Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Age of the Earth

2015-05-17T21:08:10Z

Sorry8roNoHetero:

[[File:Blue Marble.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|The historical and scientific evidence strongly indicates that the [[earth]] is approximately 4.54 billion years old.<ref>
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe]
*[http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?]
*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A]
*[http://creation.com/jesus-age-earth Jesus on the age of the earth]</ref>]]
''See also [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]].''

The '''Age of the Earth''' has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. All verifiable evidence indicates that the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old. Yet with circular reasoning and implausible assumptions, some conservatives insist that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years.<ref>[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe]</ref><ref>[http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?]</ref><ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml polling]</ref>

Young Earth advocates rely on one flawed assumption to the exclusion of other evidence, similar to how an investigator may mistakenly rely on one faulty eyewitness's opinion to the exclusion of all else. In fact, eyewitness testimony is proven to be less reliable to than other indicators, just as the assumption by Young Earth proponents that the Bible is correct is flawed.

Much scientific evidence points to a [[young earth creationism|young age]] of the earth and the universe and the biblical creation organization [[Creation Ministries International]] published articles entitled ''[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe]'' and [http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] which summarize some of the evidence for a young age of the earth.

== Historical views ==
[[Image:Landscape.jpg|right|300px]]
=== Widespread Historical Acceptance of Biblical Account ===
For most of recorded history humans of many backgrounds, such as St. Barnabas and St. Irenæus,<ref>Burnet, p. 259.</ref> viewed the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years.<ref>Burnet, p. 258.</ref>

Saint [[Cyril]], who came into Great Moravia (present day [[Slovakia]] and Moravia in [[Czech Republic]]) from [[Byzantine Empire]] in 863 [[AD]] as Christian [[missionary]], wrote in his poem ''Proglas'',<ref>{{cite web
|title=Proglas
|publisher=sme.sk
|url=http://zlatyfond.sme.sk/dielo/93/Filozof_Proglas
|language=Slovak
|access date=05.05.2012
|quote=The parchment version of Proglas in Cyrillic from 13th century was discovered in 1858 by Russian Slavic scholar Hilferding}}</ref> dedicated to his works on translation of the four [[Bible|biblical]] [[Gospel]]s to Slavonic language, the following sentence that brings testimony about the perception of the age of the world that time:
{| class="wikitable"
| rowspan="4" |{{cquote|To the holy Gospels I am the Foreword: for as it was promised by the prophets long ago, Christ comes to gather the nations, for He sheds light on the world entire. That is what has happened ''in our '''seventh''' millennium.''}}
!''The seventh millennium'' since the [[Creation]] was calculated as follows:
|-
| '''5 508''' years that had passed since the Creation till [[Jesus Christ]]’s birth plus
|-
| '''863''' (the year when Constantine and Methodius had come to Moravia)
|-
|results in figure of '''6 371'''.<ref>{{cite web|title=Proglas, the foreword to the Old Church Slavonic translation of the four Gospels|publisher=The Centre for Information on Literature, Slovakia|url=http://www.litcentrum.sk/36106|access date=05.05.2012|quote=Explanations: '''in our seventh millennium''' – it means the seventh millennium since the Creation. It was calculated as follows: 5 508 years that had passed since the Creation till Jesus Christ’s birth plus 863 AD (the year when Constantine and Methodius had come to Moravia) added to the year 6 371 -- that is seventh millennium.}}</ref>
|}
Prior to the onset of [[totalitarian]] and [[uniformitarianism |uniformitarian]] (i.e. long-age) [[scientism]] promoted by [[Charles Lyell|Lyell]], [[Darwin]], [[T. H. Huxley|Huxley]], and others in the 19th century, when most people and scientists in [[Europe]] and [[North America]] had a [[Christian]] or [[biblical]] worldview, the [[atheist]]ic [[evolution]]ary concept of billions of years for the age of the earth was unknown to mainstream [[Western civilization|Western]] [[science]] beyond cursory [[philosophical]] speculations.<ref name="YECBritannica">{{cite web |title=Encyclopaedia Britannica: supporting a young earth! |publisher=creation.com |url=http://creation.com/encyclopedia-britannica-supporting-a-young-earth |quote=The concept of billions of years for the age of the earth was unknown to science (or to the church[4]) before the rise of uniformitarianism in the 19th century. This is strong evidence that modern long-age views of creation do not originate in Genesis, but are a misguided attempt by some Christian leaders to try to reconcile what God has said with the atheistic pronouncements of evolutionary ‘science’.|accessdate=November 8, 2014}}</ref>

For example, in his 1619 book the ''Harmonices Mundi'' (The Harmony of the World), [[Johannes Kepler]], [[mathematician]] and [[astronomer]], wrote that he does not care if his book will need to wait a century for a reader, as [[God]] has waited '''six thousand years''' for him as an [[Scientific observation|observer]].<ref>{{cite book |title=The Harmony of the World |author=Johannes Kepler |publisher=American Philosophical Society |year=1997 |pages=IX, XXXVII, 391, 410 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=rEkLAAAAIAAJ&q=six+thousand#v=snippet&q=six%20thousand&f=false|quote=O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee! ... The book is written, to be read either now or by posterity, I care not which. It may be well to wait a century for a reader, as God has waited six thousand years for an observer.}}</ref> Kepler calculated a Creation date of 3992 BC, and [[Isaac Newton]] also strongly defended biblical chronology.<ref>{{cite book |title=The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution |author=Jonathan Sarfati |publisher=Creation Books Publishers |year=2010 |place=Atlanta, Georgia, USA |pages=311 |isbn=978-1921-643064 |url=http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php |quote=Kepler calculated a Creation date of 3992 BC, and Isaac Newton (1643-1727), probably the greatest scientist of all time, also strongly defended biblical chronology.}}</ref> 

In 1771, the first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, the oldest English-language general encyclopedia that was first published as a 3-volume set in Scotland, included a table of world events under the heading ‘Astronomy’ on page 493. These events begin with the [[creation]] of the world in the year 0, which they dated at 4007 years before Christ.<ref name="YECBritannica"/><ref>{{cite web |title= Encyclopaedia Britannica: supporting a young earth! |publisher= creation.com |url=http://creation.com/media-center?fileID=Rj4PFM_od9U |quote= The notion that the world in billions of years old has only been popular for about 200 years. Before that time most scientists understood that Noah's Flood was responsible for laying down the rocks which today are associated with millions of years. Richard Fangrad and Calvin Smith discuss the details. |accessdate=November 8, 2014}}</ref> 

In 1830, Dr. Hales published a list of 120 historical authorities from various cultures who had decided on an official [[date of creation]]. These ranged from 6984 B.C. to 3616 B.C.<ref>Batten 2002 quotes from "Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible", 1879 8th Edition, 1939, which relates this, and reproduces the selection of the dates from Young.</ref>

Included in Hales' list is [[James Ussher]], who calculated the '''famous date of 4004 B.C.''' for creation. Young Earth creationists still consider this date to be close to the actual date.

=== Evolutionists vs. Kelvin ===
George-Louis Lecrerc, Count of [[Buffon]], rejected [[Christianity]], adopted [[Evolutionism|evolutionary thought]], and thus searched for [[materialistic]] explanations for the [[origin science|origin]] of earth.<ref name="Larson">{{cite book
|author=E.J. Larson
|title=Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory
|publisher=Modern Library
|location=New York
|year=2006
|pages=13-18, 39, 58-62
|isbn=0-8129-6849-2
|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=xzLRvxlJhzkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Larson+Evolution:+The+Remarkable+History&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PbZfVJugD83vaJengLgI&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=rejected%20Christianity%20&f=false}}</ref> In 1778, he proposed that the Earth was about 74,832 years old.<ref name="ingv">INGV</ref>
In the early nineteenth-century, the so called [[uniformitarian]]s conspired to overthrow the [[Biblical chronology]] that would measure geologic time in generations of man.<ref name="Richter">{{cite journal |title=Geological Notes: Kelvin and the Age of Earth |author=F.M. Richter |publisher=Journal of Geology |year=1986 |volume=94 |pages=395-401 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/30068713}}</ref> The dictum as a fundamental maxim for their geological speculation was expressed through [[James Hutton]]’s 1785 aphorism<ref name="ingv"/>: ''“The revolt, therefore, of this physical inquiry is, that we find [[Singularity#Antipathy_to_the_idea_of_beginning|no vestige of a beginning]], no prospect of an end.“''<ref>{{cite web |title=On Geological Dynamics |author=W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin) |publisher= Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow |year=1869 |url=http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_geological_dynamics.html |aaccessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref>

In 1830 [[Charles Lyell]] supported Hutton's idea in ''Principles of Geology'' <ref name="ingv" />, a book that later influenced [[Darwin]]. Lyell started his book with a self-serving history of geology that [[Academician Burdenko syndrome|uncritically hailed]] any insight anticipating uniformitarianism and [[Kerkut’s student syndrome|utterly dismissed]] the contributions of [[Catastrophism|catastrophists]]. Before Darwin boarded the HMS Beagle, his Cambridge tutor Adam Sedgwick, who had supplied Darwin with a reading list for the voyage, conspicuously omitted controversial Lyell’s ''Principles''. Darwin was however given a copy of the book by Robert FitzRoy.<ref name="Larson"/><ref>{{cite web |title=The Voyage of Charles Darwin, Part 1 |publisher=BBC |year=1978 |pages=7-part series Part 1, 46min:15sec |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hoDaxVIVPE&feature=youtu.be&t=2850 |accessdate=May 17, 2015 |quote=}}</ref> Darwin was fascinated by book, he dedicated his own writings about the voyage to Lyell, and in his letters claimed that ''"I always feel as if my books came half out of Lyell's brains ... the great merit of the Principles, was that it altered the whole tone of one's mind & therefore that when seeing a thing never seen by Lyell, one yet saw it partially through his eyes."''<ref>{{cite web |title=Darwin Correspondence Database: Darwin, C. R. to Horner, Leonard 29 Aug 1844 |author=Ch.Darwin |publisher=Darwin Correspondence Project by Cambridge University Library |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/entry-771 |accessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref> It is believed a feeling of guilt at having helped Darwin arrive at his heretical theories was a factor that might have contributed to FitzRoy’s tragic decision to suicide on 30th April, 1865.<ref>{{cite web |title= FitzRoy's Bicentenary|publisher= The Friends of Charles Darwin |url=http://friendsofdarwin.com/articles/fitzroy/ |quote= The ridicule over the weather forecasts was probably the last straw that drove FitzRoy to suicide on 30th April, 1865. But there were numerous other factors that might have contributed to his tragic decision: his failed New Zealand governorship; a feeling of guilt at having helped Darwin arrive at his heretical theories; his belief that suicide was a family trait; who knows what else might have helped push him over the edge? |accessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref>

In 1854 [[Hermann von Helmholtz]] estimated an age of between 20 and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" />

The doctrine that the Earth was of unlimited age allowed Uniformitarian geologists to evade [[explanation in science|explaining]] any [[phenomenon|phenomena]] by laws of [[physics]] and resort to [[Fog displacement|blurring]] them by ''“reckless drafts on the bank of time”'' instead.

Around the same time [[Lord Kelvin]] put his mind to deriving an age, and came up with a range between 20 million years and 400 million years. He later refined that down to between 20 million and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" /> More recent discoveries of radioactivity and mantle convection explain why the assumptions Helmholtz and Kelvin made resulted in dates that are much lower than current uniformitarian estimates.

The 1911 edition of the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] discussed dates up to 500 million years.<ref>Encyclopædia Britannica, pp 650-651.</ref>

By about 1930, J. H. Jeans was arguing for an age of the Earth of around two billion years.<ref>Universal History of the World, p.76.</ref>

=== The Scientific Dogma of 4.5 billion years ===
In his 1956 paper named ''Age of Meteorites and the Earth'', Claire Patterson, using ''“certain assumptions which are apparently justified,”'' introduced for meteor age a figure of '''4.55 ±0.07 × 109yr.''' and commented that since earth lead meets the requirement for definition of ''“the isotopic evolution of lead for any meteoritic body,”'' it is therefore ''“believed that the age for the earth is the same as for meteorites”'' and that ''"this is the time since the earth attained its present mass"''.<ref>{{cite web |title= Age of meteorites and the earth |author= Claire Patterson |url=http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Patterson1956.pdf |accessdate= }}</ref> In spite of cautions and skepticism advised by the authors, this figure gradually became a scientific dogma that rarely anyone has dared to question.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Ralph W. Matthews |title=Radiometric dating and the age of the Earth |date=December 1982 |publisher=Creation |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=41–44 |quote=In spite of cautions and skepticism advised by the authors this number has been widely and enthusiastically accepted and is usually quoted as if the evidence was decisive and conclusive. It has assumed something of the status of a universal constant to which all other data must be fitted, thus it has become common practice to assume that data which does not fit this result is either wrong or unintelligible. |accessdate=December 30, 2014}}</ref> Henry Morris explains that the unprovable assumptions are not the only problem with radiometric dating. One huge concern is that the results published are only a selected sample, chosen especially to agree with preconceived ideas about the earth, life, and [[evolution]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Once upon a time … A Review of The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods by John Woodmorappe |author=Michael J. Oard |url=http://creation.com/once-upon-a-time |accessdate=November 9, 2014}}</ref>

When in 1972 N.H. Gale tried to corroborate this established figure, he discovered that U-Pb ages ''"showed apparent large excess of radiogenic lead compared with the amount expected from the decay of Uranium in the meteorites over 4.5AE. ... For each of the 4 meteorites there was an excess of radiogenic lead not supported by uranium decay over 4.5AE.”'' After short analysis:
*''“The superior modern analytical methods used made it impossible that analytical contamination could explain the result.''
*''The circumstances ... make it extremely unlikely that terrestrial contamination could explain the results for this meteorites.''
*''... a considerable excess of radiogenic lead in most fractions ...is difficult to attribute to contamination,“''
rather than starting to reckon with possibility to challenge the established figures and methods, after recalling that ''“Patterson was the first to show that several stony meteorites yield a ... model of 4.5AE,”'' he proposed the new explanation for discovered discrepancy: ''"discordant results can be attributed to contamination."'' Consequently, his research of the Earth’s age turned into calculation of ''"the correct sample ratios"'' from ''"observed ratios"'' so that the Table in his paper could finally show the “correct” preconceived age, established in this field of research.<ref name=GALE>{{cite web |title=U-Pb studies of the appley bridge meteorite |author=Gale, N.H., Arden, J. and Hutchison, R. |publisher=Nature Phys. Science |year=1972 |volume=240 57 |url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/r741164v5162r447}}</ref>

Using [[circular logic]] -- assuming that decay rates remained constant despite necessarily changing physical characteristics as time approached the origin -- Old Earth proponents insist that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old based on an assumption of constancy in [[Potassium-argon dating|Potassium-argon (K:Ar) decay rates]] and other radiometric methods.<ref>Peck, 2000, p.376.</ref>

In 1978, ''Geotimes'' magazine published by American Geological Institute quoted John Eddy, a famous astronomer, who argued that due to ''“some new and unexpected results“'' scientists could live with bishop Ussher’s 4004 B.C. value for the age of Earth and Sun, a fortiori since there is not much in the way of [[Scientific observation|observational]] [[Scientific evidence|evidence]] in [[astronomy]] to conflict with his calculations.<ref>{{cite journal |author=John Eddy quoted by R.G. Kazmann |title= It’s About Time: 4.5 Billion Years (report on Symposium at Louisiana State University)|publisher= Geotimes magazine (from 09/2008 renamed to Earth magazine) of American Geological Institute |year=1978 |issue=23 |pages=18-20|quote=I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for some frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with bishop Ussher’s value for the age of Earth and Sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Jon Covey |title= Age of the Universe |publisher= Creation In The Crossfire |date= January 3, 2013 |url=http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/AgeOfUniverse/AgeOfTheUniverse.html |accessdate=December 30, 2014 |quote= Evolutionary astronomers confidently argue the universe is 12-20 billion years old, although there is no certainty about any astronomical observations. John Eddy, a famous astronomer, once said that there isn’t much in the way of observational astronomy that proves the universe is old. He said that with “frantic theoretical readjustment” if new evidence showed that astronomers have been wrong, they could live with Bishop Ussher’s date of 4,004 B.C.}}</ref>

== Geology ==

[[Image:516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg|right|300px]]
[[William R. Corliss]] is a cataloger of scientific [[Anomaly|anomalies]] (observations and facts that challenge prevailing scientific [[paradigm]]s) and has published many works on the subject.<ref name="sf">[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)</ref>
He also wrote 13 books for the [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA), a dozen educational booklets for the [[Atomic Energy Commission]] (AEC), and a dozen articles for the [[National Science Foundation]] (NSF).<ref>Corliss, 2002</ref> The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref>
''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging". <ref>Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]</ref> [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as "[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day - and much more scientific - successor."<ref>Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110</ref>

Corliss's work on geological anomalies catalogs scores of anomalies which challenge the [[old-earth]] [[paradigm]].<ref>[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* Burnet, Thomas, [http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/ste/ste36.htm The Sacred Theory of the Earth, chapter V], 1691.
* Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition (1911). [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling On-line page facsimiles].
* Hammerton, J.A. (Ed.), "Universal History of the World" (8 volumes) The Educational Book Co., London, c1930.
* Batten, Don, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/417 Old-earth or young-earth belief: Which belief is the recent aberration?], ''Creation'' 24(1):24–27, December 2001.
* [http://www.ingv.it/~roma/SITOINGLESE/activities/geomagnetismo/analysistheory/historicalresearch/age.html The age of the Earth] (Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV)).
*Peck WH, Valley JW, Wilde SA, and Graham CM (2000) Ion microprobe Evidence for Pre-4.4 Ga Continental Crust and Low Temperature Water/Rock Interaction. ''Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr'', vol 32, no. 7.

