A supreme irony, but some would say they had it coming.

[DanneSandin]

Trunkin said:

DanneSandin said:

I have to admit that my knowledge of the Bible is all that great; I only know bits and pieces, so I can't make a full argument about everything in it. All I can do is look upon certain passages and say "heeey, wait a minute here! THAT doesn't seem very nice!" I don't quite know what Jesus said, so I don't fully understand what parts of the OT is rendered obsolete.

They keep finding parts of the Bible (don't know what they're called, evangelists? Those letters that constitute the NT from Peter and the likes) that DIDN'T make the cut into the book. And it wasn't until sometime around the 300's that Jesus officially was considered the son of god by the church. So there's been quite some cherry picking even before the Early Modern time period, in which the English Bible was written.

I can't say my knowledge of the Bible is all that great either. I've only just recently started doing some research for myself.

There was apparently quite a debate over which writings would make it into the Bible back in the day. I have to agree that quite a bit of clipping was done when the Book was first compiled, which is why I find it extremely hard to accept that the Protestant bible, or even the 73 book Catholic Bible, can possibly contain everything that needs to be known. I don't have access to the earliest manuscripts, though, nor to I have access to someone who could make sense of them for me if I did. -_-

On the topic of Jesus being the son of God, interestingly enough, most modern translations of the Bible that I've read don't have him outright making the claim. He infered it, sure, but never outright said it. Now that I think about it, I don't recall any OT prophets saying that the Christ would be the son of God either. Also, the very meaning of the term is up for debate. 

You're quite right