The questioner asked about the KJV of the Bible, how the Bible came to be canonized, what was excluded, included, etc.  My answer was not as well thought out as it should have been.  Researching early Christianity did try my faith, and then some.  Those of limited faith or who are weak and/or new in their faith should be careful, as Gt admonished.  His answer said it all.
213818
THE RESON WHY THE BIBLE BECOME THE CANONIZATION IS IT IS THE BOOK THAT IS THE MASS IN THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE INVISIBLE GOD AND US,COZ.STILL A LOT PEOPLE COULDN'T HEAR GOD'S SOUND NATURALLY,SO GOD NEED TO TALK WITH HIS PEOPLE THROUGH THE BIBLE , SO EACH TIME WE READ THE BIBLE ,ALTHOUGH MANY ROUND IN OUR LIFE,WE COULD HEAR A DIFFERENT ANSWERS INSIDE COZ. GOD TALK WITH US NOT THE SAME ,IT DEPEND TO THE CIRCUMSTANCE.
172279
Wow! That is a very well thought out question. I guess the best way to answer that is to say that you have to go on faith. We all believe differently. Unfortunately we were not there when the authors of the Bible were doing their thing. We can talk to God. But, it is difficult to be sure of his response. If we get one at all. Its all in what you believe.
637831
I think it went much further than Gay.  Much of the old writing were of a vengeful God. One whose name you could not mention.  Jesus freed us from the old testament.  Beside Jesus told us to love your brother, sounds pretty perverted to me.  But also pretty open minded.  His first invite to heaven was a theif wasn't it. If God is good and the Devil is evil both without the other concept in them aren't they equals in some sense. Hell was in the times of the Bible only a burning pit for the evilest of criminals outside the gates of Jerusalem not someplace of eternal damnation
118867
I would take the History Channel's program with a grain of salt (maybe a whole pinch of salt). The short answer to your question is: No, he did not.\n\nCanonization describes the process by which the community of God's people accept certain scriptures as divinely inspired and authoritative. Below is a link to an explanation of that process.\nhttp://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/Topics/Bible/Bible_Canonization.html\n\nThe books of the Bible were not equally accepted by Christians. Some were accepted by all. The veracity of the books was doubted by some. Other books were treated as scripture by some Christians yet rejected by others, and yet other books were rejected by all Christians. Below is a link to an explanative chart.\nhttp://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/Topics/Bible/Bible_Books_Extent.html\n\nHere is a link to a short article about the current Biblical texts, and how they came to be.\nhttp://ohoh.essortment.com/biblechristiani_rfie.htm\n\nHere is a link to site with lots of information about the Bible (not the most thorough, but it's easy to read).\nhttp://www.christiananswers.net/bible/about.html\n\nHere is a link to more thorough article on the Bible's cannonization.\nhttp://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/xn-canon.html
189305
I didn't see the special but this is the only way I could find to contact you and ask you a question. In your question to "unbelievers about the rapture" do you think it is proper to select as a best answer one by a believer? After all the way you Phrased the question you were searching for negative results. I do not mean this hatefully only as "constructive " criticism, if there is such a thing. You can contact me , if you wish , on my 360 page.
451378
I don't think your mind is made up and I don't see this an attack on Christianity. You are perfectly entitled to ask this question and I see it as a serious one - well done, and thumbs up from me. Why are Christians soooooo insecure about their faith that they can't have it questionned? I'm agnostic and the reason for that is that I don't dismiss the idea of God entirely, I just think that too much dependency is on the Bible. But the Bible was written by a Man! and Man has a habit if distorting the Truth, sometimes unintentionally. Think of it this way: The Bible was written ina  different Age and different Language - neither of which we can fully comprehend. Supposing that the translations of the Bible got some words wrong and totally changed the Meaning of it? Think of the consequences - or look around you. Don't forget that doctrines are created by Man and not God ... and doctrines are Power. The Church has had that for a very long time ... but perhaps not for much longer.\n\nThanks for asking the question.