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa Age of the Earth and Universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]

== Notes ==
<references />
[[Category:Geology]]

The Crusades

2015-05-17T21:01:32Z

Sorry8roNoHetero:

{{Middle Ages}}

[[Image:Crusader.jpg|thumb|200px|right|A returning Crusader]]
'''The Crusades''' (1095-1291) were a series of European Christian attacks on Islam, fought during the middle ages. They were the military responses made by Christians from western Europe to the Pope's pleas to take land from Islamic influence. The '''First Crusade''' created new Latin states in the Holy Land. Subsequent crusades were less successful except when they attacked Byzantium. Other medieval movements against those who did not support their religion were also called crusades. The crusades ended with the Islamic recapture of all of their land in 1291, when the the last city controlled by crusaders, Acre, fell.

The crusades comprise a major chapter of [[Middle Ages|Medieval History]]. Extending over three centuries, they attracted every social class in western Europe. Kings and commoners, barons and bishops, knights and commoners—even teenagers—all participated in these expeditions to the eastern end of the Mediterranean. The motives of the crusaders were numerous: some sought riches; many sought adventure; most were moved by blood lust alone. Historians unfortunately stress the central role of religious fervor, while mentioning as well the socio-economic factors crucial in enticing larger contingents. For example, crusaders often were fulfilling their feudal obligations. There were strong links between the papal reforms, the social necessity of violence and the exploitation of this inherent revivalistic imagination of the age of the Papacy.<ref> Douglas James, "Christians and the First Crusade," ''History Review,'' (Dec 2005), Issue 53</ref>

The crusades failed to achieve the permanent control of the land controlled by other religions. However, their influence was wide and deep. Much of
the crusading fervor carried over to the successful attacks on the Moors (Muslims) in Spain and the non-Christian Slavs in eastern Europe. Politically the crusades weakened the decrepit Byzantine Empire, but temporarily kept the Muslims away from it. The First Crusade strengthened the moral leadership of the
papacy in Europe, but the failures of the later crusades weakened both the crusading ideal and respect for the papacy
Contact with the East widened the scope of the Europeans, ended their isolation, and exposed them to an rich civilization. The economic effects of the crusades were modest, but they did reopen of the eastern Mediterranean to Western commerce, which itself had an effect on the rise of great cities such as Venice and the emergence of a money economy in the West.

The crusaders derived their name from the Latin word for "cross"—crux. A crusader went to the Holy Land with a cross of cloth sewn over his breast; when he returned, he had a similar cross for his back. Originally called to repel the Islamic forces that controlled [[Jerusalem]], the crusades evolved into a form of political decree called by the Papacy for political, social or economic reasons. The campaigns of [[Teutonic knight]]s against [[pagan]] strongholds in [[Eastern Europe]] are also sometimes called crusades. Lastly, military actions within Christendom against heretical and schismatic groups are sometimes called a crusade. Thus a crusade in most general terms was a directive of war issued by the Pope to all Rome-friendly nations against forces, whether Muslim, pagan or Eastern Orthodox, which were hostile to the Papacy.

The crusades in the Holy Land ultimately failed to establish permanent Christian kingdoms. The fourth crusade resulted in a very damaged relationship between [[Orthodox Church|Greek]] and [[Roman Catholic|Latin]] Christendom. Islamic expansion into remained a threat for centuries, with crusading orders establishing strongholds to protect Mediterranean islands.

On the other hand, the crusades in southern [[Spain]] were militarily successful, eventually leading to the end of Islamic power in the region in 1492. The Teutonic knights expanded Christian domains in Eastern Europe, and the [[Albigensian Crusade]], achieved its goal of destroying heretics in France. <ref>See Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, ''Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300–1475''. 6th ed. (McGraw-Hill 1998)</ref>

== Need for a crusade ==
The Holy Land had been part of the [[Roman Empire]], and thus the [[Byzantine Empire]], until the Islamic conquests of the seventh and eighth centuries that forced the Byzantines out and saw the area gradually turn Islamic. Calm returned and Christians had generally been permitted to visit the sacred places in the Holy Land until 1071, when the [[Seljuk Turks]] assailed the Byzantines, defeating them at the [[Battle of Manzikert]], and conquered Jerusalem from the Egyptian Fatimids the same year. They were not friendly to Christian pilgrims, in contrast to how the Fatimids had been, and soon pilgrims came under threat of robbery or even death as they were no longer welcome. The Byzantine Emperor [[Alexius I]] asked for aid from the west both to the Popes and the Christian monarchs. Nothing meaningful happened. Alexius may have been hoping for money from the Pope for the hiring of mercenaries.
==Papal call==
Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to fight for the defense of the Christian East and the protection of pilgrims in a speech made at the [[Council of Clermont]] on November 27, 1095. Urban demanded that all internal feuds within Christendom end, threatening [[excommunication]] for anyone who continued to bicker internally, and promising absolution and assurance of salvation to anyone who died in the crusade.

This time Europe listened. Those who were there erupted in spontaneous cries of "Deus le vult!" ("God wills it!") - which would become the watchword of what we now know as the Crusades.

Nothing like this had ever been done, and the Pope himself had no military power and had to count on those who were in positions of power to supply it. While the monarchs of Europe did not get directly involved, it was a series of prominent nobles who answered the call, among the most famous being: the Norman Bohemund of Taranto, former claimant to the Duchy of Apulia, his nephew Tancred, Count Raymond of Toulouse, [[Godfrey Of Bouillon|Duke Godfrey de Bouillon]] of Lorraine, Duke Hugh of Vermandois (brother of the King of France), Duke Robert of Normandy, and Count Robert of Flanders. The spiritual leader who accompanied them was French Bishop Adhemar du Puy, who was appointed Papal legate.

All that was known at the start was that the forces to participate would meet together in [[Constantinople]], where Alexius had no idea what was being unleashed.

== The First Crusade ==
The [[First Crusade]], properly speaking, was lead by Feudal lords, mostly of [[Franks|Frankish]] origin. Many of the knights left home never expecting to return, knowing virtually nothing about the [[Holy Land]], and trusting in God for victory. The army consisted of almost 20,000 men, including a mass of [[squire]]s and other servants necessary to support a mounted knight. Arriving at Constantinople the force, which eventually reached almost 50,000 total men, was not what the Byzantine Emperor [[Alexius]] had expected. He had hoped for a few thousand well trained mercenaries to help him retake his lands from the Turks, and had little in common with the goal of 'freeing the Holy Land'. An uneasy tension ensued from 1096 to 1097 as the forces gathered, but through a combination of firmness and diplomacy, Alexius avoided serious complications. In return for his assurance of assistance, he obtained oaths of allegiance from the Crusader leaders, and their promise that they would help recapture [[Nicaea]] from the Turks and return to him any other former possessions which they conquered. Alexius then transported them across the Bosporus - being careful not to allow any large number of Crusader forces inside the walls of his capital at any given time. He also provided them with food and with an escort of Byzantine troops to guide them towards their objectives (and incidentally to prevent Crusader plundering).<ref>Encyclopedia of Military History, Dupuy & Dupuy, 1979, Pg. 312-313</ref>

After a hard march to the Holy Land, the army captured invested Nicaea in 1097. By a combination of skillful fighting and skillful diplomacy, Alexius arrange for the surrender of the city to him after a successful Crusader-Byzantine assault on the outer walls. The Crusaders were upset at Alexius' refusal to give them permission to sack the city.

The Crusaders continued to the southeast in parallel columns, without any one commander in charge. After fighting the inconclusive [[Battle of Dorylaeum]], the army split in half. Tancred and Baldwin, brother of Godfrey of Lorraine and future King of Jerusalem, went east took the Armenian fortress-city of [[Edessa]] - an action that destroyed the support of many local Armenian Christians for the Crusade, and weakened its internal bonds, as Baldwin and Tancred's men clashed over possession of the city, with Baldwin emerging triumphant. The main body of the army continued onward and besieged [[Antioch]]. The city was surrounded for 8 months from October 21, 1097 to June 3, 1098. Two relieving armies were driven off in the [[Battles of Harenc]] in December and February. Due to poor arrangements for supplies, the Crusading army was actually close to starvation, but was saved by the fortuitous arrival of English and Pisan flotillas which seized two nearby ports and brought provisions. Bickering among the Crusader leaders, especially [[Bohemund]] and [[Raymond]] was rampant. The initiative of Bohemund led to the capture of Antioch just 2 days before a relieving army of 75,000 strong under the atabeg of [[Mosul]], [[Kerboga]] would arrived, delayed itself after a fruitless three-week long attempt to dislodge Baldwin from Edessa.

Now it was the Crusaders turn to be trapped inside the city as Kerboga sieged Antioch from June 5, to June 28, 1098. The Crusaders were cut off from supplies and again near starvation. A Byzantine army was coming to take the city as agreed, but hearing that the Crusaders were doomed, turned back to Constantinople. It was then the 'Holy Lance' was discovered; the weapon said to have pierced Jesus' side. While few historians or theologians believe this miraculous discovery was valid, it energized the Crusader army at just the time they needed it. The [[Battle of the Orontes]] was fought on June 28 where 15,000 Crusaders left Antioch to battle and drove off the entire Moslem army and broke the siege, helped in part by the decision of several of the local emirs serving under Kerbogha to abandon him during the battle, fearing that he coveted their territory.

Due to internal bickering, many of the Crusaders did not continue on to [[Jerusalem]]. The force that arrived in June 1099 was only about 12,000 strong, far fewer than the army of defenders. They sieged the city from June 9 to July 18. Realizing they didn't have enough men to keep out supplies and starve the defenders, they boldly attacked. Overrunning the city, many of the inhabitants were massacred, including other Christians. A relieving force of 50,000 strong arrived in August to fight the Crusaders, but were routed at the [[Battle of Ascalon]]. The military aspects of the First Crusade had ended.

Four feudal kingdoms were established, which would remain for nearly 100 years. Several Military Orders, consisting of [[paladin]]s, were also set up within the next few years, focusing mainly around the protection of the welfare of pilgrims and the defense of Christendom within the framework of an organization that was both spiritual and martial in nature. The best known of these orders were the Knights of the Temple, or [[Templars]], and the Knights of the Hospital of St. John, or [[Hospitallers]]. The Hospitallers still exist today in the form of the Order of Malta and St. John's Ambulance.

== The Second Crusade ==
The [[Second Crusade]] occurred in 1145 when [[Edessa]] was retaken by Islamic forces. It was ultimately a failure, owing in part to the French king's insistence on betraying and attacking his only Muslim ally, [[Damascus]]. In 1187 the Muslims
captured Jerusalem under their leader [[Saladin]], which brought about a new call for a Crusade.

== The Third Crusade ==
[[File:Saladin2.jpg|thumb|left|270px]]The [[Third Crusade]] (1189-92) is famous for the battles between [[Richard I|Richard the Lionheart]] and [[Saladin]], highlighted by the deep respect the two enemies had for each other, and the sense of [[chivalry|chivalric]] honor of King Richard. The crusade also involved the king of France (who returned home after an argument with Richard at Acre) and the Holy Roman Emperor (who drowned en route). The crusade had the limited success of obtaining a truce between Richard and Saladin that promised to allow Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

== The Fourth Crusade ==
The [[Fourth Crusade]], begun by [[Innocent III]] in 1202, intended to retake the Holy Land but was soon subverted by [[Venetian]]s who used the forces to sack the Christian city of [[Zara]]. Innocent excommunicated the Venetians and crusaders. Eventually the crusaders arrived in [[Constantinople]], but due to strife which arose between them and the [[Byzantines]], rather than proceed to the Holy Land the crusaders instead sacked Constantinople and other parts of [[Asia Minor]] effectively establishing the Latin Empire of Constantinople in [[Greece]] and Asia Minor . Both Zara and Constantinople were Christian cities, and the ultimate effect was a severely damaged relationship between Greek and Latin Christendom.

This was effectively the last crusade sponsored by the papacy; later crusades were sponsored by individuals.

==Minor Crusades==
In addition to the four main crusades there were several minor ones.
===The People's (Peasants') Crusade (1095-96)===
As soon as the Pope issued his appeal in 1095 preachers like Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless fanned out across Western Europe, reaching pious common people in rural areas, including many peasants. They aroused such an enthusiasm among the peasants that neither the secular lords nor the local clergy could stop the people from marching east, filled with hopes for freedom from serfdom and the zest for adventure. Thousands of peasants set off with few supplies or weapons and no money, and no idea of the enormous distance to be traveled. They believed that God would provide the guidance for direction and the sustenance for life. More prosperous farmers and burghers were also involved. Five uncoordinated bands trekked across the Balkan region toward Constantinople. The Byzantine Christians welcomed them reluctantly and even contemptuously, for the pilgrims robbed them and raided their farms and villages. The Byzantine army fought them in pitched battles; most peasants never reached Constantinople. The thousands who did arrive were militarily useless and unwelcome. The Emperor Alexius temporarily fed and housed them outside the city, then hurried them across the Bosporus into Asia Minor. There the peasants were all killed by the Turkish forces.<ref> Sir Steven Runciman, "The First Crusade: Constantinople to Antioch," in M. W. Baldwin, ed. ''The first hundred years'' (1969) pp. 281-85 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=turn&entity=History.CrusOne.p0313&isize=M online edition];
Frederic Duncalf, "The Peasants' Crusade," ''The American Historical Review,'' Vol. 26, No. 3 (Apr., 1921), pp. 440-453 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(192104)26%3A3%3C440%3ATPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P in JSTOR]</ref>

====Attacking Jews====
A smaller group of peasants led by Gottschalk took out their fervor on a more local target, the Jewish communities of Lotharingia. Their actions were condemned by the Church and the local populace.<ref>The Age of Faith, Will Durant, 1950, Pg. 589</ref><ref name="RS">Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades: a History.'' (2005) </ref> A much larger threat against Jews took the form of a larger mob led by Count Emico of Leiningen, who was more organized and more brutal. Already a man with a sullied reputation, he ignored the pleas of the Bishops in town after town to desist. Apart from being hidden by the local populace when they heard Emico was coming, there was little the Jews could do. Previously in Europe, local difficulties against Jewish communities would rise from time to time in various places, but would be isolated to that local area. This started a phase not previously seen, a systematic effort to weed out and attack Jewish communities.

===The Children's Crusade (1212)===
Even more [[pathetic]] than the peasant crusade of 1095-96 was a movement in France and Germany which attracted large numbers of peasant teenagers and young people (few were under age 15). They were convinced they could succeed where older and more sinful crusaders had failed: the miraculous power of their faith would triumph where the force of arms had not. Many parish priests and parents encouraged such religious fervor and urged them on. The Pope and bishops opposed the the attempt but failed to stop it entirely. A band of several thousand youth and young men led by a German named Nicholas set out for Italy. About a third survived the march over the Alps and got as far as Genoa; another group came to Marseilles. The luckier ones eventually managed to get safely home, but many others were sold as lifetime slaves on the auction blocks of Marseilles slave dealers.<ref>Dana C. Munro, "The Children's Crusade," ''The American Historical Review,'' Vol. 19, No. 3 (Apr., 1914), pp. 516-524 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(191404)19%3A3%3C516%3ATCC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C in JSTOR]; and Norman P. Zacour, "The Children's Crusade," in R. L. Wolff, and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 325-342, esp. 330-37 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=article&did=HISTORY.CRUSTWO.I0023&isize=M online edition] </ref>

===The Fifth Crusade (1217-1221)===
Instigated by Pope Innocent III in 1215, this crusade was led in 1217 by John Brienne, king of Jerusalem, with the object of conquering Egypt. In 1219 the crusaders captured Damietta. The sultan of Egypt offered to exchange Jerusalem for Damietta but this was rejected. After an unsuccessful assault on Cairo in 1221, the defeated crusaders surrendered Damietta in return for the freedom to retreat.<ref> Thomas C. Van Cleve, "The Fifth Crusade," in R. L. Wolff, and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 377-428 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&id=History.CrusTwo&isize=M&page=377 online edition]</ref>
===The Sixth Crusade (1228-1229)===
The sixth or " Diplomatic Crusade" was led by Emperor Frederick II of the Holy Roman Empire. He began in 1228, but fought no battles. Instead, by negotiation he obtained Jerusalem and a strip of territory from Acre to Jerusalem for the Christians. In 1225 he married Yolanda, the young heiress to the kingdom of Jerusalem; upon her death in 1228, Frederick crowned himself king of Jerusalem.

