Superiority of the 'Protestant Canon'?

Then that is Europe's loss.But it is also unrelated to the question under discussion it seems.

quote:

---

I am mostly talking about the "i read the bible all by myself and now I am going to create my own faith" christians. I think "most" evangelical protestants fall into this category (Baptists, Pentacostals, 7th day adventist); aka the American Christians. you know the sort of crazy that isn't-allowed-in-Europe-Christians.

---

I never understood why a so called "professional" church guy had any more of a mind to understand scripture than a layman.And while I agree that some can read what they want into scripture, this goes for churches as well as individuals.Finally, it is my belief that if one searches for truth with a sincere heart, truth will find them. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

you are very wierd.1st you quote me on the silliest of semantics because you obviously think in absolutes, and because not ALL protestants.:: Roll Eyes:: then you quote me to tell me that i am off topic (from your POV). why would you even respond at all? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

gee i don't know, maybe because it wasn't one guy. Maybe because its an apostolic tradition, you know started by 12 guys who followed Jesus around. because it predates the bible by almost 400 years. Maybe because it doesn't get its legitamacy from a book that was translated into German or English in the 16th century. Maybe because it realizes that the bible is only part of the answer. Maybe because it predates the whole idea of "denominations". Maybe you are just missing the point.I dunno it could be a lot of reasons now that I think about it. hmmm less so with groups. I prefer stuff that is peer reviewed by a larger audience of aherents so that the idea can be discussed, and challeged, and even refuted, rather than one german guy who created a "faith" after reading one book in german in the 16th century, but that is me. well...good luck with that. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Rule #2: Stay on topic
Rule #10: Argue the position and not the person.Stick to revealing the errors or omissions in your opponents facts or logic.This isn't a chat page. Please debate and move the discussion forward.Stick to the topic. Reread Message 1 for a refresher.Please do not reply to this message.Thanks
AdminPD

no. let me break it down againI was commenting on a fellow catholic (catholic scientist) and his amusing observation on a protestant poster who seems to not know what he/she thinks he/she knows. Which is a common thread here amongst the pro-creationist Christians (amusingly also protestant). And this very strange poster chimes in with the most junior-high school semantic response of not ALL protestants.So like a fool I respond to the "juvenile semantics guy" (I should know better by now), and explain which protestants I think fit into this category that I and Catholic Scientist where amused by, and I said that Lutherans and Anglicans are not in this group. Not that they are not protestants (because they are the original ones), but that they are not sort I was referring to. For instance I know quite a few Lutherans, and I don’t think any of them are creationists, I also know a decent number of Baptists and I don’t know any of them who aren’t creationists. So when I say those crazy Christians who believe in creationism, I am not talking about the Christians who know creationism is bullshit (like the Lutherans).Does this make sense or is it more confusing? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

For what its worth; when I think "protestants", I don't really include the Lutherans in that imagery either (they're more like Catholic-Lights). I did go back and edit my post to qualify it as Evangelical Protestants, which I think the Lutherans could be discounted from, because when I reread it as just protestants, it did seem a little overreaching and this is the internet... where grammer and semantic nazis reign supreme. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Here is your original statement My point is that your surprise when somebody does not know that Protestant in the statement above does not include Lutherans is misplaced. The above statement looks to me like an inside joke between Catholics. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Though completely unscientific it would an interesting exercise to take a quote from the bible, and using babelfish or google translate translate the quote through 4 or 5 languages and then back to english. I would imagine it lose most if not all its initial meaning.My guess is that if their ever was an original "version" it bears little resemblance (at least in context) to the english versions of today. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Welcome home. Pull up a stump and set a spell.While that's true it also is irrelevant to the topic since what is questioned here is NOT the contents of the stories but rather the list of what should be included.

What would be the original version of the Bible? Although individual chapters may be old, the Bible as a collection is not as old as some of those Books. I suspect that some parts of the Bible, for example, the letters attributed to Paul, are likely to be accurate renditions of the originals.But for other books of the Bible, it may be difficult to define what would constitute an original version. For example, Genesis describes events are alleged to have happened long before anyone wrote them down. Whoever wrote down the version from whom the Book of Genesis descends does not claim to have interviewed any eyewitnesses. So is the original version related to the oral tradition, or to one particular account put into writing? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

That really varies.For example there are at least two different traditions of the flood myths just smushed together with no attempt to make redaction, and it's likely that many parts such as Joshua and Judges are two different traditions but describing similar periods. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Not on-topic.But everyone who has done any translating knows that every act of translation is an act of interpretation. Of fallible human interpretation. You read the original, try to understand what it's saying, and then try to think of a way to express the same thing in the target language. Through fallible human interpretation.One of my major problems with biblical literalism is that I just cannot bring myself to believe in human infallibility.But the real topic here is what that "original" source is. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

As far as I am aware most modern Bible translations have only gone through a single translation, so multiple translations through an automated system (which will not do as well as a good human translator) will greatly exaggerate the problem. That isn't to say that the translations are perfect and sometimes it is a good idea to compare multiple translations to get a better understanding - but generally translations should be mostly correct (although we should certainly be very, very cautious about trying to dig big meanings out of little details, and I can remember some arguments here that made that mistake)The problems with the Bible (excepting dubious micro-analyses) are more likely to be from errors in the original texts and corruption over time (everything from copyists mistakes to major additions - as in the case of Isaiah). Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

A single translation from what, though? From the Vulgate, itself a translation from some not-clearly identified Hebrew source with the help of some Greek commentary? Or from the Septuagint, translated possibly more than once from an unclear source? Or from the Masoretic text, claimed to be the 'original' version but actually more recent than either the Vulgate or the Septuagint and containing parts that may have been translated from Greek?