Anti-Christian historical revisionism in our public institutions?
963515
Too bad we weren't paying attention to this issue 30 years ago.   As some of these answers indicate, the gas is out of the bottle, so to speak.
12285
Yes, I'm a big fan of the 1928 BCP. However, there are no traditional Anglican churches where I live. Only one very liberal Episcopal church. Bleh. I don't currently own my own copy of the 1928 edition though. I have the (dreaded) 1979 version as well as the 1946 version (given to me at my confirmation).
629278
Wait a sec!!!! the last thing Christians want is to actually examine the history of their own Religion
570955
They have huge issues with their religion. That is why for centuries they have killed or forcibly converted those who disagreed. But of course those weren't true Christians, although the resemblance was uncanny...
963034
I believe it is because Christianity is true, and so the devil tries to turn people away from it and hate it. And yes, some "Christians (can we even really call them true Ctristians?" have made mistakes, but no religion or group of people has a clean record. People are people and some make mistakes
621980
Far to often I probly fall prey to these strawmen.  It is sometimes hard to tell the blind faithful apart from the fakes.  To bad there is not some sort of christian detector.\n\nThe worst part is when either the blind or the fakes get into the media.  Then they realy bring down how the world looks at your religion.
795054
Christian bashing has become the liberals perferred past time.  Exactly WHY they have been allowed to get away with it it beyond my comprehension.  You are SO right that if it were ANY other group being treated that way the country would rise up in righteous indignation.\nWe, as Christians, need to rise up and assert our rights, and I am not advocating anything violent.The rights we have lost include  the right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech, and right to assemble.\nI think, in all honesty, it began with Madelyn Murray O'Hare achieving her goal of removing prayer from schools.  That was the beginning of the snowball effect.  From that point, the rights of Christians have slowly been taken away.\nWhy have we allowed this to happen?
470247
:}\nIf it is the same document that existed in the first and second century, it was treated as heresy then and should be now\n\nif it isn't, it's a fake
876536
The biggest mistake made by the founding fathers was to give so much advantage to religion. Any group that has an unfair advantage over other groups will abuse it eventually. Bible Nazis now think it is a violation of their rights if they are denied the opportunity to use the coercive power of the state to shove their god down every ones  throat and are planning to turn the country into a theocratic dictatorship the first chance they get.
559608
You're quite right - and you have to consider how many of these people ahd political agendas of their own to fulfill. If there is any more doubt - how about the fact that the Bible has been editted to include and exclude certain items?
79777
<*>The site you mentioned is from the Church of God.. They have had something of an unusual history.\nI've had little affiliation but you might want to check out this website before getting too involved.\nhttp://www.apologeticsindex.org/w01.html
446861
First, as is obvious from the above comments, people don't read historical documents.  They hear something from a preacher and accept it as true.\n\nSecond, I believe the primary source of the current conspiracy theory on the bible is Chick Publications who do publish actively pamphlets on a Catholic Conspiracy to alter the bible.\n\nThird, in one case a denomination really did edit the bible.  The Jehovah's Witnesses have mistranslated, or from their point of view correctly translated, the bible.\n\nFourth, the Deuterocanonical books are a source of confusion.  Luther removed James, Jude, Revelations, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, parts of Esther and Daniel.  Lutherans put James, Jude and Revelations back after the Ecumenical Council at Trent.  The other books remain out of their canon.  The problem comes with the novel idea of sola scriptura.  Like predestination, it lacks any precedent prior to the 16th century.  It is a purely man made, unscriptural doctrine and goes against all prior Christian thought.  However, if you decide to use sola scriptura as your decision tool, then what makes it into scripture matters at a profoundly different level than in the older forms of Christianity because it alters the role of scripture completely.  This means that if you base your appeal on scripture and someone is using a different set, the charge that "they" edited it comes up pretty easily.\n\nThe process of choosing books was in process long before Constantine and was really triggered by the presbyter Marcion's heretical sect forcing orthodox Christianity to look at the books read during the Mass.  The current list was promulgated by Pope Innocent and Damasus following the local synod at Carthage's work and the synod at Hippo Regius and possibly a synod at Rome as well as prior work by other of the Fathers.\n\nConstantine's role was somewhat practical.  The books were in separate form and most congregations could not afford all the books and there wasn't agreement until the year 405 what books should be in it.  His role was to push for a single set of books and that the church spend to get them.  He returned three centuries of seized property of Christians tried and executed for their faith.  He didn't make Christianity the state religion, but in handing back all that property and making it legal, the effect was about the same.\n\nFinally, until the late 19th century many Protestant translations were quite poor.  A simple example of this comes from the "scriptural" Christmas carol.  The verse, "Peace on Earth, good will toward men," is not in the bible.  It is "Peace on Earth toward men of goodwill."  It wasn't really the translator's fault.  They lacked access to the oldest documents, which were in Catholic and Orthodox hands.  When they were permitted access they began retranslating the bible and found that their bibles often matched Catholic bibles.  This triggered a big response in many Protestant denominations because key verses disappeared.  Some extreme denominations lost their justification for existance.  So, it wasn't really "editing," so much as correcting and improving as the textual record improved.\n\nThat, while a long time ago, is retained in the oral traditions and memories of some modern Protestant groups.\n\nLike evolution, arguments about the trinity are arguments about sola scriptura.  Without sola scriptura, the evolution problem disappears as does the trinitarian problem.  If you take sola scriptura to its logical extreme, you have intelligent design, Christomonism, and bibliolatry.
854644
It's nice that you listed so many of these inaccuracies, lies, and internal contridictions.  That gives us a lot to go on.\n\nActually, the Bible is one of the most accurate historical documents that exists today.
374862
This is one of those standard retorts that drives a stake through the hearts of bleedin' heart christians and their rabid war-mongering associates even.\nIt's a stumper for some, an opportunity for trotting out the prepared church answer for others.\nI am not one of either of these, thank the Dog!
1022221
Well, first off, though they have historical importance, they are not Biblical. They don't claim to be scripture themselves (generally) and often contain doctrinal fallacies.
688556
A little more for you.\n\nDISSECTING CHRISTIANITY'S\nMIND-SNARING SYSTEM\nhttp://www.deism.com/thinksam2.htm\n\nhttp://jamescook.tripod.com/falsewit.html
576441
Hollywood intends to re-write history but one only needs to research for themselves the validity of the claims. For example the quality of the New Testament documents can be validated outside of the Bible through the research of Josephus Flavius, Tacitus, Caesar's Gallic Wars, Herodotus, and Thucydides. In fact there are 5366 documents discovered so far to validate that the Bible we have today is 99.5% as accurate as it was way back then. \n\nInternal evidence is pretty clear as well. 2 Peter 3:15-16 clearly states that the canon was already in the process of being collected for what we have today in the Bible. There were gnostic books but they were not accepted because they were written by Hellenistic writers that intended to change the original message of the Greek translation to imply that Jesus was not the Son of God. \n\nSee the sources below for addition research. \n\nSource(s):\n\n"Exploring the Da Vinci Code"\n"Breaking the Da Vinci Code"\n"Is the New Testament Documents Reliable?"\n"The Gospel Code"\n"Hidden Gospels - How the Search for Jesus Lost the Way"\n\nLast this is a personal favorite of mine...\n\n"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" \n\ngo to any book store and pick them up.