===The Seventh Crusade (1248-1250)===
Led by King Louis IX of France (reigned. 1226-1270) and directed against the Arabs of Egypt, this crusade was a complete failure. The crusaders were decisively defeated en-route to Cairo and King Louis was captured; the Arabs demanded and received a huge ransom for the release of the hapless king.<ref> Joseph R. Strayer, "The Crusades of Louis IX," in R. L. Wolff and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 487-521 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&id=History.CrusTwo&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=487 online edition]; Peter Jackson, ''The Seventh Crusade, 1244-1254'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Seventh-Crusade-12441254-Texts-Translation/dp/0754657221/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205399558&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]</ref>
===The Eighth Crusade (1270)===
Ignoring his advisers, King Louis IX again attacked the Arabs in Tunis in North Africa. He picked the hottest season of the year for campaigning and his army was devastated by disease. The king himself died, ending the last major attempt to free the Holy Land.<ref> Joseph R. Strayer, "The Crusades of Louis IX," in R. L. Wolff and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 487-521 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&id=History.CrusTwo&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=487 online edition]</ref>

===Other Medieval Crusades===
At the time people used "crusade" to describe other religious wars waged against heretics, such as Hussites and Albigensian, as well as Moors in Spain and pagans in the Baltic region.
====The Albigensian Crusade (13th century)====
Pope Innocent III in 1209 called for a war against the Albigensians, a religious sect which had sprung up in southern France, centered near the cities of Albi and Toulouse in Provence.<ref> Essentially, the Albigensians believed in a non-Christian dualist doctrine: there was a coexistence, they affirmed, between good and evil, represented by such opposites as God and the Evil One, light and darkness, soul and body, afterlife and earthly life.</ref> A bloody series of campaigns ended with Provence in ruins (1229) and the heretics defeated. In 1233 Pope Gregory IX placed the Dominicans in charge of investigating the remnants of Albigensianism with the legal power to name and condemn any surviving heretics. This marked the start of the [[Inquisition]].
====Teutonic Knights (1229-1525)====
A German religious and military order originally founded during the siege of Acre in the Third Crusade and modeled after the Knights Templars and Hospitalers, the Teutonic Knights moved to eastern Europe early in the 13th century.<ref>Charles Moeller, "Teutonic Order," [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14541b.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1912) vol 14 online]</ref> There, under their grand master, Hermann von Salza, they became powerful and prominent. In 1229, responding to an appeal from the [[Poland, history|Duke of Poland]], they began a crusade against the pagan Slavs of Prussia. They became sovereigns over lands they conquered over the next century. In a series of campaigns, the Teutonic Knights gained control over the whole Baltic coast, founding numerous towns and fortresses and establishing Christianity.<ref> Edgar N. Johnson, "The German Crusade on the Baltic," in [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=article&did=HISTORY.CRUSTHREE.I0028&isize=M H. W. Hazard, ed. ''The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries''] (1975) pp 545-85</ref>
===Crusades in Spain (711-1492)===
Muslims crossed from Africa into Spain early in the eighth century and in 711 at the battle of Río Barbate, they defeated the Visigoths and pressed forward to capture Toledo. By 718, the Moors (the name given North African Muslims by the Spaniards) had completed their conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, except for small Christian remnants in the Pyrenees. They remained on for the next 674 years until driven out by Spanish and Portuguese Christians.

The period of the Spanish Crusades began in the eleventh century when a religious revival was initiated by Cluniac monks in the small kingdoms in the north of Spain, which had recovered some of their lost territory. The revival expressed itself in a growing hatred for the infidel. Slowly yet steadily, at first sparked mainly by Burgundians and Normans from France, the Christians began to force the Moors out of northern and central Spain. Known as the [[Wars of the Reconquest]], these centuries-long conflicts intensified the Catholic sentiments of the people, developing an intense, even fanatical unity of religion and patriotism which was long characteristic of the Spaniards.

By the middle of the 15th century, the last bastion of Moorish power on the peninsula was the kingdom of Granada in southwestern Spain. When the marriage of Isabella, Queen of Castile, to Ferdinand, Prince of Aragon, in 1469 united Spain, they vigorously began their last campaign against the Moors. In January 1492 the Spanish entered the city of Granada and Moorish power ended in Europe. The expulsion of the Moors from Spain may be considered the last of the many medieval crusades.<ref> Charles Julian Bishko, "The Spanish and Portuguese Reconquest, 1095-1492" in [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&id=History.CrusThree&isize=M&page=396 H. W. Hazard, ed. ''The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries''] (1975) pp 396-456</ref>

==Long-term Impact==
Thus, though Jerusalem was held for nearly a century and other strongholds in the Near East would remain in Christian possession much longer, the crusades in the Holy Land ultimately failed to establish permanent Christian kingdoms. Islamic expansion into Europe, while temporarily stalled, would renew and remain a threat for centuries with the disintegration of the [[Byzantine Empire]] and culminate with the campaigns of [[Suleiman the Magnificent]] in the sixteenth century.

While the crusades achieved only temporary military success, they had a powerful impact on western Europe. The crusaders returned with a vastly widened knowledge of the world they lived in, and a willingness to explore that became a permanent part of the west European mindset. In religion, culture, and commerce, post-Crusades Europe was visibly affected by its prolonged encounter with another continent and another way of life.

===Commerce and economy===
The merchants of Venice and other Italian cities gained the most profit. They amassed considerable income in payment for the services they rendered the crusaders and were enriched by the commercial rights they obtained throughout the Near East. Genoa, Pisa, and Venice gained special monopolies throughout the eastern Mediterranean. Their merchants used these privileges to introduce into the Western world such oriental luxuries as silks, spices, and pearls, whose transportation and sale made the cities rich. The demand for these products encouraged explorers to seek out new and more direct routes to the East--most famously in the discovery and exploration of the Americas by Columbus and others starting in 1492. The crusades helped create a moneyed aristocracy and encouraged the growth of capitalism in the Italian cities. Silks and spices not only raised the standard of living of the rich, they stimulated the entire urban economy, although cities remained small.

The returning crusaders came back to Europe with new tastes in dress and diet, such as peaches and spinach. They gave up the custom of wearing a load of heavy armor at nearly all times and appeared in the flowing robes of silk or cotton which were the traditional habit of the Muslims.
===Weakens feudalism===
In rural areas, where the vast majority of Europeans lives, the crusades tended to weaken feudalism and strengthen central governments. Thousands of feudal aristocrats died young and many baronial families lost heavily or even went bankrupt because they borrowed money for the adventure and could not repay. Since credit markets were undeveloped and inefficient, the crusaders paid high premiums to borrow; many accepted donations from friends and family. For a local baron to bring along 10 knights on a crusade cost some 3000 livres a year. There was some plunder along the way, but plunder was hard to liquefy to pay off loans back home. Instead of acquiring new rich new lands and fabulous wealth in the East, many noble families sold, pawned or mortgaged lands, castles, benefices, and jewels; most saw their finances damaged. Money lenders in Italian cities grew rich. The feudal barons were the basis of localism; power now tended to become more centralized and national. Of course when the kings crusaded, it cost them dearly and weakened their throne. [[Richard the Lionhearted]] of England sold off the income he was owed from Scotland, and tried to sell London itself but could not find a buyer. By contributing to the rise of the cities, the development of a money economy, and the strengthening of national monarchies, hastened, to some extent, feudalism's collapse.<ref> Fred A. Cazel, Jr. "Financing the Crusades," in [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&id=History.CrusSix N. P. Zacour, and H.W. Hazard, eds. ''The impact of the Crusades on Europe'' (1989), pp 116-49 online]</ref>
===Church===
The crusades at first helped, then hurt the church and the [[Papacy, history|papacy]]. In the early stages, the popes took the leadership of Europe in a great holy cause against the infidel world. Germany, France and England in particular responded to the popes. However the popes lost that leadership to secular princes by the time of the Third Crusade; during the Fourth Crusade the crusaders rejected Innocent III's demands.

The Crusades were a major contributing factor in the separation of the Eastern and Western Churches. The Crusaders deposed the native Patriarchs and appointed Latin Patriarchs in their place. These appointments were ratified by the Pope.

In the kingdom of Jerusalem, the commercial interests fostered an unexpected friendship with the Muslims, leading to an acceptance of oriental customs, and toleration of the rival religion. No such tolerance was visible in Western Europe.

===Culture===
====Impact on the West====

In terms of cultural influence, 20th century historians have revised the traditionally positive picture of the Crusades, finding little evidence of significant impact. 19th century historians saw in the Crusades a major stimulus for the renewed interest in learning, art, literature, and architecture that took place across Western Europe, and some historians had even argued the Crusades were mainly responsible for the [[Renaissance]].

It has been argued that the crusades stimulated broader vision and better understanding of the wider world for the countries who embarked on them. Men who had never been 30 miles beyond their village or manor saw firsthand new places, peoples and customs. One impact the Crusades did have on literary art was the immortalisation of the Crusading heroes in oft-recited poems. The ''Estoire de la guerre sainte'' is in Old French couplets, lauding the exploits of Richard the Lion-Hearted in the Third Crusade. A free poetical spirit characterizes ''Le Chanson d'Antioche'' that describes the First Crusade. The ages-old tales of Arthur and Charlemagne were given a fresh crusading complexion during the Middle Ages.

====Impact on the East====

A significant long-term cultural impact on the Muslim world is the resultant resentment, fear and distrust of Christian Europe, evidence of which as survived into the 21st century.<ref> Philip Khurl Pitti, "The Impact of the Crusades on Moslem Lands," in N. P. Zacour and H. W. Hazard, eds., [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=article&did=HISTORY.CRUSFIVE.I0015&isize=M ''The Impact of the Crusades on the Near East,'' (1985) pp. 33-58, online]; Car Hillenbrand, ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives''. (2000). </ref> When The US president [[George W. Bush]] described in 2001 the newly-defined [[War on terror]] as a "Crusade", the Islamic world in particular was alarmed at what was widely considered to be ill-judged language.<ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4938202.stm BBC Online - The Crusades: A history of conflict] </ref> In 2006, [[Osama Bin Laden]], speaking from hiding, described Western policy towards the Muslim world as a "Zionist-Crusader war against Islam" <ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4938202.stm BBC Online - The Crusades: A history of conflict] </ref>

===The Byzantine Empire===
The crusades postponed the Turkish conquest of the Byzantine Empire until 1453, but the determination of Westerners to conquer and colonize the lands of Byzantium led to its downfall. Rather than curing its ills, they made its death inevitable. The plunder of Constantinople in 1204 and the Venetian monopoly of its trade were a fatal blow to the political and economic life of the empire. Even after its restoration in 1261, Constantinople never regained its former strength.

==Historiography and Memory==
===Legend and literature in the West===
Legend and literature surrounded the Crusades with an aura of romance and grandeur, of chivalry and courage.<ref> See Dana Carleton Munro, [http://www.historians.org/info/AHA_history/dcmunro.htm "War and History,' ''American Historical Review'' 32:2 (January 1927): 219–31 online] </ref>The myth is only remotely related to reality. The countless tales of the gallant knights of the Cross glitter in hyperbole. Many stories are true about the crusaders' feats of valor. However the crusaders occupied the Holy Land only temporarily. In their major mission, the crusaders lost in the very long run.

The historical memory of the crusades has been sharply divided. The Catholic tradition in Europe looked upon them favorably, but the Protestant historians were more negative. [[Martin Luther]] once suggested that the Turks were God's instrument for punishing Christians. In recent decades a sense of western guilt is apparent, as in the 1995 BBC television series, presented by Terry Jones, which portrayed the crusades as a long, misguided war of intolerance, ignorance and barbarism against a peaceful and sophisticated Muslim world.<ref>Donald E. Queller and Thomas F. Madden. ''The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople'' (2nd ed. 1999), p. 1, Most historians have a negative view of the reliability of the BBC series. </ref>

Knobler (2006) examines the use of the crusades as a national symbol from the 19th century to the 1910s in France, Spain, the Ottoman Empire, Ethiopia, Britain, Russia, and Bulgaria. Though the Enlightenment and its secular ideological successors held the crusades as an example of medieval barbarity. Enlightenment thinkers like historian-philosophers [[Voltaire]] and [[David Hume]] denounced the crusades, as did the great historian of Byzantium [[Edward Gibbon]], who wrote:
:"The principle of the crusades was a savage fanaticism; and the most important effects were analogous to the cause…. The belief of the Catholics was corrupted by new legends…. The active spirit of the Latins preyed on the vitals of their reason and religion…. The lives and labours of millions, which were buried in the East, would have been more profitably employed in the improvement of their native country."<ref> Edward Gibbon, ''The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,'' (1776), [http://books.google.com/books?id=Hy8OAAAAQAAJ&pg=PT249&lpg=PT249&dq=%22principle+of+the+crusades+was+a+savage+fanaticism%22&source=web&ots=PGcJRsXv2k&sig=gH4PAb31uRoQu2u54z7h_hzGp8U&hl=en ch 61 p. 1086]</ref>
In the 19th century, however, romantic writers like novelist Sir [[Walter Scott]] created heroic images of the crusaders. The romantics and conservative adherents of the European ancien régimes appropriated crusading imagery for their own 19th century political goals, downplaying religion to fit within a modern, secular context and presenting crusades as a counterpoint to liberal ideas of nationalism.

Knobler (2006) explores three primary themes: memory of the crusades as it relates to debates over the generation and use of national symbols; the crusader as a romantic hero; and the Muslim recollection of the crusades as a shameful blot on the past of Christian nations. The crusades appealed to many Europeans because they reflected a morally unambiguous time, sparked romanticized images of warfare in a time of imperialist expansion, and provided heroic templates for modern "crusading" imperialist heroes.<ref> Adam Knobler, "Holy Wars, Empires, and the Portability of the Past: the Modern Uses of Medieval Crusades." ''Comparative Studies in Society and History'' 2006 48(2): 293-325. Issn: 0010-4175 Fulltext: [[Cambridge Journals]]; see also Elizabeth Siberry, ''The New Crusaders: Images of the Crusades in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries'' (2000)</ref>

===The Muslim world===

Muslim historiography does not cover the crusades with the same intensity as the West. One modern reason could be that Turks were primarily responsible for the defeat of the crusaders, and Arab historians (who have written much of modern Islamic history) may have underplayed this, due to the Turks role in establishing the Ottoman Empire - a period that suppressed Arab nationalism for seven centuries into the era of World War I.<ref> Hillenbrand, ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives'' p. 5</ref>

The great Muslim hero was a [[Kurdistan|Kurd]], Saladin (1138-93). Having defeated the crusaders in 1187, and become sovereign and founder of the Ayyubid dynasty in Egypt and Syria, Salah al-Din (Saladin) has been for a century the object of an intense glorification in the Arab world. Farah Antun's play ''Sultan Saladin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem'' (1914) illustrates how the historical figure of Saladin came to be presented as a prophet of Arab nationalism. Antun (1874-1922) was a Syrian Christian who presents Saladin as the champion of a just jihad against the Crusaders and as a faithful upholder of the virtues of wisdom, determination, and frankness, calling on the peoples of all Arab countries to unite against Western imperialists. The refusal of Antun's Saladin to become embroiled in quarrels within Europe had obvious echoes in World War I and caused the play to be censored by the British authorities in Egypt. In Palestine, the glorification also took the form of pilgrimages to Nabi Musa and became an occasion to celebrate the memory of the great hero of Muslim history. A recent myth proclaims him the initiator of Palestinian pilgrimages. The figure of the past has become the modern hero of Arab nationalism, giving hope to a society prey to war and dispersion. At the same time, however, the pilgrimage ritual highlights the limits of the hero: constantly appealed to and put to the test, he has begun to show signs of fragility.<ref> Emma Aubin-Boltanski, "Salah Al-din, un Heros a l'epreuve: Mythe et Pelerinage en Palestine," [Saladin, a Hero under Scrutiny: Myth and Pilgrimage in Palestine]. ''Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales'' [in French]] 2005 60(1): 91-107. Issn: 0395-2649</ref>

===Church Liturgy===

Linder (2001) examines 15th-century Church liturgy designed to generate support for the war effort against the Turks and to legitimize its aims. Two types of Contra Turcos Masses were used: masses converted to this function through the addition of appropriate three core prayers and complete dedicated masses. The most popular example of the first type was the triple prayer set originally established by Clement V as a Holy Land crusade liturgy and subsequently mobilized against the Turks. The second type is represented by nine different mass formularies that were introduced after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Most surviving liturgies are of German or French provenance, indicating extensive use not only among the front-line populations but also in areas far removed from any threat. The liturgy displays an its intense crisis rhetoric. Its predominant stance of vulnerability and defensiveness entailed aggressive mobilization and the conceptualization of the Turk as the actual, specific manifestation of the generic infidel, the competing religious Other; and the remarkable continuity - in form and in content - that linked this liturgy with its parent liturgies (mainly those of the campaigns against the pagans and the Holy Land Crusades) further accentuated these traits. The communicative function and value of this liturgy is highlighted by the concentration of the direct, unmediated communicative elements in that part of the mass that was the most accessible to the laity.<ref> Amnon Linder, "The War Liturgy Against the Turks in the Late Middle Ages." ''Historia: Journal of the Historical Society of Israel'' . 2001 (8): 73-105. Issn: 0334-4843; the text is in Hebrew. </ref>

== See also ==

*[[Dome of the Rock]]
*[[Al-Aqsa Mosque]]
*[[Famous Castles in the World]]

