I mean, why 'just' the bible?
I am aware of the apocrypha and other associated works of OT and NT times

at some point, someone - or some group of men (yeah, you can bet it was only men) sat down and said 'we'll keep this bit/book/gospel - but that bit/book/gospel will go in the trash'

If we accept that the bible is 'The Bible' then we must also accept that those men were inspired or guided to get rid of the bits they threw out.... they were correct and the bits throw away were incorrect.

we all used to play that game - assuming that a man (or group of men) were inspired and what they said was Correct.
now, I guess we are all pretty sure that those particular men are not inspired, and are about as correct as a stopped clock.

But some of us still have reverence for a bible which has plainly been chopped, edited, revised and had huge chunks thrown out..........and we look for a **correct** translation of it

Just my thoughts

Agree about the chopping for an agenda idea you presented. Conformity to an ideology or an agenda has been conflated as "inspired" for a long time. When in fact inspiration or being inspired is the complete opposite; it breaks molds and provides better perspectives. It's easy to see in Mormonism.

I find the books that didn't get included more interesting for the reason the content is raw and less worked over.

There are thousands -- no, tens of thousands -- of surviving copies of ancient manuscripts/documents/clay tablets. We can read most of them, and translations into English are readily available. They document thousands of years of human history, myth, hopes, wars, failures, governments, and more. They're interesting, fascinating, sometimes disturbing...but always worth reading.

The "bible" crowd, though, largely ignores all of the ancient documents except for the ones that several groups of men gathered together into one book, nearly always making their choices for inclusion on political, ideological, and emotional reasons -- not on reasons of historical accuracy, or completeness.

In that sense many are no different from mormons: only the "approved scriptures" matter, everything else is to be avoided or ignored.

Yet they miss out on the wonderful tapestry of human history and myth, human discovery and growth, human hatred and violence other than the narrow Hebrew/Greek NT selections.

Such a shame.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> nearly always making their choices for
> inclusion on political, ideological, and emotional
> reasons -- not on reasons of historical accuracy,
> or completeness.

Your evidence for such a sweeping generalization is what exactly? Please cite specific examples in the development of the Biblical canon.

Iosip Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your evidence for such a sweeping generalization
> is what exactly? Please cite specific examples in
> the development of the Biblical canon.

The primary evidence is the collection itself, which isn't historically accurate, and certainly isn't complete (many dozens of "candidate" manuscripts were tossed, and even today different christian "traditions" don't agree on which books should and shouldn't be in the "canon"). So clearly decisions weren't made based on historical accuracy and completeness.

As for politics, ideology, and emotion...the descriptions of the various councils (for the NT) clearly describe all of those used as reasons given for inclusion/exclusion of books. I'm having a hard time seeing why you call it a "sweeping generalization" when the accounts (that survive) of the councils that did the deciding are what I drew from to make my statement...

This site (scroll down past the loud annoying pink stuff at the top) has some good references:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

I love reading. An hour with my Kindle is a nightly ritual.

The Bible? Not interested. Were I stuck on an uninhabited island with nothing else to read, maybe I'd read some of it. But why would I do so when there are hundreds of books I WANT to read that unfortunately will never grace my consciousness before I'm dead.

A few years ago I moved to South America. I'm still woefully ignorant about my adopted continent, and in my attempts to catch up have a pile of books to get through--works by García Márquez, Borges, Vargas Llosa, Allende, Neruda. (At the moment I'm reading Andrea Wulf's biography of Alexander von Humboldt.) Plus, I have a handful of other genres that never fail to fascinate me: world history, science fiction, short stories, Buddhism etc. etc.

The Bible? I doubt it will make the cut before I'm dead.

getbusylivin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Bible? I doubt it will make the cut before I'm
> dead.

Here, gbl, Richard Packham has already done a good work of synopsis for you:

http://packham.n4m.org/bible.htm

It covers all the highlights :)

Taking a glass half full perspective, civilization has had a violent and horrific past until very recently. Look at what the Bible creators had to work with. Maybe they were control freaks with an agenda, but they had real problems to deal with such as baby-smashing hordes. A bear killing children because they laughed at a prophet's bald head was considered tame.

By today's perspective, the Bible is dated. The bloody and violent parts are certainly obsolete. Maybe the Bible has run its course and is ready for retirement. But for its time, I think it was a great achievement.