see your entire point. Perhaps breaking up your post into shorter parts with source references and a logical flow might help the discussion. I am not saying that you are completely wrong, or lack some good issues, but rather, that your presentation seems rather disjointed historically.
Thanks, Jim W.
