Warning: session_start() [function.session-start]: Cannot send session cookie - headers already sent by (output started at /home/question/public_html/index.php:1) in /home/question/public_html/index.php on line 2

Warning: session_start() [function.session-start]: Cannot send session cache limiter - headers already sent (output started at /home/question/public_html/index.php:1) in /home/question/public_html/index.php on line 2
Questionville.com - Society & Culture - Religion & Spirituality - Why does the church not teach how the bible came to be
Top Answers


Please try not to post duplicate answers... if you see an answer that you want to post, just add a vote to it and you can add a note as well. Thank You
3

4
I hope this helps
Submitted By: Abs ( 159 days, 9 hours, 31 minutes ago )
I have done a study on this so I hope that is enough credentials for me to explain it here. After Jesus died, nobody thought about writing about Jesus for some years. Later they realized that the gospel was getting watered down since they didnt have a written document about it. So the four gospels got written. Mark being the first and John the last. After that Paul and other wrote a bunch of letters to other churches and to other evangelists. These are the letters you see towards the end of the bible. But the bible was not compiled until 356AD or so. The church of those days sat down and compiled the books of the bible. There is more to this story. Please let me know if you want more, I will answer again.
Submitted By: cable22
You got my attention. Please go on. :)
Submitted By: Abs
We did not have an english bible till the 17th century. King James asked Erasmus to lead a team for writing the bible. Erasmus used 6 trascriptions of the bible to come out with the KJV bible. Let me explain transcriptions. When Paul wrote a letter to a church, they reproduced it and sent to other places. Hence there were many transcriptions made one after the other and errors got added on. All the other bible translations were written in the last century... they used around 2000 transcriptions and came out with the most accurate bibles. I personally believe that NASB and ESV are the most accurate bibles. Comparing this bible with the catholic bible, catholic bible has some extra books which are called apocryphal. They have been added on at a later time which is in total contradiction with the bible as the bible says "do not add any books to the bible". By the way, I am southern baptist too.... I hope this helps. Please email me at abhinavkaiser@gmail.com if you have further questions.
Submitted By: cable22
It definitely concerns me we would have to choose a "most accurate" version seeing as how this book is deemed to be the written word of God. Most accurate, as to say this is the version with the least amount of errors. I still would like an explanation why books today can not be deemed the work of God. And if there is a difference between works then and now, what is it? It seems to me as times change, updates, just like anything else, would need to be made.
3

0
Control vs Understanding
Submitted By: ( 159 days, , 46 minutes ago )
I actually have two answers, and I believe that the degree to which one is valid, the other is also proportionaly valid to a lesser degree. That is, both answers together provide an explanation. Also, I must take exception with the notion that the 'church won't education Christians', because a great many do. In fact, the cornerstone of most Charismatic non-denominational churches is biblical education. And really kick-ass music. The first answer, being somewhat cynical, is that the Bible is a means of control, and by spreading knowledge of the origins of the Bible, it could encourage a questioning of that control mechanism. Now I don't want this to sound like Christians are all sheeple, or that clergy are using the teachings found in the Holy Bible to excercise power, even if that does sometimes occur. Rather, it makes for a more orderly congregation when people simply accept what they are told, and do not question it. However, that is not universally true. I have attended Bible Study sessions where we were actively encouraged to question and explore doubts about our faith in the belief that people will eventually come to a stronger faith through understanding than through blind obedience. Both with congregations whose faith is based on acceptance, and congregations whose faith is based on enlightenment, there is a second issue entropy of knowledge. That is, as knowledge is passed down, trivial bits are lost. Even if the nature of the knowledge itself is not changed, the loss of extraneous information can lead to a vacuum of understanding. For congregations which tend to promote its elders from within, this can lead to a less enlightened leadership. That is why most congregations tend to associate with other churches of the same denomination through professional organizations, so that knowledge and even expertise can be exchanged.
2

0
depends on the church?
Submitted By: toekneebullard ( 159 days, 9 hours, 50 minutes ago )
I was educated on the origins of the Bible when I was younger. I think protestants are often afraid to admit they get their Bible from the Catholic Church (I'm not Catholic) and so they don't talk about it. Perhaps you should encourage your pastor do do a series on the origins of the Bible.
2

0
The real question
Submitted By: mrhaines ( 159 days, 7 hours, 39 minutes ago )
I could explain how the bible came into being, however there are many good books on this (just pick up any church history textbook) however, I think it more prudent to answer your real question...why is this not taught in church. There is no really good answer other than people aren't doing what they should. I heard a story once how a guy started attending a church and was frustrated at how people did not pray for their community. He complained to the pastor and expressed his anger. The pastor said "The reason you are upset about this is because you have had that burden placed on your heart by God. It is up to you to respond." The man then started a prayer group for his city. The moral is...wee are all part of the Body of Christ and all have different burdens placed on our hearts. If you feel the church needs to be educating people on the origins of the bible (not that certain churches do not !!) then perhaps you should read some books on the origins, and then be the educator yourself. I think we are often too comfortable with someone else spoonfeeding our religion to us that we do not step out and take matters into our own hands. I hope this helps a little, and all the best in your spiritual journey.
2