204709
Joshua.  People like you crack me up.  Really!  You argue about biblical-specific entries and events as if they were factual and undeniable.  "written 4000 years ago"  On what?  Notebook paper?  Do you have some copies of those 4000 year old writings?  Do you have some secret text that nobody else has ever seen?  Are you on heroin or acid?  What's your trip?  None of the authors of the NT witnessed the alleged resurrection.  No matter how you stretch it, there are no actual accounts of it.  Most of the NT was created and written in 320AD under the direction of Constantine the Great, and its puirpose was NOT for historic accuracy.  Its purpose was to create a doctrine at the Council of Nicea that all factions of religious doctrine could agree upon and pull everyone together.  Why does it appear that there only a few people that post here regularly who actually know this?  Is your only source of "history" the Bible itself?  Are you crazy enough to use the Bible to prove the Bible?  Talk about illogic!\n\nThe original poster is correct -- if the notion of god portrayed in the bible is accurate, then there is no need for "free will" -- God already knows how things turn out.  He already knows who chooses free will and who doesn't choose free will, how they act, and who the sinners are and who goes to hell.  He already knows the choices people made in the past and what they'll make in the future.  He already knows how things will turn.  Already been there.  Outside of the time line?  Fine, state it however you wish.  It's still the same.  He's all knowing.  He knows how the "souls" will turn out. There's no need for a test on earth.\n\nThe question is not flawed at all.  Your assumption that the Bible is incontrovertible is flawed, and your statements of biblical myths as assertion are ridiculous.  It is one of hundreds of unprovable myths on this whole planet, full of fatal flaws, like the one this question raises.
267020
These claims are just that, claims.  There is no foundation of truth to these claims.  The word canon is closely related "reed."  Our word "cane" comes from the same word.  The idea is a measuring stick.  The idea is that canonical scriptures are those scriptures by which we measure our lives.  Who decides what is canonical?  Whoever is reading it, honestly.  We see that principal in Acts 17:11, when the Bereans were considered most noble because they examined the scriptures (Old Testament here) to see if what Paul said was true.  I do not agree with the Catholic's church of making the books officialy recognized (making acceptance of other books or rejection of any of the 27 a heracy) in the 16th century as a reaction to Martin Luther questioning the authority of the book of James.  \n\nHowever, history tells us that NO OTHER BOOKS have ever been widely accepted as scripture.  It also tells us that EVERY book in the New Testament WAS widely accepted as scripture.  The early church fathers, who wrote between the last part of the first century, and the first part of the second century, collectively quoted almost every single verse in the New Testament in their writtings.  No other books were quoted as scripture by them at all.  \n\nThe Muratorian Fragment is one of the earliests know lists of New Testament books.  Although it is incomplete, it refers to Luke as the "third" Gospel.  This would have been around the same time or before Irenaeus (I don't know the exact date of that fragment, only that it was the second half of the second century).  \n\nAs to your claim that we only have the 4 gospels to have the "slavation shallows...that we merely have to accept Jesus on faith and we are saved..." this is a ridiculous claim.  First of all, the Gospels say very little (although they are not completely silent) about how to be saved.  Mostly we find that in Acts and Paul's letters (Paul's letters are also written before most of the Gospels).  The simplicity of the Good News is found in Paul's writings.  \n\nAlthough I don't know the date of the three gospels you have mentioned, I know that most of the gnostic gospels are usually dated around 200 A.D.  This is reason enough to reject them.  Also, despite recent claims made by The DaVinci Code, the other gospels made Jesus out to be some mystic demi-god that didn't come in the flesh at all.  In fact, the gnostic gospels (the recent gospel of Judas among them), don't have a Jewish veiw of God at all, don't quote the Old Testament, and reject many of the events that fulfilled Old Testament prophesy about Jesus.  Their beliefs come from some Greek and Roman beliefs, and as such should be rejected.\n\nThe decision of what should be canon and what should not still goes on today.  Most of that decision goes on today in the form of Textual Criticism.  However, I believe Christians should still look at the 27 books we have and ask themselves, "Do these belong here?"  I believe we should still read some of the other early Christian writings and ask "Should these be considered scripture?"  I have done much study, and I am convinced that the 27 books in the New Testament are the ones by which I need to live my life.  Questioning what has been passed down, however, is never a bad idea.  Just make sure you don't obsess over it that you WANT to believe something else so badly that you don't remain objective (or that you want TO believe it, for that matter).  \n\nGod bless.\n\nP.S.  The importance of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is found througout the scripture, especially the letters of Paul and the writings of John.
