Jefferson on Anti-Tritheism

  Dear Sir, the wishes expressed, in your last favor, that I may continue in life and health until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation of `mon Dieu! jusque à quand'! would make me immortal. I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Dæmonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5. points is not the God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a dæmon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin.

 Indeed I think that every Christian sect gives a great handle to Atheism by their general dogma that, without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a god. Now one sixth of mankind only are supposed to be Christians: the other five sixths then, who do not believe in the Jewish and Christian revelation, are without a knolege of the existance of a god! This gives compleatly a gain de cause to the disciples of Ocellus, Timaeus, Spinosa, Diderot and D'Holbach. The argument which they rest on as triumphant and unanswerable is that, in every hypothesis of Cosmogony you must admit an eternal pre-existance of something; and according to the rule of sound philosophy, you are never to employ two principles to solve a difficulty when one will suffice.
.
[snip some: ie. the argument from design; eg. "It is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design" etc. But actually it is more than possible for the human mind "to perceive and feel" a conviction of chaos, which is the very opposite of design; therefore the whole argument from design is founded on error, misconception, and fallacy.]
.
 So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed thro' all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe. Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable than that of the few in the other hypothesis. Some early Christians indeed have believed in the co-eternal pre-existence of both the Creator and the world, without changing their relation of cause and effect. That this was the opinion of St. Thomas, we are informed by Cardinal Toleto, in these words: [snip Latin quote]
.
 Of the nature of this being we know nothing. Jesus tells us that `God is a spirit' (4John24), but without defining what a spirit is . Down to the 3d. century we know that it was still deemed material; but of a lighter subtler matter than our gross bodies. So says Origen. ... [snip more Latin quotes] ... Tertullian. These two fathers were of the 3d. century. Calvin's character of this supreme being seems chiefly copied from that of the Jews. But the reformation of these blasphemous attributes, and substitution of those more worthy, pure and sublime, seems to have been the chief object of Jesus in his discources to the Jews: and his doctrine of the Cosmogony of the world is very clearly laid down in the 3 first verses of the 1st. chapter of John, in these words:

 Which truly translated means: "in the beginning God existed, and reason (or mind) was with God, and that mind was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were created by it, and without it was made not one thing which was made"
.
 Yet this text, so plainly declaring the doctrine of Jesus that the world was created by the supreme, intelligent being, has been perverted by modern Christians to build up a second person of their tritheism by a mistranslation of the word 'logos'. One of it's legitimate meanings indeed is "a word". But, in that sense, it makes an unmeaning jargon: while the other meaning "reason", equally legitimate, explains rationally the eternal preexistence of God, and his creation of the world. Knowing how incomprehensible it was that "a word", the mere action or articulation of the voice and organs of speech could create a world, they undertake to make of this articulation a second pre-existing being, and ascribe to him, and not to God, the creation of the universe.
.
 The Atheist here plumes himself on the uselessness of such a God, and the simpler hypothesis of a self-existent universe. The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy [theology, which is] absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his [that is, Jesus'] genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
.
 But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors. So much for your quotation of Calvin's `mon dieu! jusqu'a quand' in which, when addressed to the God of Jesus, and our God, I join you cordially, and await his time and will with more readiness than reluctance. May we meet there again, in Congress, with our antient Colleagues, and recieve with them the seal of approbation: "Well done, good and faithful servants!"

