Gospel Hymn Lyrics- A B C D E F G H I J K L M O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Before the Bible was put together, stories about …
Filed in Category - Gospel Sermons
Comment posted What Did People Do Before Printing Made The Bible Available? by Ms. Swan SFECU.
Before the Bible was put together, stories about Jesus were spread by word of mouth. There was actually a strong Christian community before the Bible was put together.
Before the Printing Press, Bibles were scribed by monastic brothers for wealthy families. It often took years for one to be written, because it was handwritten, and it also had ornate pictures and designs throughout it.
Ms. Swan SFECU also commented
- OK, let me address your statements from a rational Christian fundamentalist point of view (what – you thought none of us were rational?)
1) What did people do before printing made the Bible available?
Well, this is very vague. I guess that what you are striving at is that the bible was copied by hand and, before that, individual “books” (scrolls) of the bible were copied by hand. As for people – only the wealthy could afford to own a hand-copied bible. As generally the wealthy (and clergy, in Christian regions) were also the literate, this was not a bad situation. It is quite likely that, with the rise of more widespread education, bibles were made available to those literate through private and public libraries.
2) Before there was a New Testament and before people had ready access to scripture, they were taught orally by the Church.
Well, they were taught orally by individuals better educated in the doctrines of Christianity. Only if you wish to include the Christians of all early sects as “the church” does your statement ring true. That would include, among others, the Christian Gnostics. I don’t think this is what you intend, so – this is not really an accurate statement.
3) The Church transmitted the deposit of faith orally from generation to generation.
As did several other Christian groups we would not normally call “the church”.
4) The gospel was taught through sermons, through music and through art, but mostly through the liturgy of the mass.
This, on the other hand, is an accurate statement. The church services of the early church of the Roman Empire and the sects that are descended from it are responsible for most of the Christian education that occurred before the advent of the printing press.
5) The mass teaches the gospel better than any other method.
Evidence? This statement, devoid of any support, just sounds silly. It may be true – but you have provided no reason for me to believe so.
6) In the early days, much was done by traveling people like missionaries. Other methods were letters sent on by couriers.
Catholics, who comprise the majority of Christians in the world, believe that it has never changed.
Well, those things haven’t. There *are* still missionaries. There *are* still letters and couriers. There are additional forms of communication today, though, that have not always been available. What is the point of these statements?
7) We believe that our church was founded by Christ and that he is leading it into all truth.
Most Christian sects hold the very same belief – about their own sect.
The point is that while reading the bible is a good thing in itself, you WILL need help understanding what you are reading, as the bible isn’t so much “A” book as a large collection of books of different types.
The conclusion does not follow logically from the premise. Your logic follows this path:
a) the bible is a large collection of different types of books
b) therefore you need help understanding it
This is, quite simply, poor reasoning.
9) The thought that missionaries, preachers, and priests is a far more modern creation or idea spawned by man than they would like you to think.
Missionaries, preachers and priests have all been around for millennia, at the very least.
10) The first article link – page not found
11) The second article link – worked. It was much too long for me to consider reading just to answer this question.
12) Its best to be wary of they who speak of the lack of necessity for “proper teachers”……they speak with a “forked tongue”.
Umm…despite the obvious juvenile nature of this statement, who speaks of the ‘lack of necessity for “proper teachers” ‘? *I* don’t – and I’m a fundamentalist. Or maybe someone thinks that everyone should be wholly self-educated? What kind of loon is supporting such a thing?
13) How could you believe that all you need to believe in God and be saved is believe in the Bible only, if you never even saw one?
Well, people believe strange things. Certainly, some of you less reasonable statements show a willingness to believe things that are unprovable. I believe many things that are unprovable – but I base those beliefs on what I find in the bible, which I accept (without proof) as authoritative in the matters it records.
Also, believing in the bible only directly contradicts what the bible, itself, claims what Christians need to believe.
However, the bible *does* tell us what we **NEED** to believe to be saved. *If* I accept the bible as inerrant in *all* matters of doctrine, and the bible does, indeed, tell us what we **NEED** to believe in order to be saved (belief being just the first step), then by believing those things which the bible says are needful, am I not believing everything that is needful in order for me to be saved?