0
Multiple Translations, but which one to use.
Submitted By: ( 158 days, 23 hours, 42 minutes ago )
The word Bible means collection of Books(Grk Biblia). Order of books in the Old Testament in present compilations is grouped as follows: Books of the Law Historical Books Poetical Books Books of the Prophet. Originally written in Hebrew most modern translations come from an early Greek translation known as the Septuagint. The New Testament Books are grouped as follows: Historical (Gospels and Acts) Didactic (Epistles) and Prophetic (Reveleations). Almost all New Testament texts were originally written in Greek. The order of the books is not chronological but topical in most circumstances. As mentioned in other posts compilations of all these texts didn't occur until some significant time had passed since the death of Christ and his Apostles. Committees and Organizations chose which books were authentic texts or important. Early translations into Latin were done by the Catholic Church (ie Italic Version and Vulgate). Most of the texts were preserved by the Catholic Church also. Other translations did not appear until men such as Wycliff, Tynsdale, and King James saw a need for the text to be in native languages. The period of reformation and protest had begun. Others also questioned the Catholic Church's authority and practices. But many of the texts used for these translations were preserved by the Catholic Church. These men having no more authority than the Catholic Church repeated history by forming committees to decide what is the most correct translation. Leaving us today to wonder what portions of the Bible came from God and what portions came from man and his translations. Many individuals try to reproduce what is closest to the orignal texts as is evident by the multiple translations. But man cannot deduce this through committees and scholarly research, so we are left to either wait for God to tell what is His original Words or for God to send apostles and prophets to teach us and clarify the Bible texts as he did in days of old.
1

0
It would put into question it's legitimacy
Submitted By: ironstar ( 159 days, 9 hours, 21 minutes ago )
The Bible (both the new and old testaments) is a collection of works from various authors, including committees. And it's common knowledge that when a committee writes something, it will be a balance of info to appease the whole group and not necessarily right or factual. Likewise, especially in the new testament, there was much political and religious fighting about what should and should not be included from the collected writtings and tales of their religious ancestors. Thus you have the dead sea scrolls, the schisms with the russian and eastern orthodox churches, and many other problems.
1

0
I thought it did
Submitted By: right.h.man ( 157 days, 1 hour, 32 minutes ago )

Billy Graham has actually talked of the books that were not included and why I'm pretty sure. Because hes expressed displeasure with some of the newer interpretations of the scriptures.

I'm not a Christian but I have studied the Bible a little bit and in doing so it covers the the reasons why some books were not included extensively.

 

I will jump to the conclusion that the Church you speak of is somewhat new? Perhaps they like to focus on other parts.

 

You shouldn't generalize in religion and culture. There are many Churches and the people who are members of them are not all the same either. 

0

0
Easy Answer
Submitted By: jkdrum ( 159 days, 9 hours, 26 minutes ago )
The easy answer is because the bible exists because of the Catholic Church. It was Church and the Bishops who decided what books were authentic from the apostles. This was determined through Catholic Tradition and Beliefs. This is typically not taught in protestant circles because of obvious reasons.
0

3
Because it is inerrant.
Submitted By: wil9000 ( 159 days, 9 hours, 3 minutes ago )
As Steven Colbert says: "The Bible is inerrant. Why? Because it says so, Right There In The Bible." This type of circular logic is the engine that keeps all religion going. We are the one true church, and god loves us best, because our church says so. For this billions have died, all over the world. Sheesh.
Submitted By: I wish I knew
Not all religion relies on such circular logic. http://bahai.org the Koran and Christian et. al. have works which claim it must be of intimate understanding and not blind optomism/faith. From the Baha'i if I recall, Religion without science is superstition, Science without religion is rampant materialism.
Submitted By: wil9000
I was expecting the Baha'i response. I have studied it, and while it is more accepting than many faiths, it does treat it's version of truth as the highest one, above all others. Sadly typical.
Submitted By: I wish I knew
I try to be Baha'i and this has frustrated me as well, but neither did I believe in Jesus for the inquisitors, or any Prophet because of their followers. The Baha'i writings state plainly if people got what they deserved (and not mercy) not a moving thing would be left, I do not exempt myself from that with full knowing. So I try to remember to regard all for the well being they can have rather than what their deeds/words deserve. "I desire mercy not sacrifice" Hosea 6:6 from bible, which Jesus later quotes. "If you have known what [that] mean you would not have condemed the innocent."
0

2
from a catholic's perspective
Submitted By: dougmwne ( 159 days, 3 hours, 21 minutes ago )
i'm currettly taking confirmation classes though the catholic church and i feel that i've had a relitivly good crash corurse in the history of the christianity and of judiasm. of course i'm no scripture scholar, but i do think i have a reasonably good feel for how most of the religion came together. i'm not sure why some other denominations don't have the same education programs in place. if anything, knowing the history of god's interaction with humanity has only strengthened my faith.
Submitted By: Abs
how do you know that other denominations don't have seminaries? Other denominations do better by providing the truth...
Submitted By: dougmwne
what?? uh well yeah i'm sure lots of denominations have excellent seminary and education programs, but the origional question was dealing with why some don't. to be honest i don't know of any specific church that doesn't teach any history, but admitidly i don't have alot of experience. i'm not saying you need to understand 3000 years of history to be a good christian, but i think it does help to be aware of where everything came from.
0

0
A couple of resources to answer your questions
Submitted By: Anonymous.Lion ( 116 days, 1 hour, 42 minutes ago )
  • When God Was a Woman - Merlin Stone - Book - Excellent study of the artifacts of the transition period from 'pagan' religions to the Judeo-Christian religions ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/015696158X/sr=8-1/qid=1147904523/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5664251-3545664?_encoding=UTF8 ) 
  • The God Who Wasn't There - Brian Flemiing - DVD - Documentary of Fleming's quest for answers to questions just like yours. ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000CAPZBC/qid=1147904822/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5664251-3545664?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=130 )