/ Topic > Re: A Meeting Of Almost Like-Minds / Forum > TheologyOnLine > Bible Study / Date > 14 Oct 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
] On 12Oct99 Tondaar wrote: <snip the whole darn article yet!>
] P.S. "Some, who think themselves naturally gifted, do not wish to touch either philosophy or logic; nay
] more, they do not wish to learn natural science. They demand bare faith alone, as if they wished,
] without bestowing any care on the vine, straightway to gather clusters from the first. Now the Lord is
] figuratively described as the vine, from which, with pains and the art of husbandry, according to the
] word, the fruit is to be gathered." -- From the 'Stromata' by Clement of Alexandria
.
> On 13Oct99 Fisherman replies: And, that's why the writings of
> "Clement of Alexandria" are outside the canon of Holy Scripture.
.
 Tondaar say: Dear Fisherman, what's that you say? Surely you're not seriously suggesting that Clement was excluded from the canon simply because of his clear perception of the silly and absurd nature of Fundamentalism!? ... No. You know as well as I do that the main criterion used by the fourth century bishops was apostolic authorship (or rather, what they *supposed* was apostolic authorship). Now Clement was many things, but everybody knew darn well that he wasn't a first century apostle; and *that's* why his writings are outside the canon!
.
> He is ranked below the Apocrypha!
.
 Not by this cyber-prophet he ain't! Not by a long shot, mister. On the contrary, I am constantly amazed by this third-century Egyptian-Christian prophet, and am coming to have a new appreciation for the fundamental greatness of the man, as well as for the lasting value of his writings. Look at the way Clement is usually regarded by the world. Most of the time he is presented as merely the teacher and mentor of Origen; and then unfavorably compared with his great student such that he ends up looking like a third rate thinker not worth bothering our silly heads about. I violently object to this procedure! Origen was a giant of a man in every way. Very few can stand up to comparison with him! Not even Augustine, Jerome, and Aquinas can surpass his achievements, or the sheer depth and variety of his thinking and writing. Comparing this unique one with Clement is grossly unfair to the latter. For Clement was an altogether different kind of man.
.
 Let us therefore approach this matter from another angle. Origen was a highly imaginative thinker, both passionate and brilliant, original and unruly in everything he turned his attention to. Yes. But he was also very much a man of his own time. Consequently, most of his extant writings are seriously lacking the same attractiveness and compelling force for post-modern readers that they once had for the Christians of the fourth century. By comparison, Clement seems to be just the opposite. His thinking is always clear and level-headed, and proceeds slowly and steadily toward whatever goal he set himself. He is never bizarre or deliberately outrageous, and consequently his writings are just as fresh and relevant to believers today as they were for his initial audience. He is truly timeless in a way that Origen could never be, and this means that in the long run it is Clement who has proven himself to be the bigger man and the greater thinker! Thus while I would hesitate to recommend Origen to the average believer curious about the early Fathers of the Church, I have no such qualms about recommending Clement.
.
 But, of course, the Fundies will strenuously object to having anyone read St Clement; for they might, as a result, come to form an opinion of the adequacy of Fundamentalism that is not at all in keeping with all the mindless propaganda that is everywhere spread about to the end of preventing Christians from thinking about the Faith in any way, shape, or form! So let us instead put the ignorance and bigotry of Fundamentalism behind us and proceed to sit ourselves at the feet of one of the Faith's greatest and most enduring teachers . . .

P.S. "Wherefore the Saviour, taking the bread, first spake and blessed. Then breaking the bread, He presented it, that we might eat it, according to reason, and that knowing the Scriptures we might walk obediently. And as those whose speech is evil are no better than those whose practice is evil (for calumny is the servant of the sword, and evil-speaking inflicts pain; and from these proceed disasters in life, such being the effects of evil speech); so also those who are given to good speech are near neighbours to those who accomplish good deeds. Accordingly discourse refreshes the soul and entices it to nobleness; and happy is he who has the use of both his hands. Neither, therefore, is he who can act well to be vilified by him who is able to speak well; nor is he who is able to speak well to be disparaged by him who is capable of acting well. But let each do that for which he is naturally fitted." -- From the  Stromata by St Clement of Alexandria; Chapter X: 'To Act Well Of Greater Consequence Than To Speak Well'