To put it more simply: if the bible tells me all that is required for salvation, and I follow those requirements, will not God deliver the salvation that the bible promises he will? I only see two possible “outs” here
1) you believe the bible is not doctrinally sound
2) you believe that the bible does not tell us everything that we need to believe to be saved – despite its claims to the contrary, which (again) means that you believe that the bible is not doctrinally sound
Now, to correct some possible misconceptions…
The *point* of Christian Fundamentalism is that the bible is our most accurate and trustworthy collection of the words of God and the teachings of Christ (I use both terms to avoid confusion). In other words, we Fundamentalists believe that the teachings of the bible are more trustworthy than any teaching delivered by any less than completely trustworthy man. There are few, if any, men that can be called “completely trustworthy” from a point of view that is both rational and religious. For example, you may trust the pope – but why should I? What evidence do I have – especially in the light of the “bad popes” of history – that the current pope is completely trustworthy with regard to Christian doctrine? Then, what about the Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox sects, whose sects are descended from the very same early church from which the Roman Catholic Church is descended. Are they, for some reason, less trustworthy individuals than the current pope? How and why?
I think that you can see the *rational* reasons for Christian Fundamentalism. Scripture itself instructs us not to put our trust in man. You may find it unpalatable – but do you have a sound *logical* argument against such a system of belief?
Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/ - Right on, Robert. You’re pointing out Bible History 101. Scripture was found in the churches. It was read to the masses from the pulpit, and even displayed artistically in stained-glass windows, paintings, or other works of art. I read a great book, Where We Got The Bible, by Henry Graham, and he explains everything you’re talking about. People – those who could read – used to tear favorite scriptures, especially Gospel writings, from the church bibles and bring them home so they could have their own piece of scripture. This was before the days of the printing press, when bibles were copied by hand and very expensive to buy.
You touch on the teaching office of the Church, too. Yes, without the Magesterium, there is no foundation for interpretation, and fracturing occurs with the understanding of scripture, which manifests in the thousands of differing Protestant denominations we have today.
God bless. - You kinda answered your own question, but how people could believe, well that has a lot to do with the time they were living in. In the dark ages they used images of hell *** the most used tool to keep people on the straight and narrow. Also for people that had little hope any hope would have been worth clinging on to. There is a lot of power with the church. Before the press they were for the most part the people that were educated, and the people with power and influence. That is a big reason that they were looked up to. And is all else fails there is the tactics if the inquisition. That should be self explanatory.
- You are exactly right. The Church is given the responsibility of preaching and teaching and interpreting the Bible in the light of our sacred tradition. The Bible does not interpret itself, that is impossible. That flawed logic is why there are so many different denominations among the Protestants, Johann Gutenburg printed the first book in bout 1450. That book was the Latin Vulgate Bible. The mistakes that one answer described, has proven false by comparison with old documents that say the same thing as the translations.The myth of a remnant hiding in the hills preserving the scriptures, the protestant abridged version is ludicrous. It never happened. It is a tradition of men that was invented to make it seem their rebellion was right.
- How could you believe that all you need to believe in God and be saved is believe in the Bible only, if you never even saw one? Well, even if you saw one – you wouldn’t believe that! The Bible itself does not teach “believe in the Bible only,” nor does it teach any variant of “sola scriptura.” Those teachings simply are not found within Scripture. The way people learned the Christian faith before the printing press was through the oral teaching of the Church. The Church also provided images and stained glass depicting events from Scripture and lives of Saints so that even those uneducated (which was the majority of the population) could “see” representations of the Faith.
Scott<<<
Recent comments by Ms. Swan SFECU
- Is It Just In The South Or Do Candidates In Other Regions Use Church Hymns In Their Ads?
I live in the North and I’ve never noticed them using Gospel music, - Is It Just In The South Or Do Candidates In Other Regions Use Church Hymns In Their Ads?
don’t hear much of that in minnesota
oh the south….haha. - Is It Just In The South Or Do Candidates In Other Regions Use Church Hymns In Their Ads?
it depends on the venue, but they use it all over the US.
hmm, and here all along I thought “Rocky Loves Emily” - Is It Just In The South Or Do Candidates In Other Regions Use Church Hymns In Their Ads?
Kind of ironic, considering most politicians don’t exactly follow the teachings of the bible, especially during campaigns! - Is It Just In The South Or Do Candidates In Other Regions Use Church Hymns In Their Ads?
Interesting, I am guessing religion sells there.
In my area the only background tunes I hear piped through are sea chanteys and whaling ballads, It’s quite common here, has anyone else notice that in their area?