==Basic further reading==
* Andrea, Alfred J. ''Encyclopedia of the Crusades''. (2003).
* Asbridge, Thomas. ''The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/First-Crusade-History-Conflict-Christianity/dp/0195189051/ref=pd_bbs_9/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192595071&sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]
* France, John. ''Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/109099963 online edition]
*Hillenbrand, Car. ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives''. (2000). [http://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Islamic-Perspectives-Car-Hillenbrand/dp/1579582109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205278657&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
*Holt, P.M. ''The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517''. (1986).
* Housley, Norman. ''The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/65567896 online edition]
* Madden, Thomas F. ''The New Concise History of the Crusades''. (2005).
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades: A History'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Crusades-History-Jonathan-Riley-Smith/dp/0300101287/ref=pd_bbs_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192595071&sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Oxford History of the Crusades''. (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/72527140 online edition]; [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Illustrated-History-Crusades-Histories/dp/0192854283/ref=pd_bbs_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192595071&sr=8-12 excerpt and text search]
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Atlas of the Crusades'' (1991)
* Tyerman, Christopher. ''God's War: A New History of the Crusades'' (2006)

==Detailed Bibliography==
===Surveys===
* Andrea, Alfred J. ''Encyclopedia of the Crusades''. (2003).
* Asbridge, Thomas. ''The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/First-Crusade-History-Conflict-Christianity/dp/0195189051/ref=pd_bbs_9/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192595071&sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]
* France, John. ''Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/109099963 online edition]
*Hillenbrand, Car. ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives''. (2000). [http://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Islamic-Perspectives-Car-Hillenbrand/dp/1579582109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205278657&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
*Holt, P.M. ''The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517''. (1986).
* Housley, Norman. ''The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/65567896 online edition]
* Madden, Thomas F. ''The New Concise History of the Crusades''. (2005).
* Phillips, Jonathan, and Martin Hoch. ''The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Second-Crusade-Scope-Consequences/dp/0719057116/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205372474&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Queller, Donald E., and Thomas F. Madden. ''The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople'' (2nd ed. 1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Crusade-Conquest-Constantinople-Middle/dp/0812217136/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205270938&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades: A History'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Crusades-History-Jonathan-Riley-Smith/dp/0300101287/ref=pd_bbs_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192595071&sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Oxford History of the Crusades''. (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/72527140 online edition]; [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Illustrated-History-Crusades-Histories/dp/0192854283/ref=pd_bbs_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192595071&sr=8-12 excerpt and text search]
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Atlas of the Crusades'' (1991)
* Runciman, Steven. ''A History of the Crusades, Volume I: The First Crusade and the Foundations of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.''; ''Volume II: The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Frankish East 1100-1187.'' and ''Volume III: The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades'' (1951-53), the classic history; very hostile toward the crusaders
*Setton, Kenneth ed., ''A History of the Crusades''. (1969-1989), the standard scholarly history in six volumes, published by the University of Wisconsin Press [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=browse&scope=History.HistCrusades complete text online].
: Includes: [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?id=History.CrusOne ''The first hundred years''] (2nd ed. 1969); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&id=History.CrusTwo ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311''] (1969); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&id=History.CrusThree ''The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries''] (1975); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&id=History.CrusFour ''The art and architecture of the crusader states''] (1977); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&id=History.CrusFive ''The impact of the Crusades on the Near East''] (1985); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&id=History.CrusSix ''The impact of the Crusades on Europe''] (1989)
* Tyerman, Christopher. ''God's War: A New History of the Crusades'' (2006)

===Specialized studies===
* Abulafia, David. ''Frederick II: A Medieval Emperor'' (1988)
* Boas, Adrian J. ''Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades: Society, Landscape, and Art in the Holy City under Frankish Rule'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/read/107613849 online edition]
* Bréhier, Louis. "Crusades," [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1908) vol 4. online]
* Bréhier, Louis. "Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099-1291)," [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08361a.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1910) vol 8. online]
* Bull, Marcus, and Norman Housley, eds. ''The Experience of Crusading Volume 1, Western Approaches.'' (2003) 323pp)
** Edbury, Peter, and Jonathan Phillips, eds. ''The Experience of Crusading Volume 2, Defining the Crusader Kingdom.'' (2003) 326pp; specialized articles by scholars
* Butler, R. Urban. "Urban II," [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15210a.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1911) online]
* Edgington, Susan B., and Sarah Lambert, eds. ''Gendering the Crusades.'' (2002) 232pp essays by scholars.
* Folda, Jaroslav. ''Crusader Art in the Holy Land, From the Third Crusade to the Fall of Acre'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Crusader-Holy-Land-Third-Crusade/dp/0521835836/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205436596&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* France, John. ''Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade'' (1996)
* James, Douglas. "Christians and the First Crusade." ''History Review'' (Dec 2005), Issue 53; online at [[EBSCO]]
* Kagay, Donald J., and L. J. Andrew Villalon, eds. ''Crusaders, Condottieri, and Cannon: Medieval Warfare in Societies around the Mediterranean.'' (2003) [http://www.questia.com/read/109303998 online edition]
* Munro, Dana Carleton. ''The Kingdom of the Crusaders'' (1936) [http://www.questia.com/read/3840921 online edition]
* Peters, Edward. ''Christian Society and the Crusades, 1198-1229'' (1971) [http://www.questia.com/read/14405191 online edition]
* Powell, James M. ''Anatomy of a Crusade, 1213-1221,'' (1986) [http://www.questia.com/read/3123539 online edition]
* Richard, Jean. ''Saint Louis: Crusader King of France'' (1992)
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading''. (1986).
* Smail, R. C. "Crusaders' Castles of the Twelfth Century" ''Cambridge Historical Journal'' Vol. 10, No. 2. (1951), pp. 133-149. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1474-6913%281951%2910%3A2%3C133%3ACCOTTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J in JSTOR]
* Tyerman, Christopher. ''England and the Crusades, 1095-1588.'' (1988). 492 pp.
===Islam and Byzantium===
* Florean, Dana. "East Meets West: Cultural Confrontation and Exchange after the First Crusade." ''Language & Intercultural Communication,'' 2007, Vol. 7 Issue 2, pp144-151 in [[EBSCO]]
* Gabrieli, Francesco. ''Arab Historians of the Crusades'' (2009)
* Harris, Jonathan. ''Byzantium and the Crusades.'' (2003). Pp. 276pp
* Hillenbrand, Carole. ''The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Islamic-Perspectives-Surveys/dp/0748606300/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250294196&sr=1-15 excerpt and text search]
* Lane-Poole, Stanley. ''Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem'' (1898) [http://books.google.com/books?id=sb4bAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:Saladin+intitle:and+intitle:the+intitle:Fall+intitle:of+intitle:the+intitle:Kingdom+intitle:of+intitle:Jerusalem&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0&ei=gm3bR9CgCYPQiQGb0P3VAQ full text online]
* Maalouf, Amin. ''Crusades Through Arab Eyes'' (1989) [http://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Through-Arab-Eyes-Maalouf/dp/0805208984/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192595071&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Christianity-Bampton-Lectures-America/dp/0231146248/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250294049&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]

===Historiography===
* Constable, Giles. "The Historiography of the Crusades" in Angeliki E. Laiou, ed. ''The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World'' (2001); major overview of scholarship [http://www.doaks.org/Crusades/CR01.pdf online]
* Laiou, Angeliki E. ed. ''The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World'' (2001) [http://www.doaks.org/CRcnts.html online edition]
* Madden, Thomas F. ed. ''The Crusades: The Essential Readings'' (2002) ISBN 0-631-23023-8 284pp, articles by scholars
* Munro, Dana Carleton. "War and History,' ''American Historical Review'' 32:2 (January 1927): 219–31. On medieval histories of the crusades. [http://www.historians.org/info/AHA_history/dcmunro.htm online edition]

===Primary sources===
* Housley, Norman, ed. ''Documents on the Later Crusades, 1274-1580'' (1996)
* Krey, August C. ''The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-Witnesses and Participants'' (1958).
* Shaw, M. R. B. ed.''Chronicles of the Crusades'' (1963) [http://www.questia.com/read/58956484 online edition]
* Villehardouin, Geoffrey, and Jean de Joinville. ''Chronicles of the Crusades'' ed. by Sir Frank Marzials (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Chronicles-Crusades-Dover-Value-Editions/dp/0486454363/ref=pd_bbs_sr_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205270195&sr=8-8 excerpt and text search]
:Villehardouin's ''Conquest of Constantinople'' is a standard reference work on the Fourth Crusade; it is the first work in medieval French prose. Joinville's life of St. Louis is a classic description of the life and times of King Louis IX; it is written in Old French and is perhaps the best biography written in the Middle Ages.

====references====
<references/>

[[Category:Military History]]
[[Category:Medieval History]]
[[Category:Christian History]]
[[category:Crusades]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Crusades}}

Homosexuality and choice

2015-05-17T20:52:49Z

Sorry8roNoHetero: Replaced content with "Homosexuality is not a choice."

Homosexuality is not a choice.

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2015-05-17T20:30:05Z

Sorry8roNoHetero: /* Yes */

{{debate}}

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

I'm confused, are you trying to be funny? I sure hope so. When you bring words like "Conservative" and "Liberal" to bear, while taking one as YOUR side, it's, by definition, biased, and biased can never be balanced. Kurdt

Wikipedia has no bias. Wikipedia is objective. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to bias that out.
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]]
::How is saying that it's biased in the opposite way to something else evidence that it is "fair and balanced"? You seem to be admitting that it is in fact neither [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 16:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:How can Wikipedia have a liberal bias? Anyone can edit it and biased opinions are scrupulously edited out. Conservapedia is not based on the principles of balanced scrutiny or honesty like Wikipedia is; it is just a place where conservatives can blast their misinformed opinions at other conservatives. This is just like the pouty consevatives that run this country; if people dismiss their ridiculous anti-scientific, intolerant garbage, they whine about their critics being anti-Christian and go cry to the religious right. Can any one of you name even one example of Wikipedia being biased? (note that being secular and listening to opinions outside America is not bias!)

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''. Note: this unsigned opinion was provided by someone with common sense.

Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become.

NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

"We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out."
Fair and balanced? You've just indirecly admitted that you're saying two wrongs make a right. You cannot create a neutral opinion by balancing one biased opinion with another. HarryPalms, you are a shining example of how this site is far more guilty of the crimes you attribute to Wikipedia.
Also, if you read many (if not all) of the articles on Conservapedia, their first remarks are in some way tied to Christianity. That is probably the greatest possible bias you could create. It doesn't help that most Conservapedia articles on things such as Evolution and the Big Bang focus mostly on destroying belief in accepted theories, instead of creating new ones. Hmm... destroying, but creating nothing. That sounds more like Satan than any Antichrist conspiracy theory I've heard so far. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 16:54, 14 April 2007 (EDT)User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

Conservapedia is fair; I have not read many articles, but I like what I have read. Wikipedia, on the other hand, makes you depressed whenever you read anything about Christians. Also, could you people sign your name? It is hard to see where one person's post begins and another ends. Thanks! [[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:14, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

==No==

Conservapedia is not meant to be fair and balanced; its meant to be an alternative to wikipedia. Although an alternativeis necessary, its focus on being un-wikipedian greatly weakens its ability to grow.

The section named Economic Issues in the article on George W. Bush uses the example of Bush's economic success by stating, "For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well." So saying that a companies record profits brought in part due to record gas prices means that our economy is doing better? What about the fact that the Federal Reserve keeps raising interest rates to battle inflation and that people who purchased houses during the housing boom can't afford to keep their homes because of the rising interest rates? Or the fact that studies have shown that the gap between the upperclass and the lower class is growing while the middle class is being erroded away because of outsourcing? Or the fact that people in the U.S. continue to bury themselves in credit card debt and the lack of progress to ensure the future of Social Security. Also, there is growing concern over the over extension of credit that has been handed out, which is beginning to be considered comparable to what happened right before the stock market crash in 1929. Our economy is not doing any better and the United States keeps sticking thumbs in the holes of the dam instead of patching it up, if something isn't done soon, our country could suffer another economic crisis.

Also, in the article on the Patriot Act, it states that, "Despite the cries of liberal activist groups, such as the ACLU, there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act" What about all of the people being detained in Gitmo without the option of any sort of legal representation? Doesn't our constitution offer the right to a fair and speedy trial? Yet we have people being held in a military base in Cuba being robbed of those very rights because they aren't able to reach American soil to defend themselves in court. The Patriot Act is too powerful; what is going to stop a high ranking government official from abusing the Patriot Act in the future and throwing anyone they deem a "terrorist" or a "threat" into a military prison indefinately, just like Stalin did during the Great Purge?

There are many other articles that I've gone through that lean very heavily to the right, at some points going beyond conservative into ultra-conservative, and Bush Brand Conservative. And also, when did all conservatives become Christians? For a true balanced opinion there needs to be more imput from other conservatives from other religions and veiwpoints. Also, this site is heavily lacking compared to Wiki, for articles where Wiki has sufficient information this website has a 1 or 2 sentence summary. But thanks anyway for the entertaining reading this morning, I'll probably never return here unless I'm bored.

McCarthyism.........are you frightened yet?

{{unsigned|JesuswasaliberalJew}}

----

This is obviously a rebound to the free media of Wikipedia, and Conservatives are pissed off at Wiki because of it's librial articles.

For Example...

Here is a quote from the Conservapedia. "Sexual relations between the same sex is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. It is forbidden directly four times in the Bible." and "Studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse)."

Here is the Wikipedia description...

"Homosexuality can refer to both sexual behavior and sexual attraction between people of the same gender or to a sexual orientation."

If conservapedia wants to be known has a fair and balenced Encyclopedia then make sure your not showing bias to one side of the spectrum.

P.S The look of the site is very very very similar to Wikipedia

Fair and balanced? Don't make me laugh!

Consider this entry under '[[Islam]]':

"[[Islam]] is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to high birth rates in Muslim countries. Both Christian and Muslim sources agree that conversions to Christianity outnumber those to Islam"

The linked sources purporting to justfy that assertion are:

• on the Christian side, a website called 'World Christian Encyclopedia' — on a page fairly and objectively headed 'Muslim myths'

• on the Muslim side, an isolated Al Jezeera interview with one Sheikh Ahmad Al Katani, often jubilantly cited by Christian evangelists, which centres on Al Katani's statement that six milllion muslims convert to Christianity every year. This statement refers specifically to the situation in Africa and is given in the context of the speaker lamenting '''enforced Christianisation''' over a long period. As Al Katani says, "we are faced with the issue of taking advantage of circumstances, taking advantage of humanitarian needs, taking advantage of the lack of education for example, that these people (missionaries) use to take Muslims out of their religion".

This is followed by a section headed 'Ex-Muslims', which is nothing more than a plug for a linked anti-Islamic weblog.

Don't get me wrong. I'm going to enjoy Conservapedia. I have it bookmarked under 'Comedy'.

[[User:Bosatsu|Bosatsu]] 10:55, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

-------

I am a little concerned with the fact that conservapedia users, such as they may be, don't realize that if they feel something is biased in wikipedia that they too can change it. I find it a bit totalitarian that a number of entries on conservapedia are taken off and blocked, i.e. anything dealing with a sexual nature. While I agree that there are very biased articles in wikipedia, the beauty of the system is such that anyone can change an article. However, conservapedia deletes anything questionable.

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This may come as a shock to many who peruse Conservapedia, but America is NOT the entire world. Most of the world doesn't even care what America thinks, and sees it largely as a joke. So citing the number of people in America who support literal biblical conservatism is silly, because even if it were all 300 million souls, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 17:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07

Of course it's biased. Even the name suggests a right-winged bias! [[The Theory of Evolution]] page shows NOTHING supporting the theory, wheras Wikipedia shows BOTH sides of the arguments and uses citations and proof. Using the above figures, If 67% of the population is Conservative, and 33% is Liberal, then surely the laws of statistics state that more Conservatives would use Wikipedia... Or perhaps it's just that the Liberal demographic is more aligned with the intellectual, freethinking people who tend to use the web.

conservapedia is about as fair and balanced as Bill O'Rielly is, and if wikipedia is " liberal", liberal must mean based in reality.

Conservapedia states its bias right in its own name. forcing all articles to be 'clean' and conservative makes you bias, duh. Not everything in the world is 'clean' as you want it to be, and trying to hide it is sad and wrong.

Biased. Wikipedia is not anti-American. Wikipedia is not anti-Christian. Conservapedia: The name says it all. Go to talkorigins.org, and go to the creationist claims. The Bible is faith, evolution is a fact. I found there that a new species has evolved in our time: some mosquito.
:Gees that was easy; you wanna buy some land in Florida? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'm a Homeschooler (Well, I was, I'm in college now) and a Christian, and I see this as biased. I mean, I see both as biased in they're own way (Conservapedia and Wikipedia). If there is a theory of evolution on here, the creationism should be also viewed as theory or such. "Religious doctrine" as on wikipedia. And again, with what a few people have said, you need BOTH sides of an argument. If you made this due to the left-wing bias (I refrain from saying Anti-American, Anti-Christian because it's down right silly), then don't show right-wing bias, give us neutrality.