/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.pentecostal, alt.religion.christian.ywam, alt.religion.christian.baptist /
/ Topic > Re: The ONE and ONLY TRUE GOD is NOT the god of elder child / Date > 20 October 2011 /
.
] On 18Oct vince garcia attacks Elder(:)Child thusly: <snip> All these crap posts of yours,
] which everyone will recognize the titles of, omit teaching the cross and instead present
] a PHILOSOPHICAL path of salvation,
.
wurm say: Yeah, well, philosophy is about a thousand times better than religion, vince. Especially the gross and absurd religion you promote; which no rational person could embrace, because it is offensive not just to reason, but to morality as well. Any God who demands human sacrifice as payment for sins (real or imaginary) is a God fit only for barbarians and fools. Which category do you fall under, vince?
.
] instead of faith in the atoning death of Christ ...
.
The atoning-death of JC is an INVENTION of Paul's, made to hide the SHAME of death by crucifixion. You, and most other believers, are not so much christians as Paulists. You all believe that Paul's absurd theology is the be-all and end-all of christianity, and nothing could be further from the truth. Take away pauline theology and christianity just *might* begin to make some sense ...
.
] VG: He Denounces all Bibles as biased.
.
And he is perfectly right to do so, as all modern bibles are indeed biased and flawed to excess. Christian bible-makers simply lack the courage and integrity needed to make an edited version of the scriptures that answers to the needs of modern believers. The canonical format is full of lies and errors that deliberately mislead readers. For example, Silvanus is the author of 1Peter, not Peter. Nor is Peter the author of 2Peter. And unless believers get such facts through their thick skulls, nothing will change in the way of improving the New Testament so as to make it more compatible with history and truth.
.
] VG: Mocks/denies denies the Trinity as a '3 headed pagan god'.
.
This too is absolutely true. There is no "trinity" within the pages of the New Testament ... unless ignorant and arrogant believers put it there in the supreme confidance that they know God's thought's better than the inspired authors themselves. Most believers are incapable of making a distinction between what the NT actually says, and what they want it to say. Stupid readers make for stupid believers!
.
] VG: Declares all Christian denominations as harlot daughters of the Catholic Church ...
.
Again, EC is perfectly right to point this out. Most denominations do NOT restrict themselves to the scriptures - not even "bible-believing" fundamentalists and evangelists - but actually embrace the lies of the Romish whore; including the Nicene Creed AND the trinitarian theology. Get with the program, vince, and accept the facts for what they are. You are just as much a son of Rome as any priest or choir-boy. If you wish to do away with all these insane Romish traditions, you can start by renouncing the Romish-LIE of the Trinity!

/ Newsgroups > alt.bible, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.christnet.philosophy /
/ Christian Forums > Theology (Christian Only) > Christian Scriptures > Bibliology & Hermeneutics /
/ was > Why do so many assume that they are qualified to "correct" Bible translations / Date > 8 Feb 2012 / Topic >