11 Comments so far
Many people were laborers and couldn’t read or write. That’s why they rang to bells so that the people that were in the fields could know that 12:00 was the time and they usually stopped work and did the Angeli’s.
The stain glass windows were also away for them to understand the Scripture, for they would read the pictures depicted in them. then of course they would get scripture in the church from the homilies. Plus bibles were few and far between because they had to be hand written. which took a long time. God bless you.
Before the printing press, bibles were copied manually, word for word, by copyists who also added their own “footnotes” and comments, or make genuine mistakes, which would then be copied as part of the text by the next generation of copyists. It has changed countless times – everybody knows that. What they don’t know is, what was the original like.
Before the Bible was put together, stories about Jesus were spread by word of mouth. There was actually a strong Christian community before the Bible was put together.
Before the Printing Press, Bibles were scribed by monastic brothers for wealthy families. It often took years for one to be written, because it was handwritten, and it also had ornate pictures and designs throughout it.
Actually, the Bible was written on papyrus and bark, among other things. Before that, on stone.
And that’s the problem with self interpretation of the bible……..
The OT was written on scrolls for thousands of years. The writers of the NT Gospels and Epistles also wrote them on scrolls. For hundreds of years afterwards, the Waldensians and other churches who had to hide out in the mountains for fear of Rome preserved the integrity of the originals by writing every page out by hand, and by memorizing the entire Bible, word-for-word.
One should always allow the Bible to interpret itself. One should ask the Holy Spirit to guide them while studying the Bible, since it is the Holy Spirit who inspired the authors to write it in the first place.
How could you believe that all you need to believe in God and be saved is believe in the Bible only, if you never even saw one? Well, even if you saw one – you wouldn’t believe that! The Bible itself does not teach “believe in the Bible only,” nor does it teach any variant of “sola scriptura.” Those teachings simply are not found within Scripture. The way people learned the Christian faith before the printing press was through the oral teaching of the Church. The Church also provided images and stained glass depicting events from Scripture and lives of Saints so that even those uneducated (which was the majority of the population) could “see” representations of the Faith.
Scott<<<
You are exactly right. The Church is given the responsibility of preaching and teaching and interpreting the Bible in the light of our sacred tradition. The Bible does not interpret itself, that is impossible. That flawed logic is why there are so many different denominations among the Protestants, Johann Gutenburg printed the first book in bout 1450. That book was the Latin Vulgate Bible. The mistakes that one answer described, has proven false by comparison with old documents that say the same thing as the translations.The myth of a remnant hiding in the hills preserving the scriptures, the protestant abridged version is ludicrous. It never happened. It is a tradition of men that was invented to make it seem their rebellion was right.
You kinda answered your own question, but how people could believe, well that has a lot to do with the time they were living in. In the dark ages they used images of hell *** the most used tool to keep people on the straight and narrow. Also for people that had little hope any hope would have been worth clinging on to. There is a lot of power with the church. Before the press they were for the most part the people that were educated, and the people with power and influence. That is a big reason that they were looked up to. And is all else fails there is the tactics if the inquisition. That should be self explanatory.
Right on, Robert. You’re pointing out Bible History 101. Scripture was found in the churches. It was read to the masses from the pulpit, and even displayed artistically in stained-glass windows, paintings, or other works of art. I read a great book, Where We Got The Bible, by Henry Graham, and he explains everything you’re talking about. People – those who could read – used to tear favorite scriptures, especially Gospel writings, from the church bibles and bring them home so they could have their own piece of scripture. This was before the days of the printing press, when bibles were copied by hand and very expensive to buy.
You touch on the teaching office of the Church, too. Yes, without the Magesterium, there is no foundation for interpretation, and fracturing occurs with the understanding of scripture, which manifests in the thousands of differing Protestant denominations we have today.
God bless.
OK, let me address your statements from a rational Christian fundamentalist point of view (what – you thought none of us were rational?)
The point is that while reading the bible is a good thing in itself, you WILL need help understanding what you are reading, as the bible isn’t so much “A” book as a large collection of books of different types.
1) What did people do before printing made the Bible available?
Well, this is very vague. I guess that what you are striving at is that the bible was copied by hand and, before that, individual “books” (scrolls) of the bible were copied by hand. As for people – only the wealthy could afford to own a hand-copied bible. As generally the wealthy (and clergy, in Christian regions) were also the literate, this was not a bad situation. It is quite likely that, with the rise of more widespread education, bibles were made available to those literate through private and public libraries.
