Why do Protestants believe in the Bible (not a troll)

[The diplomat]

The simplest answer is usually the best.

And, the simplest answer is that the Gospels are a faithful account of what the disciples saw and heard, as best as they could remember it.

[FrustratedPoet]

Unfortunately a giant game of chinese-whispers across thousands of years and several different languages is bound to at least partially distort the original message.

[Elok]

Sorry for the late response, I haven't been able to get on Poly for a while:
Again, with the exception of Thomas, which is just nuts according to all that I've heard about it, I don't claim that the left-out Gospels are untrustworthy, just that they are not essential. One of them, for example, says a great deal about the early life of the Virgin Mary(Theotokos is her proper honorific, but I'll leave out my Eastern antagonism for the moment), and tells us most of what we know about her. It just wasn't so important that the elders at Nicea thought they needed it to be laboriously hand-copied onto precious paper for each and every church throughout the ancient world. The book of Revelation almost didn't make it in, because of the high probability that it would be misinterpreted and the fact that even the wisest of them had no solid idea what it was talking about. I can't recall why they included it exactly. Leave the silly bias of the bible as the sum and total of all truth, period, the end, and it makes sense.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by The diplomat
The simplest answer is usually the best.

But the simplest Answer isn´t usualy the correct one.

People believed that Stars are fixed on some kind of hollow Sphere which revolves around earth (hence the Name Fixstars) and that also the Sun and the Planets circle around Earth.
It was the simplest Answer according to their Knowledge and an Answer which fitted well into the Belief, that Earth was something Special which was made by God just to be inhbied by Humns nd l living Beings.
We no know they were wrong.

Schiaparelli believed, that the straight Lines he saw on Mrs through his Telescope are caused by Martians, who invented a complex System of Canali to get water from the Poles to the equatorial Regions of Mars.
We now know, that they were just optical Illusions.

Earlier Biologists believed, that each human Sperm contaimd some kind of Mini-Human, a so called Homunculus, which was transferred into the Female Womb during Ejaculation and there just grew larger, until it was large enough to be born.
Again, we now know that things are much more complex.

Koprnikus believed, that the Planets revolve around Sun in simple Circles. Since Kepler we now, that it is a bit more Complex as the Planets revolve arund Sun in Ellipses, with the Focalpoint being the Sun. And since Enstein we know that it is even more complex, as the Orbits could best be described by fourdimensional Mathematics.

So even if the simplest Answer is, that everyting written in the Gospels (and maybe the Bible) should be considered the absolute truth, there is a good chance, that it an be disproven, as happened to many other simple Answers in History.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
Unfortunately a giant game of chinese-whispers across thousands of years and several different languages is bound to at least partially distort the original message.

Except that it wasn't a "giant game of chinese-whispers".

We have 4,500 Greek manuscripts of all or parts of the text, and 8,000 Latin manuscripts and at least 1,000 other versions into which the original books were translated.

That is a lot of written record to compare and contrast, and make sure we have an accurate translation.

[The diplomat]

The Early Church used 4 rigorous tests to determine which texts were trustworthy and which were not:
1) Was the book written or approved by an Apostle?
2) Were its contents of a spiritual nature?
3) Did it give evidence of being inspired by God?
4) Was it widely received by the churches?

The fact is that the canonical Gospels passed these 4 tests, the gnostic gospels did not!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The diplomat
The Early Church used 4 rigorous tests to determine which texts were trustworthy and which were not:
1) Was the book written or approved by an Apostle?

How could anyone at the councils have known that?

2) Were its contents of a spiritual nature?

All pass this test.

3) Did it give evidence of being inspired by God?

This could go either way.

4) Was it widely received by the churches?

All pass this test again.

You simply accept that these men at the councils were acting out of faith instead of baser human motives. I don't.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Except that it wasn't a "giant game of chinese-whispers".

We have 4,500 Greek manuscripts of all or parts of the text, and 8,000 Latin manuscripts and at least 1,000 other versions into which the original books were translated.

That is a lot of written record to compare and contrast, and make sure we have an accurate translation.

I've seen versions of this argument before. The numbers vary, but the whole argument doesn't stand up.

We now have millions of modern copies of the Bible. As you look further back in time, the number of copies dwindles, eventually reaching zero. The oldest actual Bible that we have dates from several centuries after the events it describes.

The fact that, at some point, X copies existed (choose any value of X you like) signifies nothing. It's not as if we have thousands of independent eyewitness accounts, nor do we have thousands of copies dating from the first few centuries. So what's the point of mentioning how many copies of the four canonical gospels existed several centuries later?

[TCO]

Originally posted by MikeH
Protestantism started off when Henry VIII wanted to get divorced and the pope wouldn't let him, it's just an evolution of Catholicism.

So they didn't reject "The Church" they rejected "A Church".

That's the Anglican church. And there is still hope to bring you back into the Borg. Along with the curly schismatists. The heresy of Luther and Calvin is at a deeper level.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Elok
That's our version of the story. History textbooks are based on the writings of pro-catholic historians.

Damn them! Evil historians.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Olaf HÃ¥rfagre
One thing that puzzles me is why Christian fundies rather advocates "an eye for an eye" than "turn the other cheek". Don't they believe in Jesus? Are they actually Jews in disguise?

This is a thread on scripture choice. Not a pro-anti religion thread. Dumbie.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


You're sort of right. Henry had begun to sympathise with the Lutherans in Germany before he initiated his request to anull his marriage to Catherine. Spiritually he felt that the Roman Catholic Church had strayed and beome corrupt, but he couldn't bring himself to seperate partially because of Catherine's influence and partially because ...well, heck, to an absolute monarch the very idea of rebellion is nearly unthinkable. When he finally did break with the Roman Church he appointed an Archbishop who instituted really modest simple reforms.... the removal of phony relics, the abolition of indulgences, the removal of the screens in front of the sacristy which had been used in churches to seperate the clergy from the people, and the translation of services and the Bible into English.

Not a good interpretation. You leave out a lot. He was "Defender of the Faith" and an ardent Counter-Reformer before changing his tune.

[TCO]

Aren't there some books of the Catholic bible which are bogus according to the Protestants? Apocrypha or something? Just curious. Not a troll. what is the story on these books?

[Heresson]

I remember there are, but don't remember which ones.

[Heresson]

1) Was the book written or approved by an Apostle?[/q]

How could anyone at the councils have known that?

And how do we know that Joseph Conrad wrote what He wrote and no-one else?

3) Did it give evidence of being inspired by God?[/q]

This could go either way.

That is an atheistic approach; going that way, You could ask how come any part of Bible is inspired by God, and any of modern literature isn't

All pass this test again.

If there was no difference in this matter, they wouldn't make this point. Isn't it easy to understand that?

You simply accept that these men at the councils were acting out of faith instead of baser human motives. I don't.

And what human motives would make them think that one version of life of Christ is more probable than the other?