Preacherman

When people imply that I am lying I generally take that as an attack rather than an argument. If you want to deal with my responses rather than dismiss me, then I will be glad to converse. Otherwise this thread will die and nothing will be accomplished... .

...not that the chances for things being accomplished are ever very good on these forums anyway...

Debdodd

Here is an article about to textual criticism http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm

I know its an evangelical site I usually try to find secular sources that have an anti evangelical bias to back up my position, but I the quote I was looking for I couldn't find on the internet, (probably because if the point that was made was the point of Metzger's article he'd be an evangelical. )

The one argument people tend to make today is why are these the books in the bible, and not really are these accurate representations of what was originally written in these books. Basically, we have a really good idea of what was originally written due to the science of textual criticism.

the question then becomes are these or the words of God and men or men alone, or who wrote the different books, or whether the words are truth. These are other things that still are being debated, but we can be pretty sure that we have something very close to what was originally written.

The argument about what books are included and why is another issue that is currently being debated. I'll just point out that the lost gospels are later in composition and rejected by the Christian Community long before any popes got involved in the process. It just so happened that when Pope Innocent 1 decided to make a formal decree

" when these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."

That's from wikipedia here is the whole article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Develop...estament_canon

In this article notice this heading
The challenge posed by early Christian heresies

"Between 140 and 220, both internal and external forces caused Proto-orthodox Christianity to begin to systematize both its doctrines and its view of revelation. Much of the systemization came about as a defense against the heresies that challenged emerging Proto-Orthodoxy. The early years of this period witnessed the rise of several strong movements of faith deemed heretical by the church in Rome: Marcionism, Gnosticism and Montanism."



It was in this time that of challenge to orthodox chrisitianity that these rival texts began to be written. They contrast with established texts and only after coming to a point of political influence and unity could the church act as a whole to formally finalize what was already commonly understood.

(I would quibble with the point made that the church of Rome declared these movements heretical, the consilidation of power had yet to be established, under the roman church.)