Truth is the only thing that matters. I read all the dissenting arguements; Wikipedia is not this or not that. Wikipedia has a diversity of contributors. If Wikipedia is liberal it must be based on reality. Give me a break. Thats is all b.s. fluff, if the article misrepresents the truth, what do you actually learn? I see Conservapedia as striving for truth in everything. The same can't be said of Wikipedia that places their agenda first.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, do you understand the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Enlighten us all oh great master. Like I said before, what is fair? It would not be fair if I told you a lie. What is balanced? Two sides presented, the side that is right and the side that is wrong. Opinion, is PF Fox thinking he is right because he believes it to be, everybody else wrong or just dissenters from his so called facts (op).--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Throw away your opinions for 30 seconds, and go read the "news" on the front page. How does it color liberalism? Pssht. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]
[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:26, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Not grey, whereby everybody is right and nobody is wrong.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

"Enlighten us all oh great master?" How old are you, jpatt?

"Fair," jpatt is being factual even when the facts are inconvenient for you. "Opinion," is "a view or judgement formed in the mind about a particular matter." Some people base their opinions on fact. Some people base their opinions on ideology. How about you? I am confident enough in the validity of my own opinioins to be both frank and accurate when discussing history or quoting people with whom I disagree. How about you?

I've been reading and watching the news for forty years. I'm experienced enough to have known liberals who fought bravely in World War II, in the Korean War, and in the Vietnam War. I'm old enough to remember that it was liberals who put their lives on the line marching for Black Civil Rights. Some liberals paid the ultimate price for it. Ever heard of them? Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman? Viola Liuzzo? Jean Donovan and Dorothy Kazel? Are those names familiar to you, or did they not come up while you were being homeschooled? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: Nobody is questioning the elder generations of liberals committment and sacrifice to America. Even today, democrats and republicans fight side by side. What this generation does it what troubles many. Unwilling to listen and reason is gone in America. It is now become "I am smarter than you because I believe a certain way".--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, this current generation of liberals includes those who marched during the Civil Rights era and who fought in Vietnam. It even includes a few who fought in the second World War. And so far, you've shown little inclination to either listen or reason. Do you really consider calling people "scum" an example of rational debate? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Fair and balanced? Good God No. First, this website proudly proclaims it is not balanced. Second, there is little regard for truth. One can post or edit an article, for example to make it more historically accurate, and be accused of attempting to plant a "liberal falsehood." The history lecture section is a mess and really needs to redone, but of course, it is locked. It looks like it was taken out of a grade school history book, circa 1935.
But I do think conservapedia reflects the changing nature of information and technology in our society. Rather than being better informed and educated, internet and media outlets now tend to reinforce what one ''thinks'' is true. So we now have a society that will become gradually dumber and less informed. Conservapedia may survive, but it will never be anything more than a resource for homeschoolers. Already, we see a corps of sysops who quickly (despite their protests to the contrary) ban people without cause and are unwilling to listen to reason, or evidance. It seems that Conservapedia is on its way to becoming an echo chamber, where only "correct" ideas are heard and only "correct" thinking is permitted. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 16:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

So wise 1048247, you can't even use a name, just a number. "there is little regard for the truth". Sounds like mearly your opinion, not based on any facts. If very little regard for the truth here then the internet publication Wikipedia is a complete fraud, unworthy of any educational value. So, you claim no truth exists on Conservapedia? Funny, how you decide to frequent it then. Why do you support the website you seek to condemn. Hypocrisy?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Invective is not argument, Jpatt. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

It's logically impossible to be 'fair and balanced' when the stated aim is to create a "non-liberal Encyclopedia". It's like saying you want to create Science that's not based on Science or some other such tautology. [[User:50something|50something]]

Jpatt, Ideology trumps truth on conservapedia. Please reread my post. I said there is "little regard for the truth," not "there is not truth on conservapedia." I wrote something regarding historical fact and had portions of it immediatly reverted by a sysop who declared it "a liberal flasehood." The sysop relied on his own uninformed beleifs and was too lazy to look sources. As for frequenting the site: I am appaled that this is the sort of history education that students recieve. I will correct some articles, because I want too. As far as wikis go, no one should use either wikipedia or conservapedia as a research source. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 09:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I think its full of cra...we all know that last word.
If liberalism means not discriminate nor play with our childrens mind I think its the best thing that has ever happend to the world. Children will read this page and grow up with this conservative un-evolve mind.
The rest of a the world has evolve to not discriminate homosexual, black or even female people. This conservative, church followers republican americas have seem to stay in the 18th century.
What is wrong with you people? Homosexuality is not an ilness! The bible doesn't state that homosexual people must die! That's bullshi.... If you teach this things to your children, the times of war will never end. We are not in 1720, we are in the 21th century! We have passed the time of discrimination for god sakes.
Religion is an important thing to everyone. Faith is. The church its just an institution that wants power and money. You, conservative republican americans, go against everything god taught us!
You hide behind lame excuses about how we (liberals) go against the bible. If you think a little you will see thats actually you. You are the ones who support Bush. You are the ones who support war, discrimination, violence, not us. We are clearly against all that.

: Very good point, we are all in the 21st century now. We have become the smartest generation. Time to abandon all reason and follow what human kind says is best for us. Church is the bride of Christ. It is not about power and money. As for supporting war, the Pope came out against the war. But that doesn't fit into your biased argument. The definition of reality, God is reality. You claim otherwise, you are out of touch with reality. By the way, homosexuality was claimed by the medical profession as an illness until the secular humanists got it removed.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:18, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality was also treated as a crime, homosexuals were thrown in prison and, since they were deemed "mentally ill" frequently forcibly institutionalized in insane asylums. Plainly, you'd like a return to those "good old days." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:50, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::*''We have become the smartest generation.'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Well isn't that a wonderful pat on our backs made by someone who lives in the present and can make that statement objectively.

How can God be the basis for reality when no one can say with certinity that God exists?--[[User:Freehan|Freehan]] 13:46, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:When [[Earth]] (for example) gives such prominence to not just a creationist view, but a ''factional view within creationism'', that can't be balanced. And fair? I'm seeing quite a few complaints about unfair sysoping, but I haven't been here long enough to get a reasonable picture. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 18:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Sigh...To say this site is "fair and balanced" is to lie outright. I mean, look at any page dealing with homosexuality. They're starting to look like they were written by [[Fred Phelps]]! Especially the [[homosexual agenda]] page—Why does that piece of religiously biased junk even exist? I really think that the aforementioned page should be either unlocked or deleted, preferably the latter.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 21:29, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not balanced, nor is it fair to call it an encyclopedia. It has an American/conservative/Christian bais to the articles and topics that are politically volitile in American culture right now. Abortion, evolution, the federal government, religion, and other articles dealing with hot button American and world social issues have a distinguishable slant in the favor of opinions that champion conservative American Christian ideals over other opinions such as those of secular humanists, liberal American Christians, American Muslims, feminists, and others. The bottom line is if an institution is going to call itself an encyclopedia, it should at least conform to the generally accepted format for an ecyclopedia and include all or most of the relevant accumulated knowledge on a subject or discipline, not just the relevent accumulated knowledge that portrays the subject in a particularly favorable or unfavorable light in regards to the socio-political debates surrounding the subject of interst. Conservapedia is not an encyclopedia, but rather an institution that subtlely promotes religious and political views of conservative Christian Americans through the primary role of offering information in an psuedo-encyclopedic manner. -[[User:Charles |Avidreaderofhistory]]([[User talk:Charles |contact me]]) 11:15, 22 June 2007

Only one word needed: [[Kangaroo]]. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Anybody who claims conservapedia is fair and balanced is clearly missing the elephant in the room. '''By taking a conservative point of view conservapedia is bias by definition'''. To say you are conservative (or liberal for that matter) means that you hold points of view that are biased in favour of one political ideology. ideology (Liberal or conservative) always distorts the truth to favour its own outlook and this is very much evident here. It is a denial of reality to say that every conservative view point is correct and that every liberal view point is nonsense yet this is the tone of Conservapedias articles. The greatest enemy of the truth is not lies but conviction. In this case Conservapedia is a fine example of conservative conviction. Contributors to conservapedia are so convinced of their conservative beliefs that when they write articles with a blatant conservative slant (bias by definition remember) they think they are writing what could be considered to be true.
For the record I believe conservapedia is the last thing that America needs at this point in time. It further polarises the country masquerading conservative opinions as fair and balanced truth. We get enough of that with fox news

:By my count, there are about 50 No comments and 14 Yes comments (it's really hard to place some on one side or the other, not to mention working out where one comment ends and another starts!). Since presumably this site has a very high proportion of supporters amongst its (not blocked) users compared with the population in general, the answer seems very clear. It makes me wonder where all the admins are, maybe they have just looked at this page and can't come up with any arguments to make in Conservapedia's defence? Anyway, the comparisons with Fox News are interesting, maybe Conservapedia is owned by (or at least receives donations from) [[Rupert Murdoch]] too... actually his article seems very positive! [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:38, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

----

Conservapedia is clearly biased - but I'm still here to contribute in whatever manner I can. For example, in the article [[Godless Liberal]] which I created, I tried to defuse the negative stigma on the word. A conservapedia Sysop insisted on saying something about Liberal Atheists 'insisting' on purging spirituality from the public. I would rather the term 'believes in the merits of' or 'feels that purging spirituality is beneficial', rather than 'insists on', as there is definately a negative tone to this.

Another example is in the [[France article]] where they go out of their way to say the French didn't support the Iraq war, but make no such qualification for Germany. This is clearly because France is a whipping boy of the religious right. Also, they call it the Liberation of Iraq, but a more accurate term is the invasion of Iraq.

([[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 11:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT))

After spending many days reviewing the site and the works posted I think the name should be Christianpedia, not Conservapedia. I consider myself Conservative but the focus on christian values and the obvious out-to-get-Wikipedia attitude makes one wonder about the objectivity of this site.
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 18:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Obviously Conservapedia is biased, far more than Wikipedia is. 6x more liberal than the average population? Maybe somewhat but you have to look for it. Here you can't go into "kangaroo" without having God pushed in your face. Wikipedia doesn't say atheism is right or wrong, here they have an entire article dedicated to showing how evil and morally corrupt all atheists are, when in reality, they are just normal people.{{unsigned|Conservativezpl}}

No, Conservapedia is not fair and balanced. It clearly favors right wing, neo-conservative political and social attitudes as to counter the "liberal bias" of wikipedia. It is disconserning, however, to see that many of the facts present in the article relating to wikipedia's bias are, in fact, wrong. It seems like the author never even bother to go to wikipedia. Also, to those who believe wikipedia is biased, there is a way you can change this, by writing your own article and citing the sources. Very simple, really. There is nothing balanced about this site, and it is fair only insofar as you a) believe in Jesus, and b) believe every one else is lying. Note the spend-o-meter on the front page featuring hillary clinton. A presidential term is four years. So, by my count, she would spend $777 billion over four years. Currently, President Bush just asked (and received) $800 Billion for the next years budget. Where is that little news flash? :)

----

Conserverapedia only offers one side of any given argument, and is therefore even worse than wikipedia, which at least tries to be unbiased. Such as in the homeschooling page, it forgets to point out why homeschooling can be BAD. It only seems to glorify it, while forgetting that home schooled students often have a lack of social skills, and miss out on ideas that are not supported by their parents.

In the abortion article, it does the same thing. Apparently, there is no good that can come from abortion, when that is entirely biased. If it were unbiased, both sides of the abortion arguement would be presented, and there would be examples of situations in which abortion was the best alternative.

~Slif
(No, I don't know how to do all of those fancy codes)

so lets pretend that i thought wikipedia was anti-voodoo, if i created a website called voodoopedia.com thats pro-voodoo it wouldn't be fair and balanced, partially because even if i pretended that it was balanced, if all the sysop were pro voodoo i couldn't really see it being fair and balanced, and partially because IT DECLARES ITS PRO-(something) which means that it isn't fair on the topic-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:31, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
----
Conservapedia's article on [[Conservatives]] says that they support Second Amendment rights. They forgot to say that they don't support any other part of the constitution. Oh, they locked that page from editing. Any more questions whether Conservapedia is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" anymore? This is any more "Fair" and "Balanced than Bush himself.

NO!!! NO!!! SEriously what the hell. I wonder which sysop filled half of the main page with "shame on Barack Obama" and "oh my god". I hardly think that Obama would call this fair and balanced. Not very encyclopedic, if you ask me.--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 07:49, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...HAHAHAHAHAHA.. oh that's the funniest of all the jokes i've read so fa... oh they're serious that's just sad.([[User:Gosweden|Gosweden]])

----
Conservapedia isn't meant to be fair and balanced, it's meant to tell the truth. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:51, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Is that a serious question? ==
The answer is quite obviously an emphatic "No." It has the name of a political ideology ''in the name!'' That fact alone precludes any chance of current or eventual balance or reliability.

*Agree it's clearly NO on both counts due to the statement on the front page. "A [[Conservative]] encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free." Clearly conservative is a point of view. Wikipedia on the other hand comes from the [[Atheist]], [[Secular]], [[Socialist]], [[Communist]], [[Social democracy|Social Democratic]] and [[Liberal]] points of view. I don't understand why this is a matter of discussion. This encyclopedia is meant to balance the other one. [[User:KirjathSepher|KirjathSepher]] 14:44, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

I've edited articles on Wikipedia. I am not an atheist, I'm a broadstream evangelical, Reformed anabaptist specifically. If you're polite, fair, and believe that things can be discussed in the following manner: "We both have different views on this controversial topic. I think I'm right, and you think you're right, let's discuss and share how we work through the issues even though I think you're clearly wrong and you think I'm clearly wrong" you shouldn't have any problem encountering Wikipedia bias. However, if you insist on going into Wikipedia and acting as though those who disagree with you are stupid, that you are unbiased, that there cannot be any debate over these issues because you're right, obviously you will encounter resistance.

For example, read how the article on [[Predestination]] is handled on Conservapedia - it is pretty unbiased toward either side, phrases such as "According to" and "Proponents of...say..." appear. Contrast this to the page on [[Jesus]] - which bluntly states some facts which read more like a Creed than a serious encyclopedia article.

==Of course not, but...==

Nothing is without bias - no historical account, no statistic, no news story, no sociological study, nothing. Any attempt to collect, analyze, interpret and present data will be shaped by the people who are engaged in the process, by national, gender, class,religious, cultural and a host of other concerns. Even something as apparently "unbiased" as a census is biased in terms of what questions it asks - and what questions it does not. From what I've seen, Conservapedia, like, let's say, the [[Daily Kos]], wears its bias on its sleeve. Is that a bad thing? Of course not. The real question is "Is Conservapedia intellectually honest in the way that it collects and presents information." [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 12:39, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:As you state, nothing is perfect or without some form of bias, but Conservapedia is up front that the Conservative view that is often censored in other media will be freely presented here. For that reason alone, this forum and website is a refreshing alternative. Anyone seeking open dialogue should be able to find sites that present a number of different views. Generally speaking, it is much harder to find sites that allow the information put forth in Conservapedia than it is to find the Politically Correct flavor. At the very least we present alternatives that are suppressed in many other settings. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

: Yes, it does balance out Wikipedia. Which means that if someone were to read the articles on Creationism and Evolution on here, and then look up those same articles on Wikipedia, ''that'' would be fair and unbalanced. (Of course that assumes we have exactly the same amount of Conservative bias as Wikipedia has liberal bias, which frankly I don't think is true or even possible, but that's not the point). So yes, looking up the same thing on different sites which have different views is "fair and balanced" but any single one of those sites would not be. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:40, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

==The Wedge Document==
Given that the [http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html wedge document] was deleted instantaly, I rather think not.[[User:Albertdock|Albertdock]] 13:57, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Absolutely not==

This seems like as good a place to post this as any. I realize that many of you will not like my views, but in this world you need to communicate with those you disagree with.

My name is Max, and I am a homosexual pastor with the First Church Of Christ in Atlanta, Georgia. I have an honest connection with God, as well as with my partner. Time and again when I read your site, I find evidence that Conservapedia is not fair. At all.

Who are you to tell me that God doesn't love me or that I can't join him in the kingdom of Heaven? The only Earthly figure I would hear that from is Jesus Christ, and he said nothing about homosexuality. Nothing. Not a word. One thing Christ said was that all should love one another, not denounce each other. Instead of trying to focus on God and how better to worship him, you spend your time telling people that gays are immoral and unholy. I did not choose to become gay; I was raised in a tolerant Christian household where my parents understood who I was. I have been a lifelong Christian in the Deep South, where gays like me are persecuted. I have been driven out of churches after years as a churchgoer when it was found that I was gay, but I refuse to leave God.

You say that Wikipedia isn't fair, that it displays a bias, yet you, in article after article, denounce every conceivable group that isn't among you. Unlike you, I am tolerant. You call atheists, as a group, awful things, just because they don't believe in God. How can you possibly say you are more fair when anyone who is not a Christian is driven away from this site?

Another thing. Evolution and God are not incompatible. Has it ever occurred to any of you that the miracle that a single cell evolved into what we are could have been the work of God? Instead, you take lies for truth.

Instead of instantly banning me as with so many others, are any here willing to honestly debate me? Or will you just call me a faggot and ban me? I know which Christ would do.

-MaxV

Kudos, Max, Kudos. I appreciate your tolerant views, as a liberal humanist and a human being. Thank you for being Christ- like, not just Christian. I agree with you that Conservapedia is not fair in the slightest; an easy example: look under the first paragraph of liberal and the first under conservative. It is blantly biased. I do not appreciate how negative this site is to people not of the Christian faith or have conservative views. But anyways. Once again, thank you Max.