389924
Good point. So what should we do? We should check the facts or information given in the newspaper before we decide whether to believe the contents of the newspaper.\n\nThe same with the present Bible, we should check the facts or information given in the Bible before we decide whether to believe or not the contents of the Bibles.\n\nAs we know there is no dispute that there are many versions of the Bible. There is the New King James version. There is the Catholic Authorized Version. And many more.
331660
"...can it be backed up with scripture?"\n\nCertainly not; it's not Scriptural.  It's a pseudo-religious phrasing of an old conservative attitude.
668120
You make a number of excellent observations, but trying to convince or convert in this type of forum is at best a crap shoot. Jesus related to people on a personal level. When someone is ready to accept the truth under the guidance of the Holy Spirit someone will be there to help them take their first step. If you're not called to save the whole world by all means don't try to do so.
92551
Congrats! I think you may be close to realizing one of the ~mysteries~ hidden from those who try to read Scripture w/o faith. Bless you!
53723
As a Christian and Bible scholar, please believe me when I say that you have this all wrong--I mean you have truly misinterpretated practically everything.  \n\nI think though your points could be easily cleared up though if you were to sit with someone who has studied the Word. \n\nSince there is no way to address all of your questions and issues raised right now in this forum, why don't you go speak to a Jewish Rabbi or Bible Teaching Christian Pastor in your area.  \n\nYou don't want to hold on to misconceptions do you?  \n\nI'm sure you really do want the truth, right?  Good. You seem like someone that enjoys learning.  \n\nWell then if you want to learn the truth, you have an obligation to go and speak with someone educated in the Bible as well as someone that has a personally close relationship with GOD so that you can understand it from a different perspective.  \n\nYou're intelligent, and have obviously given this a lot of thought.  I'm sure you don't want to hold on to perceptions that are wrong right? \n\nSitting with someone one on one and going through each of your issues raise here, I believe that you will come away with a completely different view. You may still feel the same way, but at least you will have more and better information to draw more accurate conclusions.\n\nI can't begin to list the number of errors in your logic, or the number of times in your writings that you leaped to an erroneous assumption in this very short passage you wrote.  But I know that if you seek the truth, you will take the time to go speak to someone in person about your questions.  \n\nYou can even feel free to email me and I will be happy to talk to you more.  \n\nWe can walk through each passage here, and discuss the historical aspects that are recorded as well as what God is talking to us now about each of these passages.\n\nWe can discuss "What is the Mosaic Law", and how does it apply to the lives of God's people today.  We can also discuss spiritual warfare versus physical warfare and how it relates to the questions "Why would God kill innocent children? and order wars?"\n\nI welcome talking to you. I'm a Christian apologist.  We can debate, discuss, search and examine Bible history, teachings, prophesies, and hidden messages all day long, and it will not bother me, nor will I be offended if you don't agree.  \n\nI also welcome hearing about your religious beliefs. Although a devout Christian,  I enjoy studying other religions and beliefs as well.
638937
There are loads of contradictions in the Bible. Maybe if the church let us see all the books of the Bible. Including the stuff they rejected for the final canonical version of the bible we would understand fully the religion.
445756
I had a book, once upon a time, about numerous different translations of the Bible, one of which was the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (I still have copy of the translation though).  It was rated by religion scholars as one of (if not the) worst translations for the very fact that the translators did not have a working knowledge of Hebrew or Greek (by the translators' own admissions, they felt they didn't need it!).  They worked by translating individual words with dictionaries.  It also mentioned that a review of it came out in some scholarly magazine titled "How Not to Translate the Bible."  It has been accused of being very biased towards their religion, and I would have to agree.  Despite their claims, the name "Jehovah" (actually "YHWH", "Jehovah" is an English corruption) does NOT appear in any of the original New Testament manuscripts, although in the NWT, the word "Jehovah" does manage to appear.
592398
I've been told I was upset.  For me it's not being upset, it's having questions.  Since Christians are the majority here it makes no sense for one to ask many questions about other religions as they would just get scrolled over.  Even questions about Christianity that require actual knowledge or thought get scrolled over, so most questions end up being either funny or blatant attacks.  It seems that is the only way to get heard.
516396
Why would the asker lie about his religion? I also noticed a few  people couldn't answer the question referring him to scholars and yet others were offended because he asked.On the day of judgement I suppose the scholars would answer for you.