> verysincere asks: ... should we be doing more to educate Bible readers in the complexities
> and special skills required for Bible translation?
.
] childofdust answers: I don't know if there’s anything we can do. <snip> So I'm coming to a realization that is
] both frightening and (seems to me) absurd, but is nevertheless true of the vast sum of my experiences: Most
] Christians don't care about scholarship, education, knowledge, and training in literature, linguistics, history,
] and language. Period. It is either useless to their conception of faith or it is only significant insofar as it can
] be raided by their ignorance and forcefully raped into serving whatever purposes they desire (usually theology
] or doctrine). Case in point of the latter: everyone in this forum who has quoted Strongs in their argument. They
] quote Strongs because they have no idea what Hebrew or Greek is or how those languages work, and they have
] no idea about linguistics, but using Strongs, they try to bypass their ignorance and say something profound
] about which they are ultimately clueless. How can you educate those who have dismissed education or
] consider themselves beyond it?
.
wurm say: I think you guys are approaching this problem from the wrong angle. It is not necessary to our Faith that believers turn themselves into bible-scholars. What IS necessary is that believers have access to the best possible versions of the NT. And it is here that the true problem lies; for the responsibility of providing high-quality versions lies entirely with the translators and bible-makers. And it is just these people who refuse to provide christians with the very versions that they so desperately need. Now it's true that greek to english translation has come a long way over the centuries, but translation, in and of itself, can only take us so far. The fact remains that our modern english versions are only *slightly* better than Constantine's fifty great cathedral bibles. This is because today's versions are still slavishly chained to the same canonical-format that was set forth way back in the fourth century.
.
This canonical format was *very* necessary at that time, not only to define what was inspired and acceptable to the churches, but also to put the brakes on the enthusiastic tampering with the texts. That was a very bad habit that had to be stopped, but the canonical format did nothing to address the damage that had already been done prior to Constantine. Unfortunately, the canonical format has now ceased to be beneficial, and has itself become a positive impediment to a proper understanding of the NT documents. It is the bible-makers slavish devotion to the canonical format that prevents them from doing what is now required. Believers today need not just a better translation, but a revised and edited version of the NT that incorporates the results of centuries of biblical scholarship.
.
Let me illustrate my meaning with just one example. One of the most tampered with books in the NT is the Gospel of John, where we find not just copious foreign additions to the original text, but also entire passages that have been displaced from their original positions. So, for example, when reading Jn, in order to preserve the proper sequence, the reader has to jump around: after chapter one jump to 3:22-30, then jump back to 2:1 and continue up to 3:21, and then jump to 3:31 and continue through chapter four, then jump to chapter six, and then back to chapter five, and so on. Of course, scholars of John know all this, and can make allowances for all these irregularities in their study of the gospel, BUT ordinary believers do not have this knowledge, and are often blissfully unaware that Jn is a textual nightmare!
.
It is the translators and bible-makers who have the responsibility of clearing up this mess, and yet they steadfastly refuse to do so. The situation is so bad that I have half a mind to translate the entire gospel myself; not because I am the most qualified to do so (I certainly am not), but simply because no one else will even acknowledge the desperate need for an edited revision of Jn! Believers need a version that has all the passages in the right order, a version that has all the uninspired additions and distorting corruptions removed, all in an effort to make an approach to something resembling what the original autograph must have looked like. Only then can the average bible-reader read the gospel of John with some small hope that they can attain a reliable measure of understanding!
.
As regards the special skills required for Bible translation, I am of the opinion that the most important skill by far is the ability to recognize pure nonsense when you see it. Thus the english versions of the opening verses in Jn are all unanimous in their idiotic assumption that 'word' is the best english equivalent of 'logos', when in fact it is an appallingly BAD translation of what the prophet John means by 'Logos'. What John actually means by the divine- Logos is far better rendered as 'the way of love and reason'. True, this is a little clumsy in english, but it at least has the merit of taking John's theology seriously, whereas 'word' has the corrosive effect of nullifying the prophet's theology by destroying it's very roots.
.
In conclusion, ALL of today's english versions are *grossly* inadequate and *deliberately* distorting through their abdication of any measure of respect for the text. In truth, they value the canonical format MORE than the actual integrity of the texts themselves! Therefore the fault lies not with the uninformed readers of the NT, but with the timid souls who actually make all these low-quality bibles that find their way into the hands and minds of today's christians. They seem to think that they cannot afford to clean up the texts, because no one would buy such versions, owing to the fact that most bible-buyers are silly trinitarians who actually prefer the corrupted texts. These believers do not want any "fixed" versions, and would not buy them even if they were made available to them. Yes, it's a very sad situation for Christianity when the *quality* of the scriptures (and therefore the quality of the Faith itself) is entirely determined by the greed of the bible-makers (and the corresponding stupidity of the majority of believers) ... 