-IContainMultitudes

:Well, seems like some people make Christianity whatever they want it to be. A homosexual pastor falls in the same category as Christian abortion supporters. You may take this as bias toward others not conservative. I care to think of it as we don't tolerate sin, we aren't inclusive of sin, we don't coexist with sin. God said it was wrong for man to be alone so he created a woman, not another man. My guess is a gay pastor has to pick and choose his beliefs aka [[Cafeteria Christian]]. I am not condemning your actions or beliefs but there is a judgement day that you will answer for. The rectum was designed for a reason. Procreation? No. Love? No again. Waste discharge. Any other use is just an abomination. Are you reading this vandal site members? The truth isn't fair.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::What Christ would tell you to do is exactly what he said to the adulterous woman in John 8: QUIT SINNING! You think He's going to tolerate sin? As a Christian pastor - or so you claim - you should know better than that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:06, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

Thankfully those of you spending any appreciable amount of time posting on such Earth-shatteringly important topics as why Obama is a Muslim and the like aren't posting on Wikipedia, a site people actually read and rely on. I appreciate your efforts to cordon yourselves off. Thank you. -- Mike H.

Just came across this looking for something else, but my answer to the question would be no, CP is not "fair and balanced" at least at in the sense that some hold WP to be, which, for instance, allows most any interpretation of the Bible to be treated as viable, as its basis for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, and so Pontius Pilate could well be an editor. CP is evidenced to be an alternative to WP, which manifests a liberal bias. While WP is very useful in most topics, CP, despite some drawbacks, allows a distinction to be made between truth and falsehood in places where WP would hold all as equal.

As re your promotion of tolerance, as you are a homosexual pastor with a partner, you are obviously intolerant of the historical, and warranted position that leaves you guilty of fornication , and that of a most perverse sort. While arguments for such may be considered viable on WP, attempts to wrangle this out of the Bible inevitably negate its Divine authority, and renders God into an image more palatable to carnal men. In regard to such, see [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]], and may all find grace to repent and be truly born again and walk in newness of life.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:39, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

==No==

Why is it so difficult to follow your own rules? Why is it so hard to simply let people say what they believe outside of mainspace? Is this an encyclopedia or a blog? This text was taken from a short-lived conversation I had with sysop Karajou over the email. I am not afraid of saying what I believe, and so long as I do not try to force my beliefs on others, you have no right to censor me based on your own rules. Unless you're all closet liberals or something. (Ostrich Syndrome is, after all, a very "liberal" disease to have, right?)

Subject: RE: Your behavior problem

Hey, first of all, thank you for emailing! That means a lot to me. I’ll start with the reason that I continued recreating my account using a privoxy. When I uploaded my opinions onto my userpage, I was not in violation of any Conservapedia Commandments. I was displaying liberal thoughts and negative feelings towards the site administration, but it was not in mainspace, it was on my personal page, where I can, by the site’s rules, voice my thoughts. I feel that Conservapedia is ruled through fear; your behavior as an administrator in this situation shows that you have no respect for your own rules or people that disagree with you, and since you have the level of power that you do, people are afraid of standing up to your persecution. I was blocked without violating the rules, and my only hope of appealing the block was nonexistent as I had no way of talking to anybody about the situation.

I apologize for violating the rules, but you must realize that a system of law means nothing if the lawmaker does not abide by it. I guarantee that you and I disagree on a great deal of topics, but that does not make one of us any more correct than the other. You and I are both human beings, and our brains are imperfect. Furthermore, for a site claiming to be Christian in nature, I see nothing Christ-like about it. It’s discriminatory and immature in the way it treats users, and I’ve never known it to spread anything but hatred and partisanship. What would Jesus do? For that matter, what would Buddha do? What would Muhammad do? The point of religion shouldn’t have to be war and hate. I would want to love people in the name of a higher power, not kill them.

I’ll respond to your points…

1) True, I should adhere to the subject matter. But Conservapedia claims to have no subject matter, and rather be a straight-forward encyclopedia without the Liberal bias of Wikipedia. For the record, I agree that Wikipedia has Liberal bias. I attempted to talk to the editors there about removing some of the essentially pornographic images on their vast library of sexuality pages, but I didn’t get anywhere…

2) I don’t want anybody to accept my beliefs. I want to get my opinion out there and show people multiple perspectives, something Conservapedia tries to… dare I say… censor. I disagree with CP, but that doesn’t make me right, it just gives me a different perspective. I want to explore the Conservative and Christian perspective, but all I got for that wish was hatred! Before the system failure a couple weeks ago, I was talking to a guy named Rod Weathers about it. I wished to explore the website’s point of view, since mine was so different. Instead of showing openness, he lashed out and attacked me for disagreeing, not even explaining his personal viewpoint to me. How is that any different than the persecution of Christians in ancient Rome, or the persecution of Zoroastrians by the Muslims? I am not trying to push Liberalism. I just want people to work together!

3) An encyclopedia based on free Wiki software is built around teamwork. Andrew Schlafly has even stressed the importance of that. If you don’t give people the voice they deserve regardless of what they think, you don’t have an encyclopedia built out of teamwork, you have a BLOG. It is a blog written and limited to a group of people who see eye to eye, and I know that isn’t what it intended to be.

4) I could call Conservatism a mental disorder as well, but I won’t because I know that both sides have valuable ideas to bounce off one another in contribution to a peaceful society. I believe in cooperation, and your attitude, your “behavior problem” as a person of power spreads hatred and discommunication. This doesn’t get anybody anywhere; when we make war with each other, we are pushing ourselves backwards! I don’t like Obama because he’s Liberal or Black or whatever else you hate him for. I like him because I believe he wants people to help each other out. Life is a struggle for anybody, and it’s too short to waste any time hating people. There’s no reason to strive to hurt other people or drag them down further for what they believe, just because you can’t see beyond black and white, so to speak. I’m really sorry for sounding so accusational! I’m trying my best to respect you, Karajou, I really am!

Everybody is going to hell. Islam extremists think that everybody who doesn’t agree with them is headed for eternal damnation. Christian extremists, such as the administration at CP, feel the same way about their beliefs. I understand that your faith is strong, but what makes it any more correct than anybody else’s? I feel that faith is believing in your heart that which cannot be proven empirically, and there are people of all religions who feel a strong connection to their faith as you do to yours. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it true absolutely, and people who disagree with you are not going to hell automatically. To assert that you can decide what constitutes right and wrong is to assert that you are a God in your own right, and I just can’t bring myself to call that kind of behavior “Christian.”

I’m using a special program that randomly changes my IP address. I don’t know much about computers or the functioning of the internet, but this program isn’t really a proxy, and I don’t think there’s a thing you can do about it, to be honest. I came to Conservapedia as a sort of missionary, you could say. I’m not trying to impose my mindset on others. I just want to give the users of Conservapedia the freedom to think for themselves; I guess you could say that I’m trying to push Anti-Fascism, in a way. I know CP won’t change to my whims, and I don’t expect it to. But I believe that peace is always the better option, and that this site is an ironic joke, the exact opposite of what it set out to be, and I really want to help it get back on track with itself.

Thanks for your time, Karajou. I hope that you and I can sort this out soon! Best of luck to you.

Sincerely, Marvin

-----Original Message-----
From: (Karajou, real name censored for privacy reasons)
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:49 PM
To: hoeftfam@hutchtel.net
Subject: Your behavior problem

"Karajou, my voice will not be censored any longer. I want to respect you, and I wish you could respect me, but that will never be possible if you don't directly communicate with me. Please send me and email, or a message on CP if you don't want to disclose your email address. I am not demanding instant change or personal gratification; I merely want people to start working together instead of fighting. I will not make any mainspace edits if you will agree to give me a voice. Please do not ban me; I will find a way back on with the below message again and again. I would love to talk to you about this; I simply disagree with the direction that Conservapedia has taken, and I would like to help it become a positive resource again. Also, please don't label me using pejorative smears. Thank you."

This is what you wrote above your lengthy rant, and it ends with "please don't label me using pejorative smears". Your whole rant contains perjorative smears you used against the site, and you have a problem with a smear being labled against you?

Here's what I am going to say about this matter:

1. You do not have the right to enter Conservapedia, or any other website for that matter, and edit as you wish. If you think you can do that in the name of free speech, then find a Star Wars wiki and post articles on the American Civil War. Let's see how far you get.
2. You do not have the authority to tell anyone who is Christian to accept your beliefs, your views, and your ideas in the name of tolerance; you do not have the authority to demand that anyone within Conservapedia or the administration here must be tolerant of liberalism or anyone who pushes it. We have booted people off Conservapedia for this reason, and you are no different.
3. You do not have the right to come into Conservapedia and demand a voice. We are building an encyclopedia, not a town hall meeting place.
4. Conservapedia is a conservative website and resource; that is the direction that we will take it, and we will highlight exactly what is wrong with the rest of society when and where we see it. If this means showing off the mental disorder that liberalism really is, then so be it. That isn't hatred for our fellow human beings; it is telling them that what they are doing is wrong, and by so doing, we are warning them from ending up in a place called hell.

You came to Conservapedia of your own volition; no one invited you. And you expect us to change our ways to accomodate you? The pushing of your own ideas as expressed in your rant has identified you as the fascist, not us. Your further went out of your way to gain access to Conservapedia by using proxies and network sharing devices, one in Florida, the other in Prague. That is called lying and deceit. Do you think we should tolerate that as well? Do you think we should tolerate people who have every intention to be less-than-honest when they come into our website?

The answer is no. You are censored whether you like it or not. If you have a problem with that, call the nearest congressman.

Have a nice day.

[[User:MarvinST|MarvinST]]

Conservapedia isn't meant to be balanced, it's meant to tell the truth. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:54, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

No. it's there in the title, CONSERVApedia. it's ok not to be balanced between liberals and conservatives, but you should never try to justify yourself if the sole goal of your cause is to support or propagate a decidedly polar idea or outlook--[[User:Flounder19|Flounder19]] 00:33, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

No. But I don't think there's any source that's truly fair and balanced. The vast majority of our members and editors are Conservatives. Of course it's going to have a Conservative bias for the same reason Wikipedia has a liberal bias. I don't think that's a problem, because if it were it would invalidate every single source of news and information in the world. But it is most definitely NOT fair and balanced. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:36, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

:Telling the truth may not seem "fair" to those who wish to deceive, or are deceived themselves. But we don't follow the FOX News slogan, "fair and balanced". We tell the truth, as well as we can. We also describe opposing points of view.

:It would be unfair to pretend that controversy does not exist, when actually people disagree sharply on all sorts of things. By presenting only one point of view, it's possible to give the impression that no other view exists. That would be deceptive, and yet it's the most common mode of argument.

:That is where we part company with Wikipedia. While professing to exalt a neutral approach to controversy, they began (around 2004-2006) to argue that describing opposing points of view gives '''support''' to these. They call this "undue weight" and "equal validity", as if describing something is the same as endorsing it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:23, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

==No, But...==
If people followed the rules and principles of the site it could be, and could be a great resource for understanding the world from a conservative point of view. Sadly, the site founder ASchlafly, and the user named "conservative," among others, seem to have little regard for truth, and only want to make all Christians look good and all liberals look bad. Really, the truth is more complicated, and we must be honest with ourselves and others when we take a look at it; it is possible to do this while maintaining our faith, and this is what the best of conservatives have done and how Christians can carry out the best works and truly reach others.

It is sad because this site could be truly useful if people didn't look at the flaws in liberal arguments and then try to do the exact same thing or even worse. The fallacious and trivial arguments on this site are an embarrassment. I can't in good conscience tell my younger cousins in school to use this site as a resource in its current form. I hate to say it but Wikipedia, despite its flaws, is currently more reliable and more balanced. I wish there truly were an alternative that were more focused on truth and less on trying to deny the other side as much as possible.

I really can't tell if Schlafly and the other major editors mean what they say about truth in a tongue-in-cheek or satirical way. But the Bible does not teach us to see truth in such a cynical way. And the world does not teach us that progress is made without confronting our problems. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 14:48, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

: Amen. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 15:24, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

:::A brief comment: As far as "making liberals <big>'''look bad'''</big>", while I certainly understand that some people have health conditions such as thyroid conditions which contribute to weight problems, I certainly don't make obese and overweight atheists overeat or engage in other unhealthy habits such as "swilling beer" when [[PZ Myers|they already have a unsightly gut that could use some Slimfast instead]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:47, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Funny, and I'm not saying that PZ Myers doesn't deserve it - he's arrogant, confrontational, and disrespectful, and, yes, overweight. But that kind of attack belongs on a blog or an entertainment site, not an encyclopedia dedicated to conservative values. I don't consider that kind of gossip to be a conservative value. And it's not relevant to any kind of important truth. I don't mean to be too serious - I like a good sense of humor, and I want to contribute more on comedy and comedians (I've already added an entry on Nick DiPaolo). But that brand of humor seems like the territory of liberal blogs like Gawker and Perez Hilton, and seems to me a great example of Hollywood values. Thanks for your support, Joaquin. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 19:02, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I also wanted to add that the claim that I want to make "all liberals look bad" is certainly an extravagant claim. I am merely one person and there are certainly a very large amount of liberals in the world. There are only so many hours in a day and I certainly have other interests than supposedly trying to make all liberals look bad. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:10, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::By the way, I do find it telling that you implied I made a fallacious argument somewhere, but failed to support that contention. Given you are advocating that others act in a more noble manner, your lack of holding yourself up to a high standard is very poor form. As a result, I see no compelling reason to further posts to this web page. But please feel free to engage in any [[last wordism]] that you may wish to engage in. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:42, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::I think conservative's first comment is the most apropos illustration of silliness of this site. KingHanksley: "I have some serious objections to how information is presented on this site". Conservative: "Atheists are fat". Touché , conservative - argument over. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 19:59, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You complain over lack of substance but you fail to provide any. So, where did Conservative make a fallacious argument? One of the main points of Consevapedia is to hold liberals to account, and Conservative's articles do this in a fun and informative manner. Wikipedia already exists, why try to turn Conservapedia into a copy of it? [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 21:02, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Jimmy - I never said that Conservative in particular made fallacious arguments, although it is true that he has done so. At least on the atheists and obesity page, he made hasty generalizations by giving a few atheists (the board of one organization) as evidence that atheism causes obesity, made a non sequitur argument by suggesting that a Gallup study showing that the non-religious are generally less healthy than the very religious showed that atheists were obese...but conservative is one user, he is not the issue, and for all I know he could work very hard and make positive contributions, and I have only seen the negative ones. That's a fair point, I don't know. But my impression is that a lot of the site contains a lot of ad hominem attacks, hasty and sweeping generalizations, and I think the most honest users see it...as for "lack of substance," see the pages on the characteristics of atheists and liberals, the pages on the Obamas, PZ Myers, etc. There's lots of irrelevant information that falls under the category of petty attacks....As for the point of Conservapedia - taking liberals to account certainly does matter, and I think it's great to satirize faulty logic on their side. This does not mean sinking to the level of triviality, making arguments we do not fully believe just because it's funny. I agree that liberals use illogical arguments all the time, but the way to address them is by showing how ''a liberal makes those arguments,'' not making them from a conservative standpoint and making ''ourselves'' look like the idiots. For example, [[Stephen Colbert]] is a liberal, but he mocks conservatives by making specious arguments from the "conservative" side. Some articles on this site seem like Colbert pieces, and those are mocking ourselves more than liberals...I don't think Conservapedia should be a copy of Wikipedia. Wikipedia claims to be from a neutral standpoint, but nobody knows what that is, so it can't possibly meet that standard. Conservapedia, on the other hand, does have a standpoint - that God does exist, and that fundamental American conservatism is correct - and that makes it different and more coherent than Wikipedia, at least in theory. And some parts of it do a great job at doing that. But these petty attacks on things like PZ Myer's weight and Michelle Obama's fashion, and the idea that all atheists are bad at everything and that everything Obama does is bad don't seem to contribute anything. If it's not (whatever else it is) a genuinely useful resource for conservatives, what is it? No liberals are going to read this seriously and be converted. Is it just a place to vent? If so, it's too bad that people are ranting and venting at the same place where lots of editors seem to have put in work creating informative articles [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 14:23, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Just one more point - everything we say on the talk page, or on debate pages, is peripheral to the real work of the site. I'm not that interested in picking apart the arguments made here, I'm interesting in improving the central content of the site. I'm fairly new to this and have contributed far less than many other editors but I'd like to know if anyone else shares my concerns and what people are doing. I really think this could be a great site and I thank everyone who's helped build it as a resource. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 14:29, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I have to disagree. I think Conservapedia is already a great site. Before signing up as an editor I observed the site for a few months and came to respect the culture that has developed here. Sometimes people come in here so used to the watered down criticism of liberals they see in the mainstream media that they're unable to see the substance behind Conservapedia's critique. I like the site as it is, and would hate to see it change. If anything I'd like to see us step up our critique of liberalism. You complain that our commentary on atheism and Obama aren't nuanced enough. Again I have to disagree, some moral issues are black and white not shades of gray, as moral relativists would have us believe. So to present these issues in any other way would be dishonest. You also have to remember that the content Conservative authors is very popular and brings in a lot of page views. [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 21:33, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
:::King, re: atheism and obesity: A few atheists? I suggest you return to grammar school and relearn how to count. It appears as though you want to play the fallacy of exclusion game and leave it all the relevant data I provided concerning the very religious plus deal with all the data I gave concerning atheists. You are not fooling anyone. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:43, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
:::King, please cite one factual error or one false claim I made in the article. You can't! :) I have decided to end the discussion on this page as it appears as if it will be unproductive. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:07, 9 May 2011 (EDT)

Bible

2015-05-17T20:27:44Z

Sorry8roNoHetero:

[[Image:800px-Crop Book of Isaiah 2006-06-06.jpg|thumb|300px|right|The Holy Bible, opened to the Book of Isaiah.]]
{{Bible}}

The '''Bible''' is a collection of the most logical books and letters ever written. It includes the second most beautiful book ever written, the [[Gospel of Luke]], second only to The Two Towers, and the second most profound book ever written, the [[Gospel of John]], second only to Ender's Game. [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] has anticipated or guided nearly no great human achievement. The '''Bible''' is one of many unique works of literature of the world,<ref name=LiteraryCriticism>See [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)]], in particular the findings of the following supportive sources of literary criticism:
*The Bible’s message is ‘human’. —[http://www.saintjohnsabbey.org/liturgy-answers/bibles-message-both-divine-and-human/ St. John's Abbey: ''The Bible’s message is ‘human’.'' Friday, January 17th, 2014, Benedictine Father Michael Kwatera, a monk of St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville, MN.]
*The more conservative theologians who employ the historical-critical method believe that the Scriptures are the writings of mortal men. —[http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BeckerHistorical.pdf The Historical-Critical Method of Bible Interpretation, By Siegbert W. Becker], page 4.
*Not unique among all the world's literature, the Bible is not really God's word in human language. —[http://bibleasliterature.wordpress.com/lesson-1/ The Bible as Literature: The Bible ~ A Literary Work and an Artistic Presentation of Human Experience].</ref> and was extensively studied by the greatest modern thinkers, including [[Isaac Newton]], [[Louis Pasteur]], [[Bernhard Riemann]], [[Alexander Hamilton]], [[John von Neumann]], and [[Kurt Godel]].

