Jets Insider.com Forums - View Single Post - Constantines involvement in editing the bible

CanadaSteve · 11-20-2007, 09:31 AM

[QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2219229]Of course I did.....hey.....its me.

Mr. Templar Knight was more involved than recorded history suggests.[/QUOTE]

That was my point that led Klecko to this comment:

[QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2205455]I am not trying to bait you here Steve. This answer just feels like a copout to me.

History is history. Sure, certain historical facts can get blurry but not nearly as much as the Bible.

If the Bible were released as a novel today, it would be universally panned by critics as being an over-the-top, overblown epic with literally hundreds of plot holes.[/QUOTE]

This was my point. While I would disagree with his last point, because there are critics that pan the bible today...they are called scholared theologians. But the book still holds up....I don't say this because I am Xian, I say this because it is true. Are there those who critique the bible because they believe it is false...of course. But, their critiques, I don't think, are as valid as those who critique the bible but trust its content.

But yes, we can never fully know "the truth" about how much Constantine was involved. I don't think he had anything to do with the canonization of the bible, but who did? As a graduate student in Divinity, sure I know the history of the bible, and why things were added and left out. Where we run into problems, is this 20th century, evangelical-fundamentalist viewpoint of the bible.

For instance, it is commonly believed that science and theology were at odds once Darwins "Origin of Species" was published in 1859. Yet many scientists and theologians of the time had no issues with reconciling differing views. It wasn't until the 20th century fundamentalism did we see this an issue.

The bible is a valid book. But I do not think it is to be taken literally in its entirety. I think people dismiss it or try and disprove it because they do not like the implications that God exists.

Anywho, check out a book by David N. Livingstone called "Darwin's Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter between evangelical Theolgoy and Evolutionary Thought"...leafing through it as we speak...

11-20-2007, 09:31 AM	#13
CanadaSteve Liked the draft picks....meat and potatoes. All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 6,514	[QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2219229]Of course I did.....hey.....its me. Mr. Templar Knight was more involved than recorded history suggests.[/QUOTE] That was my point that led Klecko to this comment: [QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2205455]I am not trying to bait you here Steve. This answer just feels like a copout to me. History is history. Sure, certain historical facts can get blurry but not nearly as much as the Bible. If the Bible were released as a novel today, it would be universally panned by critics as being an over-the-top, overblown epic with literally hundreds of plot holes.[/QUOTE] This was my point. While I would disagree with his last point, because there are critics that pan the bible today...they are called scholared theologians. But the book still holds up....I don't say this because I am Xian, I say this because it is true. Are there those who critique the bible because they believe it is false...of course. But, their critiques, I don't think, are as valid as those who critique the bible but trust its content. But yes, we can never fully know "the truth" about how much Constantine was involved. I don't think he had anything to do with the canonization of the bible, but who did? As a graduate student in Divinity, sure I know the history of the bible, and why things were added and left out. Where we run into problems, is this 20th century, evangelical-fundamentalist viewpoint of the bible. For instance, it is commonly believed that science and theology were at odds once Darwins "Origin of Species" was published in 1859. Yet many scientists and theologians of the time had no issues with reconciling differing views. It wasn't until the 20th century fundamentalism did we see this an issue. The bible is a valid book. But I do not think it is to be taken literally in its entirety. I think people dismiss it or try and disprove it because they do not like the implications that God exists. Anywho, check out a book by David N. Livingstone called "Darwin's Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter between evangelical Theolgoy and Evolutionary Thought"...leafing through it as we speak...