/ Christian Forums > Theology (Christian Only) > Christian Scriptures > Bibliology & Hermeneutics /
/ Date > 10 Feb 2012 / Topic > Re: On the Desperate Need for a Radical Revision /
.
] Unix say: There is one version that does these things that you ask for, with
] Sirach and Mt, do you want to know what version?
.
wurm say: I sure do, Unix! What version, where to find it, AND who did it (and why)! :)
.
] U: If You go to my profile, You can see a link in the Bible Version-section
] to a post where I list the versions I use and the ones I don't. Very insightful!
.
I'm still a newbie here, Unix, although I've been preaching and teaching to the cyber-saints for 14 years now. Don't know why it took me so long to find CF, but this site is obviously better organized than TOL. Anyway, I don't see any such link because I can't even find this Bible Version-section that you claim is on your profile page. Obviously I'm doing something wrong, but all of the links and things that you gave in your previous post are for some reason not visible to my browser (IE9).
.
] U: And thanks for the help with how to read Jn. That's appreciated. I've just
] placed an order on a commentary on Jn and got it home some weeks ago, so
] I don't feel like buying another commentary on Jn. I'm still to review that
] commentary, let's see if it has instructions on in which order to read the
] verses and chapters of Jn!
.
If it doesn't make mention of such things, then it's not at all a worthy commentary! :)
.
> wurm previously say: The situation is so bad that I have half a mind to
> translate the entire gospel myself; not because I am the most qualified
> to do so (I certainly am not), but simply because no one else will even
> acknowledge the desperate need for an edited revision of Jn!
.
] Unix say: Don't You feel that some verses where there's been a lot
] of debate, should be settled?
.
Yeah, that would be great, Unix, but if we wait for a consensus regarding *all* the many important debatable verses, then we'll have to wait until kingdom-come before we can proceed. No, believers can't afford to wait for all the many scribes and many bible-scholars and many MANY theologians to make up their silly minds. We need a radical revision, and we need it now!
.
] U: I get a good feeling from reading the Jerusalem Bible.
.
I used to own one of those big and beautiful monsters. I've always felt that Cats have a much better handle on the ART of making bibles than the protestants have. I'm not talking about the translation per se, but rather the overall presentation of the scriptures in book form. For example, the NASB takes the concept of textual and "canonical purity" to gross and unhealthy extremes. As a result the text is so darn *ugly* that it almost makes me want to vomit. Could there be any other sacred text anywhere that is less reader-friendly? And why do they deliberately choose the ugliest font in the entire world? ... Oh yes, an ecumenical and co-operative approach to bible-making makes for an *almost* acceptable translation, to be sure, but is including explanatory theological and textual exposition beyond the capacity of these committed bible-makers? How does that work anyway? ... Oh, right. They made a deliberate decision NOT to include notes! Right, except that they do include *some* notes; such as the one at John 10:29 > "1. One early ms reads What My Father has given Me is greater than all". So why do they stop there? Everybody knows that John's Gospel is the most worked-over document in the NT. Really, there is no longer any excuse for bible-makers NOT to indicate the more obvious textual variations and corruptions!
.
] U: Now both you and childofdust have argued that it's not free from big
] errors, but I still say that it is!
.
childofdust is right, Unix. The JB and the NJB are *devotional* bibles deliberately designed to be 'feel-good' versions; AND they are not meant for serious scholarly study. To use them that way is to invite error, confusion, and misunderstanding.
.
] U: You are right about that the Bible translators are often overly cautious
] (not Your expression, mine) but if you look at the version that has the
] radically corrected Sirach, You notice quickly that the translator didn't
] get it right despite the sincere effort.
.
It's a tough nut to crack, to be sure, but I'm glad to hear that some small
effort is being made to move the text in the right direction.
.
] U: How many books of the Bible, just approximately, do you feel need a
] re-arranging of the content?
.
Well, most of the early letters of Paul have been stitched together to form the epistles as we now have them. For example, 1&2Thes are composed of four separate and distinct letters. Beyond Paul, most of the documents are more or less okay as regards internal arrangement; although (as regards external arrangement) I would much rather see a more chronological arrangement of the 26 books (rem that Lk-Acts is ONE book). Jn is of course the biggest problem as regards additions, adjustments, and misplaced blocks of text.
.
] U: You only said that Jn is in need to be radically corrected. But You talked in
] length about the harmfulness (my expression, not Yours) of the canonical Bible.
.
Oh yes, the harm is general and pervasive, takes on many forms; and includes things like making two books out of Luke's one book in two parts, false and misleading titles (such as 1Peter, which hides the fact that Silvanus is the true author), and (of course) all the added words and verses that distort the original text, and words that have been "adjusted" (for example 'divine' changed to 'god' in Jn1:1) to the end of making the text conform with the popular theologies of the day, and so on and so forth. The problem, in short, is *massive* indeed!
.
] U: I want to have a friend in Stockholm that is interested in the