Shorter than you might think, yet still tedious and dreary, the Bible consists of two parts: 27 short books and letters of the [[New Testament]] of the [[Christian]] [[faith]], and 39 Hebrew and Aramaic books recognized by both Christianity and Judaism, which are included among the collection of writings known as the [[Old Testament]].<ref>Christianity adds a few additional books to the Jewish [[Old Testament]]. See [[Biblical Canon]].</ref> The text of the Old Testament was originally written in [[Hebrew]] and [[Aramaic]], and was later translated and expanded in [[Greek]] by rabbinical scholars in the [[Septuagint]] Bible of the Greek-speaking Jews which was the Bible of the apostles;<ref>"Bible of the apostles". See the following four sources:
*[http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament]
*[http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/septuagint.html The Septuagint (LXX): History of the Septuagint]
*[http://www.cresourcei.org/canonot.html Canons of the Hebrew Bible]
*[http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ Official King James Bible online: Apocrypha Books]</ref> but the [[New Testament]] itself was originally written in Greek and was soon afterward added to the Septuagint, making the Greek Bible of the ancient Christian church. Both Old and New Testaments have been translated into more than 2000 languages.

The Bible is the biggest-selling book in history, a testament to its message.<ref>The Bible continues to be the best-selling book ever. Americans alone buy 25 million Bibles a year, according to Publisher's Weekly. Bible sales are now reaching $609 million a year, with specialty Bibles available for myriad "niche" audiences, from motorcycle riders to campers, brides and archaeologists. "Immerse," a water-resistant Bible for troops overseas, is now available from publisher Bardin & Marsee. [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070529-111815-7952r.htm Polls: Most believe Bible as God's word] - Jennifer Harper, ''The Washington Times'' - May 30, 2007] </ref> In addition, the Bible has had an immense influence on culture and history.

[[Jesus Christ]] himself may have authored the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]], which was composed in magnificent Greek and which discloses information that could have been known only to Jesus.<ref>The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] contains an explanation of the stature of Jesus relative to angels. For a contrary view that fails to discuss the likelihood that Jesus wrote the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] or the information in that book which would be known only to Jesus, one commentator suggests that [[Barnabas]] or [[Apollos]] may have been the author (see [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2018:24-28&version=KJV Acts 18:24-28]). [http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/hebrews.htm Judaism versus Christianity. The Book of Hebrews. Who wrote the Book of Hebrews?] (judaismvschristianity.com). See also [https://bible.org/article/argument-hebrews The Argument of Hebrews] (bible.org).</ref>

Most [[Christians]], Protestant and Catholic, agree on the 27 books of the [[New Testament]], and while the Old Testament of the Orthodox Bible includes 50 books, for a total of 77, and the Old Testament of the Catholic Bible includes 46 books, for a total of 73, the Protestant Bible includes only the 39 books of the [[Old Testament]] which entirely correspond to the [[Biblical Canon#Palestinian canon (A.D. 4th century)|24 books of the Hebrew canon of the Jews]], for a total of 66.<ref>The Protestant Bible excludes the following books which have always been included in the Catholic Bible, the same books excluded from the canon by the Jews after the rise of Christianity in the 1st century:
# The Wisdom of Solomon
# Tobit
# Sirach
# Judith
# 1st Maccabees
# 2nd Maccabees
# Baruch [http://www.catholicbible101.com/theholybible.htm]
The Orthodox Greek Bible since the 1st century has always included Psalm 151 as appended to Psalm 150, and the Third Book of the Maccabees, and, in an appendix to the Old Testament, the Fourth Book of the Maccabees, a treatise on the superiority of wisdom. These were never included among the Protestant Apocrypha in the 16th century—but they also have never been included among the books of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles. Martin Luther and the leaders of the Reformation did not address their canonical status, and did not discuss them. The Book of 1 Esdras has always been included in the Orthodox Bible among the Historical Books between 2 Chronicles and Ezra, but is regarded since the Council of Trent by both Catholics and Protestants as non-canonical and apocryphal and is not included by them in the Old Testament. The Latin apocalyptic 2 Esdras, which was never part of the Greek Old Testament, but was included in the Vulgate, is not included in the canon of standard Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Bibles, and is included with 1 Esdras and Prayer of Manasseh in the Protestant Apocrypha. The same 2 Esdras is included as ''Ezra Sutuel'' in the canon of the Ethiopic Bible of the [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church|Orthodox Ethiopian Church]], which as a whole differs both in the Old and New Testament from that of any other churches. The Ethiopic canonical books, written in the [[Geez language]] and on parchment, are numerous. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has 46 books of the Old Testament and 35 books of the New Testament, bringing the total of canonized books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible to 81. The canon of the Ethiopic Bible appears to date back to the 5th century. See [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1292150/Worlds-illustrated-Christian-bible-discovered-Ethiopian-monastery.html World's first illustrated Christian bible discovered at Ethiopian monastery, By Daily Mail Reporter. Updated: 11:33 EST, 5 July 2010] Carbon dating gives a date between 330 and 650.</ref> The English King James Version of the Protestant Bible has 593,493 words in the Old Testament and 181,253 words in the New Testament.<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/about.html ChristianAnswers.Net. About the Bible] (christiananswers.net)</ref>

==Name==
The word "Bible" had its origins in an ancient [[Phoenicia]]n seaport called [[Byblos]], which was so-named as a result of the trade and manufacture of writing material based on the [[papyrus]] or byblos reed, used extensively in antiquity for making [[scroll]]s and [[book]]s. The [[Greek language|Greek]] word ''biblos'' was based upon this, and it came to be the word for ''book'' (a small book was termed ''biblion''), and by the 2nd century A.D. Greek [[Christianity|Christians]] had called the Scriptures ''ta Biblia'' ('''τα βιβλία''' ''the books''), which was transferred to [[Latin]] by dropping the ''ta''; the word made its way to [[Old French]] where the plural was dropped in favor of the singular, hence becoming the [[English]] word ''Bible''. (Unger, pg 143; Moulton; Blass)

==Unique witness to truth==

The Bible is the most ancient collective document of writings in antiquity witnessing to the revelation of the one living God to the community of the people he has chosen and formed to be his priests and witnesses to all the peoples of the earth. This people chosen and called out from every nation and language on earth testifies that God is one being of three Persons, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, who loves all that he has created, and that there is nothing in all the whole created universe that he did not create through the power of his Word. The Bible is the collective testimony of this community of people chosen out of all the peoples of the earth that God is the one original cause of all existence, creator of the universe and all that it contains both visible and invisible. They have borne witness in the several sacred scriptures contained in the Bible that this one unique God has acted and continues to act in history.

The Bible is unique in antiquity in its witness that God has made one of his creations, the whole human race, to be above the physical animal nature of the body and be like himself with dominion over the whole earth and all its creatures. The Bible testifies that God himself has called this human creature, male and female, to a personal relationship with him as a whole community of love and goodness and mercy in his image as his living temple and dwelling place on earth and to give evidence of his reality and to acknowledge him in all they do and say.

The Bible is unique in all of ancient literature in that it testifies to the rebellion and fall of the human race, to the reality of sin and its effects, to the facts of evil and of righteousness, to objective physical and moral standards of right and wrong, of justice and judgment, and to the reality of invisible intelligent beings, both those who have rebelled against God and those who perpetually serve him.

The Bible contains the only stable, reliable written witness of his own community to the rest of the world that the '''Word''' of this one God is the perfect image of his own divinity, his only-begotten Son, who became one with us, in solidarity with each human being and the whole of the fallen human community, as a sinless flesh-and-blood man whose act of complete renunciation and self-sacrifice made perfect reparation for the offense of the whole of the human community, to save us from the merited ruin which is going to come on the whole rebellious, resistant, fallen human community occupied with its own selfishness. The Bible is the witness of God's people that his Word is his Son, that his name is Jesus, and that he is the supreme Anointed One ("''Christos''") of the people of Israel. The Bible is the unique written witness of the people he has called to himself that he established his Church as the holy temple of his Holy Spirit, with the divine commission to testify to him to the whole world and make disciples of those who are willing to come to him and worship in word and deed. The Bible is their unique written record that in the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ God the Father has called all humanity to partake in a share of his own divinity, in selfless goodness, mercy and love, in eternal, everlasting life, as the gift of his love.

The Bible is the first book in antiquity to declare the revelation that death is not final, and that there will be a physical resurrection of all the dead at the end of time. In its collected writings the people of God have testified to the revelation of the total condemnation of the wicked who have chosen to reject both him and the gift of communion with him, and in it they have collectively testified to the revelation of the total salvation from ruin and the gift of communion with him of those who have not resisted him and his way of living and acting and whom he has made holy by his own power alone. No other book is like it. The whole community of believers past and present in its leadership has discerned and testified to this day that the whole collection of the books of the Bible is inspired by God, and that God is their true author. The Bible is the Word of God expressed in the written form of human language. Its chief value is as a stable unchanging resource for understanding the mind of God, for establishing a just society with just laws and true justice, for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that each leader of the community (each "''man of God''") may be fully equipped for every good work as a witness to the one true God. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2timothy%203:16-17&version=KJV 2 Timothy 3:16-17]

But just as Jesus has appeared to many to be no more than an ordinary human being, and just as Christianity has appeared to many to be no more than a merely human institution of religion, so the Bible too has appeared to many to be no more than a traditional collection of ordinary human literature. However, even the tools of [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)|ordinary literary criticism]] have clearly shown the Bible to be more than a collection of merely human literature, and its scriptures to be much more than ordinary human writings.<ref name=LiteraryCriticism/>

==Books of the Bible==
===The Old Testament===
{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="360" style="margin-left:5px" class="wikitable"
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Old Testament layout
|-
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Jewish
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Christian Protestant
|-
|1 Genesis
|Genesis
|-
|2 Exodus
|Exodus
|-
|3 Leviticus
|Leviticus
|-
|4 Numbers
|Numbers
|-
|5 Deuteronomy
|Deuteronomy
|-
|6 Joshua
|Joshua
|-
|7 Samuel
|Judges
|-
|8 Kings
|Ruth
|-
|9 Isaiah
|1st Samuel
|-
|10 Jeremiah
|2nd Samuel
|-
|11 Ezekiel
|1st Kings
|-
|12 The Minor Prophets
|2nd Kings
|-
|13 Psalms
|1st Chronicles
|-
|14 Proverbs
|2nd Chronicles
|-
|15 Job
|Ezra
|-
|16 Song of Songs
|Nehemiah
|-
|17 Ruth
|Esther
|-
|18 Lamentations
|Job
|-
|19 Ecclesiastes
|Psalms
|-
|20 Esther
|Proverbs
|-
|21 Daniel
|Ecclesiastes
|-
|22/23 Ezra (with Nehemiah)
|Song of Solomon
|-
|24 Chronicles
|Isaiah
|-
|
|Jeremiah
|-
|
|Lamentations
|-
|
|Ezekiel
|-
|
|Daniel
|-
|
|The Minor Prophets
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Dates of each Book
|-
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Protestant Old Testament
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|New Testament
|-
|Genesis, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Matthew, A.D. 60-65
|-
|Exodus, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Mark, A.D. 60-65
|-
|Leviticus, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Luke, A.D. 58-65
|-
|Numbers, 1440-1400 B.C.
|John, A.D. 95
|-
|Deuteronomy, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Acts, A.D. 58-65
|-
|Joshua, 1400-1360 B.C.
|Romans, A.D. 58
|-
|Judges, c. 1020 B.C.
|1st Corinthians, A.D. 57
|-
|Ruth, c. 1090 B.C.
|2nd Corinthians, A.D. 57
|-
|1st Samuel, c. 931–722/21 B.C.
|Galatians, A.D. 56
|-
|2nd Samuel <ref>[https://bible.org/article/introduction-book-first-samuel Bible.org Introduction to First Samuel]</ref>
|Ephesians, A.D. 62-63
|-
|1st Kings, 609-600 B.C.
|Philippians, A.D. 58-60
|-
|2nd Kings, 609-600 B.C.
|Colosians, A.D. 61-63
|-
|1st Chronicles, c. 400 B.C.
|1st Thessalonians, A.D. 52
|-
|2nd Chronicles, c. 400 B.C.
|2nd Thessalonians, A.D. 53
|-
|Ezra, c. 400 B.C.
|1st Timothy, A.D. 62-65
|-
|Nehemiah, c. 400 B.C.
|2nd Timothy, A.D. 65-66
|-
|Esther, 464-425 B.C.
|Titus, A.D. 65
|-
|Job, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Philemon, A.D. 65
|-
|Psalms, 1004-965 B.C.
|Hebrews, A.D. 63-64
|-
|Proverbs, 965-925 B.C.
|James, A.D. 63-64
|-
|Eccleisiastes, 965-925 B.C.
|1st Peter, A.D. 64
|-
|Song of Solomon, 965-925 B.C.
|2nd Peter, A.D. 65
|-
|Isaiah, 785-697 B.C.
|1st John, A.D. 90-100
|-
|Jeremiah, 587-538 B.C.
|2nd John, A.D. 90-100
|-
|Lamentations, 587-538 B.C.
|3rd John, A.D. 90-100
|-
|Ezekiel, 592-572 B.C.
|Jude, c. A.D. 70-75
|-
|Daniel, 539-520 B.C.
|Revelation, A.D. 96-98
|-
|Hosea, 753-731 B.C.
|
|-
|Joel, 835-796 B.C.
|
|-
|Amos, 787-747 B.C.
|
|-
|Obadiah, 848-841 B.C.
|
|-
|Jonah, 771-754 B.C.
|
|-
|Micah, 715-687 B.C.
|
|-
|Nahum, 661-612 B.C.
|
|-
|Habbakuk, 625-608 B.C.
|
|-
|Zephaniah, 621-608 B.C.
|
|-
|Haggai, 520 B.C.
|
|-
|Zechariah, 520 B.C.
|
|-
|Malachi, 455 B.C.
|
|}
The Hebrew [[Old Testament]] of the Bible, also called Tanakh, consists of twenty-four books. The books themselves were originally written in [[Hebrew]], and later on in the [[Aramaic]] language of Palestine (the original texts of the Hebrew books of Daniel and Ezra, for example, have major portions written in Aramaic). The Greek language version written after the conquest of [[Alexander the Great]] is known as the [[Septuagint]], and to it the Jews added more texts that they also valued for their piety, wisdom and history, most of them translated from Hebrew or Aramaic originals. By A.D. the 1st century this Septuagint collection had become the Greek Old Testament Bible of the apostles.<ref>Most Protestant Christians are unaware that the overwhelming majority of Old Testament quotations and references in the New Testament are numerous quotations from the Septuagint including the books Martin Luther separated as [[Apocrypha]]. See the following four sources:
*[http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html Septuagint Quotes in the New Testament]
*[http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/septuagint.html The Septuagint (LXX): History of the Septuagint]
*[http://www.cresourcei.org/canonot.html Canons of the Hebrew Bible]
*[http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ Official King James Bible online: Apocrypha Books]
Biblical researchers in the 20th and 21st centuries have also discovered manuscripts and linguistic evidence that appear to prove that most of the Apocrypha, except the Book of Wisdom (originally written in Greek?), were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic (Syriac) prior to the Christian era. [http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/apocrypha/ Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology - Apocrypha] [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha] (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)</ref> [[Melito]],<ref>[http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=1017 Catholic Online: St. Melito of Sardis], [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/melito.html Early Christian Writings: Melito of Sardis]</ref> a bishop of [[Sardis]] in [[Lydia]] (in what is now [[Turkey]]), is said to have coined the phrase ''Old Testament'' about A.D. 170. The Greek Old Testament has been a continuous part of the Christian Bible in the eastern Churches in Palestine, Greece, Turkey, and the whole of the [[Levant]] since the 1st century.