2) Before there was a New Testament and before people had ready access to scripture, they were taught orally by the Church.
Well, they were taught orally by individuals better educated in the doctrines of Christianity. Only if you wish to include the Christians of all early sects as “the church” does your statement ring true. That would include, among others, the Christian Gnostics. I don’t think this is what you intend, so – this is not really an accurate statement.
3) The Church transmitted the deposit of faith orally from generation to generation.
As did several other Christian groups we would not normally call “the church”.
4) The gospel was taught through sermons, through music and through art, but mostly through the liturgy of the mass.
This, on the other hand, is an accurate statement. The church services of the early church of the Roman Empire and the sects that are descended from it are responsible for most of the Christian education that occurred before the advent of the printing press.
5) The mass teaches the gospel better than any other method.
Evidence? This statement, devoid of any support, just sounds silly. It may be true – but you have provided no reason for me to believe so.
6) In the early days, much was done by traveling people like missionaries. Other methods were letters sent on by couriers.
Catholics, who comprise the majority of Christians in the world, believe that it has never changed.
Well, those things haven’t. There *are* still missionaries. There *are* still letters and couriers. There are additional forms of communication today, though, that have not always been available. What is the point of these statements?
7) We believe that our church was founded by Christ and that he is leading it into all truth.
Most Christian sects hold the very same belief – about their own sect.
The conclusion does not follow logically from the premise. Your logic follows this path:
a) the bible is a large collection of different types of books
b) therefore you need help understanding it
This is, quite simply, poor reasoning.
9) The thought that missionaries, preachers, and priests is a far more modern creation or idea spawned by man than they would like you to think.
Missionaries, preachers and priests have all been around for millennia, at the very least.
10) The first article link – page not found
11) The second article link – worked. It was much too long for me to consider reading just to answer this question.
12) Its best to be wary of they who speak of the lack of necessity for “proper teachers”……they speak with a “forked tongue”.
Umm…despite the obvious juvenile nature of this statement, who speaks of the ‘lack of necessity for “proper teachers” ‘? *I* don’t – and I’m a fundamentalist. Or maybe someone thinks that everyone should be wholly self-educated? What kind of loon is supporting such a thing?
13) How could you believe that all you need to believe in God and be saved is believe in the Bible only, if you never even saw one?
Well, people believe strange things. Certainly, some of you less reasonable statements show a willingness to believe things that are unprovable. I believe many things that are unprovable – but I base those beliefs on what I find in the bible, which I accept (without proof) as authoritative in the matters it records.
Also, believing in the bible only directly contradicts what the bible, itself, claims what Christians need to believe.
However, the bible *does* tell us what we **NEED** to believe to be saved. *If* I accept the bible as inerrant in *all* matters of doctrine, and the bible does, indeed, tell us what we **NEED** to believe in order to be saved (belief being just the first step), then by believing those things which the bible says are needful, am I not believing everything that is needful in order for me to be saved?
To put it more simply: if the bible tells me all that is required for salvation, and I follow those requirements, will not God deliver the salvation that the bible promises he will? I only see two possible “outs” here
1) you believe the bible is not doctrinally sound
2) you believe that the bible does not tell us everything that we need to believe to be saved – despite its claims to the contrary, which (again) means that you believe that the bible is not doctrinally sound
Now, to correct some possible misconceptions…
The *point* of Christian Fundamentalism is that the bible is our most accurate and trustworthy collection of the words of God and the teachings of Christ (I use both terms to avoid confusion). In other words, we Fundamentalists believe that the teachings of the bible are more trustworthy than any teaching delivered by any less than completely trustworthy man. There are few, if any, men that can be called “completely trustworthy” from a point of view that is both rational and religious. For example, you may trust the pope – but why should I? What evidence do I have – especially in the light of the “bad popes” of history – that the current pope is completely trustworthy with regard to Christian doctrine? Then, what about the Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox sects, whose sects are descended from the very same early church from which the Roman Catholic Church is descended. Are they, for some reason, less trustworthy individuals than the current pope? How and why?
I think that you can see the *rational* reasons for Christian Fundamentalism. Scripture itself instructs us not to put our trust in man. You may find it unpalatable – but do you have a sound *logical* argument against such a system of belief?
Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/