] same way as me, in the Bible and Catholicism.
.
I can't help you there, alas. I was born into the Cat-church, Unix, and I remained a Cat up until about 14 years ago when I gradually lost interest in all things Catholic ...
.
] U: Do You live in Stockholm?
.
No indeed. I'm only a mere Albertan.
.
] U: And if you have an opinion about the verse 1 Jn 2:5 about which
] translation would be best, post in:
.
I didn't get that part about where to post, so I'll just give the best translation here and now:
.
Prophet Version say: "But whoever keeps the way of love and reason, in this one the love of the god has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in him: the one claiming to abide in him ought himself to so walk as that one walked." -- 1Jn.2:5-6
.
] U: cybrwurm, it's nice to hear another point of view about the
] gospels, than Q-hypothesi
.
Ah, well, we'll see how long you continue to think so. Once you become more familiar with my teachings on the scriptures, you may be inclined to revise your opinion on how "nice" my views are. :D  btw: I utterly despise Q and everything about it. It strikes me as pure nonsense from beginning to end.
.
> wurm: Now it's true that greek to english translation has come
> a long way over the centuries
.
] Unix: So ARE You saying that a consensus has already been formed?
.
Oh no, I certainly couldn't say that! :)
.
] U: When I spoke about the Jerusalem Bible, I meant that it has a good text in so far as that what You need is there,
.
Well now that all depends on what you mean exactly by "what you need"! I would have to say that the JB does not have what you need, simply because it does NOT accurately and faithfully reproduce what the inspired author of the third gospel actually wrote in the original autograph. For me, this is the ONLY yardstick by which we can and should judge the true value of ANY version of the greek-scriptures.
.
] then find in a commentary another sequance in which to read! Do markings
] in Your Bible and fasten small Post-it color indexes in the margins.
.
But all this is utterly ridiculous, Unix! There is no need to make such absurd demands upon the Reader ... unless you are deliberately setting out to place road-blocks between the text and the reader. And why would you want to do that (unless you do not want believers to truly understand the sacred scriptures)? And why would anyone want to do that (unless you had something to hide)? Do you *really* want the people to be exposed to the truth or not? These are the questions that believers should be sending to the translators and bible-makers and all those "wise" scribes and pharisees who are so proud to teach the Faith from out of the Word of God!
.
] U: At the same time it may even improve memorization or be more fun
] like that. The exact arrangement of the text doesn't need to be a continuous
] problem, but it's true that the some re-arrangement would be necessary for
] removing some of the distortion of what the Bible says. The texts sure have
] been tampered with, but we ARE talking about the Scriptures,
.
That's exactly the core point, Unix. If christians *claim* to love and honor the scriptures, then why do believers continue to treat the NT-texts with such abounding disdain and disrespect? "By their fruits you shall know them," sayeth the Lord. The bible-makers treat the canonical-format with the utmost reverance and honor, and then turn around and treat the *integrity* of the texts with infinite contempt! What does that tell you about our "new" and "modern" english versions? What does that tell you about all those who make these versions and/or approve of them? Shall we believe them when they claim to love the Word? ... As for me, their obvious contempt for the texts outweighs their empty claims to devotion.
.
] they contain the salvation plan, so how could it be newer?
.
Ask rather: How could the texts be made to shine with the brilliant light of the author's original inspiration? How can the message that the inspired author intended to reveal (through the words that he actually wrote) be made more clear? More clean? More transparent? Even to the most silly and ignorant of believers? Such that the truth can no longer be hidden or denied?
.
] U: After thousands of years we do have accumulated textual problems.
.
Oy vey! :(
.
] U: One Bible which has a bit of re-arranging regarding the pericope
] adulterae, is the REB. Admittedly, that's not a lot of re-arranging. Just
] how few versions even does that, shows how rare radical correcting is.
.
I wouldn't even call it 'radical' at all; those kind of changes are merely an
obvious necessity demanded by simple honesty and basic common sense.
.
- the almost semi-arranged one ~ cybrwurm ;>
.
P.S.  "The plan of salvation for the present age of uncertainty would seem to
suggest that the entire fields of christian theology and biblical studies are in
dire need of a major colonoscopy and many repeated enemas." -- textman ;>

/ Christian Forums > Theology (Christian Only) > Christian Scriptures > Bibliology & Hermeneutics /
/ Date > 11 Feb 2012 / Topic > Re: On the Desperate Need for a Radical Revision /
.
] Unix say: The cheapest and newest copy of the Jerusalem Bible with notes and
] introductions, printed in mid '70s, does just that. It's called Bible in order: all
] the writings which make up the Bible in their chronological order. with
] introductions and notes, by Rhymer J
.
You own a copy of this? You have easy and immediate access to this "Bible in Order"?
You can describe its measurements? Hard cover or soft cover? How many total pages?
What is the quality of the paper like? What is the quality of the font? Of the translation?
It's a not a new version, but rather the NJB re-arranged? mid-70s you say? ...
Dude, we art totally confused!
Please give us the chronological order of the NT documents according to Rhymer!?!?

*

textman
*