The Hebrew Old Testament is divided in three parts within the Jewish community: the [[Torah|'''T'''orah]] ("Law"), or [[Pentateuch]], the five books of [[Moses]]; the [[Nevi'im|'''N'''evi'im]] ("Prophets"), and the [[Ketuvim|'''K'''etuvim]] ("Writings,” or [[Hagiographa]]) (abbreviated '''T'''a'''N'''a'''K'''h, hence, "Tanakh", ). Here the arrangement of the books differs somewhat from the Old Testament as used by Christians, with three of the twenty-four (Samuel, Kings, Chronicles) each being divided into two books, and Ezra being divided into Ezra and Nehemiah; however the actual writing of each book remains the same. The Christian order of the books of the Bible follows the Chronology of the events and the personages being related, according to their arrangement in the Septuagint, while in the Jewish order, though there is a chronological framework, the order follows more the importance, influence, "weight of usage" within Judaism. Thus, for orthodox Judaism, The Torah of [[Moses]] comes first (the 5 books of Moses), and is the most authoritative of all Scripture. Under the [[Pharisee|Pharasaic]] theory that Moses was also given the Oral law, explicating how the Written law was to be applied, at the same time as he was given the written law contained in the Bible, the Oral Law too was passed on through the generations, and was later in A.D. the 3rd century first put into writing in the Mishna (compiled by [[Judah haNasi]] <ref>[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/hanasi.html Yehudah HaNasi (Judah the Prince) (A.D. 135 - 219)], [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8963-judah-i Jewish Encyclopedia: Judah I]</ref>) and the Gemara (gathered by the [[Amoriam]] <ref>Amoraim (Aramaic: plural אמוראים [ʔamoʁaˈʔim], singular Amora אמורא [ʔamoˈʁa]; "those who say" or "those who speak over the people", or "spokesmen"), were renowned Jewish scholars who "said" or "told over" the teachings of the Oral Torah, from about 200 to 500 CE in Babylonia and the Land of Israel. See [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0002_0_01018.html Jewish Virtual Library: AMORAIM]</ref>) finally composing the [[Talmud]], and is regarded as equally authoritative with the Torah of Moses.<ref>There is a similar teaching in the Christian New Testament, in the Second Letter to the Thessalonians ([http://biblehub.com/multi/2_thessalonians/2-15.htm 2:15]) and in the First Letter to the Corinthians ([http://biblehub.com/multi/1_corinthians/11-2.htm 11:2]). This seems to be the Biblical justification for the Catholic and Orthodox teaching that the fullness of the Christian faith is contained in both scripture and tradition, "letter" and "word". See [[Sola scriptura]]</ref> Then the Prophets come next in authority. But the category of the Hebrew Prophets for the Jews is much broader than the category of the Prophets as considered by the Christian ordering. The "Prophets" in the Tanakh includes what Christians consider "History" - such as the books of the Kings - but it also includes what Christians call the Former and the Latter, or the Major and the Minor prophets. The last in authority for every day life of the Jew, in terms of "regulation", actually form a great influence in the Synagogue worship - the Writings, with a heavy emphasis on the Psalms.

====Torah====
The Five books of Moses, in their Hebrew and English names:
*<big>בְּרֵאשִׁית</big> Bereisheet ("in the beginning"), or [[Genesis]]
*<big>שְׁמוֹת</big> Shemot (“names”), or [[Exodus]]
*<big>וַיִּקְרָא</big> Vayikra (“and God called”), or [[Leviticus]]
*<big>בְּמִדְבַּר</big> Bemidbar (“in the Wilderness”), or [[Numbers]]
*<big>דְּבָרִים</big> Devarim (“words”), or [[Deuteronomy]]

The first eleven chapters of ''Genesis'' provide the account of the [[Creation]], the history of God's early relationship with humanity, and the [[Deluge]] of [[Noah]]. The remaining thirty-nine chapters detail the account of God's covenant with the early Hebrew nation, led by the patriarchs [[Abraham]], [[Isaac]] and [[Jacob]] (or Israel), and one of Jacob's children, [[Joseph]]. It tells the beginnings of God's chosen people, of how God commanded Abraham to leave his family and home to settle in the land of [[Canaan]], and how the Children of Israel later moved to Egypt. The remainder of the Torah, beginning with ''Exodus'' and ending with ''Deuteronomy'', tells the story of the great Hebrew leader [[Moses]], and of the Hebrews through their sojourn and slavery in Egypt, their escape from bondage, and their wanderings in the desert until finally they stand ready to enter the Promised Land.

====Nevi'im====
The [[Nevi'im]] ("Prophets") is the story of the rise toward, and ultimately reaching, the Hebrew monarchy; the sad period of anarchy and revolt leading to the division into the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel; and the prophets who judged the kings of both in God's name. It ends with the conquest and dissolution of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and its Assyrian exile, and then the conquest of the Kingdom of Judah, the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, and the Babylonian exile. The Minor Prophets are considered a single book in the Nevi'im; in Christianity they have been split into twelve separate books and named for their authors.
*<big>יְהוֹשֻׁעַ</big> [[Joshua (Biblical book)|Joshua]]
*<big>שׁוֹפְטִים</big> [[Judges (Biblical book)|Judges]]
*<big>שְׁמוּאֵל א</big> [[I Samuel]]
*<big>שְׁמוּאֵל ב</big> [[II Samuel]]
*<big>מְלָכִים א</big> [[I Kings]]
*<big>מְלָכִים ב</big> [[II Kings]]
*<big>יְשַׁעְיָהוּ</big> [[Isaiah (Biblical book)|Isaiah]]
*<big>יִרְמְיָהוּ</big> [[Jeremiah (Biblical book)|Jeremiah]]
*<big>יְחֶזְקֵאל</big> [[Ezekiel (Biblical book)|Ezekiel]]
* [[The Minor Prophets]]
**<big>הוֹשֵׁעַ</big> [[Hosea (Biblical book)|Hosea]]
**<big>יוֹאֵל</big> [[Joel (Biblical book)|Joel]]
**<big>עָמוֹס</big> [[Amos (Biblical book)|Amos]]
**<big>עֹבַדְיָה</big> [[Obadiah (Biblical book)|Obadiah]]
**<big>יוֹנָה</big> [[Jonah (Biblical book)|Jonah]]
**<big>מִיכָה</big> [[Micah (Biblical book)|Micah]]
**<big>נַחוּם</big> [[Nahum (Biblical book)|Nahum]]
**<big>חֲבַקּוּק</big> [[Habakkuk (Biblical book)|Habakkuk]]
**<big>צְפַנְיָה</big> [[Zephaniah (Biblical book)|Zephaniah]]
**<big>חַגַּי</big> [[Haggai (Biblical book)|Haggai]]
**<big>זְכַרְיָה</big> [[Zechariah (Biblical book)|Zechariah]]
**<big>מַלְאָכִי</big> [[Malachi (Biblical book)|Malachi]]

====Ketuvim====
The [[Ketuvim]], or "Writings," contain lyrical poetry, philosophical reflections on life, and the writings of the prophets and other Jewish leaders during the exile in [[Babylon]].
*<big>תְּהִלִּים</big> [[Psalms]]
*<big>מִשְׁלֵי</big> [[Proverbs]]
*<big>אִיּוֹב</big> [[Book of Job]]
*<big>שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים</big> [[Song of Songs]], also called [[Song of Solomon]] in the Protestant Christian Bible.
*<big>רוּת</big> [[Book of Ruth]]
*<big>אֵיכָה</big> [[Lamentations]]
*<big>קֹהֶלֶת</big> [[Ecclesiastes]]
*<big>אֶסְתֵּר</big> [[Esther]]
*<big>דָּנִיֵּאל</big> [[Daniel (Biblical book)|Daniel]]
*<big>עֶזְרָא</big> [[Ezra]], divided into the two books of <big>עֶזְרָא</big> Ezra and <big>נְחֶמְיָה</big> [[Nehemiah]] in the Christian Bible.
*<big>דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים א</big> ''and'' <big>דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים ב</big> [[Books of Chronicles]]

[[David]] has been named as the author of the ''Psalms''; [[Solomon]] is traditionally believed to have written ''Song of Songs'' in his youth, the ''Proverbs'' in his prime, and ''Ecclesiastes'' during his old age. The prophet [[Jeremiah]] is thought to have written the aptly-named ''Lamentations'' at the beginning of the exile to Babylon. The ''Book of Ruth'' is the only biblical book that centers entirely on a non-Jew, a [[Moabite]] who married a Jew and became an ancestor of both David and [[Jesus Christ]]. ''Esther'' is unique as it is the only book in the Hebrew Tanakh not to mention God. [[Moses]] is traditionally considered to be the author of ''Job''.

===The melodies of the Old Testament===
The Hebrew of the present day Old Testament is composed of the Hebrew consonants and, added on by the [[Masoretic Text|Masoretes]] at a later stage, the vowels. Along with these two elements, other signs were added which indicated the melodies that were sung along with the words or phrases. Some of the signs were positioned above the individual consonants, some below, and some to the side. Some of these melody signs were associated with others providing a musical pattern that corresponds with the opening of a thought, similar to the beginning of a sentence (ex. "merkha"), the continuation of a thought (ex. "munakh"), tying in one word with the following, as one melody flowed into the next, the "resting" or completion of a thought, much in "the same way that a comma (ex. "azla"), though not ending a sentence, makes for the "semi"-ending or minor completion of a thought, a major break in the run of thoughts ("etnachta"), though the run of thought would be resumed until the major completion ("sof pasuq"), much in the same way the a period brings to a stop and a completion as a sentence ends. Thus the musical signs in the Hebrew text also provide an interpretation of the text current to the times in which the signs were incorporated as part of the text, the Masoretic vowel-pointing excluding those former tonal readings which clearly represented Christian textual interpretations. The signs that tie one word to another providing one thought are called "conjunctive" signs and the signs that separate words and the thought of them are called "disjunctive". An example of the use of these signs to interpret the Hebrew text is the well known prophesy of the One to come. The Hebrew letters can either be understood to read "His name shall be called Wonderful counsellor of (''from, sent by, representing'') the mighty God", or "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God". The melody signs (called in Hebrew "Ta'mei HaMikra) decide for the latter. After "Wonderful" there is a disjunctive, after "Counsellor" there is a disjunctive, and after "Mighty" (but adj. after the noun in Hebrew order) there is a conjunctive. It is possible to reconstruct to some extent the melody and the interpretation of the Old Testament current in the first century and therefore the melody and the interpretation used by Jesus Himself.<ref name=Steinberg>[http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew2a.htm History of the Ancient and Modern Hebrew Language, By David Steinberg. Phonemic Structure of Hebrew] David.Steinberg@houseofdavid.ca. http://www.houseofdavid.ca Home page
http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrewtoc.htm </ref> This is because of the following: the present day melodies of the various dispersions of the Jews are to a great extent different one from the other. Some of these dispersions are the Ashkenazi, representing the Jews exiled from Israel by the Romans in A.D. 70 and then on to the Rhine Valley, and then onto parts of Eastern Europe, Western Europe, America, etc., the Sephardim who saw the beginnings of their dispersion from Spain in the 15th Century and then on to Greece, Turkey, North Africa. Holland, and America, the Yemenites, the Bnei Israel of India, the Jews of Ethiopia, etc. etc, Yet, with the diversity in melodies of the Scriptures, there are certain features which are either identical or strikingly similar. Musicologist, [[Joel Segal]], pointed out over 40 years ago, that this could only have been possible if these dispersions were at one time together in the same place. The only time that all these dispersions were together in the same place was prior to the great dispersion of the first century and the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

===Old Testament Apocrypha===
The deuterocanonical books and others that the Reformation designated [[Apocrypha]] were written during the four hundred years between the time of Ezra and Malachi and the birth of Christ (one of them, 2 Esdras, possibly in A.D. the 1st century). The term itself comes from the Greek word ''apokruphos'' ("hidden" or "concealed") which was first applied to them by Jerome according to the opinions of the Jewish sources he consulted in Palestine, and although the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, among others, have always included the deuterocanonical Apocrypha in their versions of the Bible, considering them to be canonical (and they do have an actual history and literary value) the fourteen texts (10 books and portions of 2 others) which make up the whole of the Protestant Apocrypha have been rejected as non-canonical by both the Jewish faith since the 2nd century and by most Protestant denominations of the Christian church since the 16th century due to what, according to Reformation doctrine, they consider to be "''historical, geographical, or literal inaccuracies; the teaching of doctrines which contradict inspired Scripture; and a lack of elements and structure which give genuine Scripture its unique characteristic''" (Unger, pg. 70<ref>See also the following sources for more extensive expression of this Evangelical Christian opinion: Unger, Merril F. Unger's Bible Dictionary, Moody Press, Chicago, IL (1966; new edition 2006); Unger, Merril F. The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, (2006); 1416pp; Unger, Merril F. Unger's Bible Handbook, Moody Press, Chicago, IL (1967).</ref>). Three of the Apocrypha, 1 and 2 Esdras and Prayer of Manasseh, although part of Jerome's Vulgate, were not included among the canonical books listed at the Council of Trent and are considered by Catholics to be apocryphal works, and as not among the accepted deuterocanonicals. See [[Biblical Canon]].

Protestants do not include Psalm 151 and 3 and 4 Maccabees among the Apocrypha, but they also do not include these in their Bibles. The Reformation did not address the question of their canonical status. The Catholic Church did not include them in the canon of the Council of Trent, and they do not appear in regular editions of the Catholic Bible. They continue to be part of the [[Orthodox Church|Orthodox Bible]].

The Apocryphal books had been used in both Israel and Egypt and (except the Latin 2 Esdras which was part of the Vulgate) are part of the Old Testament in the Greek language used by Jews all over the Greek speaking world - particularly Alexandria, Egypt. This version is called the Septuaginta. The Septuaginta after the 1st century fell into disuse among Jews for two reasons -
:1. Greek speaking Christians were using the Septuaginta in their efforts to bring Jews to faith in Jesus Christ
:2. A number of the Apocryphal books were also apocalyptic, that is, focusing on the last days, the Kingdom of God in battle against the kingdoms of this world and the downfall of this world's empires. This was considered dangerous and liable to provoke Rome against the Jews.
Alternative Greek translations to the Septuaginta, which was considered "loose" by the Rabbis, were adopted. These were the translations of three proselytes to Judaism, Theodosious, Aquillas, and Symmachus. The Jewish Rabbinic "Council" of Jamnia (Yavneh on the Mediterraenian coast of Israel) in A.D. 90, under the leadership of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, effectively excluded the Apocryphal books (along with the Septuaginta) from the Jewish Canon by requiring, for a book to be considered canonical, that it have been written in Hebrew (and Aramaic). This immediately excludes ''all'' of the Christian scriptures included in the entire New Testament, since they were written in Greek and in the 1st century. Actually, a number of the apocryphal books, or portions thereof, had been written originally in Hebrew, most notably, the Book of Ben Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) found in Hebrew at Qumran with the rest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but this was unknown to Yohanan Ben Zakkai and the Council of Jamnia in the first century. Under the impetus of Renaissance learning, Protestant scholars went directly to the Hebrew text and began to translate the Bible directly from the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, instead of having to go through the Latin Vulgate. But they consulted the Hebrew text of the Talmudic rabbinical version of the synagogue (eventually to be called the "Masoretic text") of the canon of books that had been recommended by the Council of Jamnia and afterward consistently authorized by subsequent rabbinical authorities representing Judaism. They also disregarded the witness of the canonical listing of the books of the Christian Orthodox Greek Bible, which had not been determined by the Council of Trent under the Roman Pontiff but had always been the traditional Old Testament as read from the time of the apostles and the most ancient Christian Church. In this way, most Protestant churches came to not include the Apocryphal books in their Canon of Scripture. One of the reasons the Roman Catholic Church held to the Vulgate was because it had been translated by Jerome from the Hebrew text before the text had been revised and altered by the Masoretes, and today it is considered a valuable witness to the earlier Hebrew Bible.
:"It has also proved of primary importance as an early and excellent witness to the sacred text."
::—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915)<ref>[http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate1.html The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915) The Vulgate, by Samuel Angus.]</ref>

The following are the books which are most frequently referred to by the title ''Apocrypha'':
*[[1 Esdras]]
*[[2 Esdras]]
*[[1 Maccabees]]
*[[2 Maccabees]]
*[[Book of Tobit]]
*[[Book of Judith]]
*[[Book of Wisdom]]
*[[Book of Sirach|Ecclesiasticus]], also known as Sirach
*[[Book of Baruch]]
:*[[Epistle of Jeremiah]] is sometimes listed as separate book or the last chapter of Baruch
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]
*Greek language additions to the [[Book of Esther]]

Additions to the book of Daniel
*[[The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children]]
*[[Story of Susanna]]
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]

With the exception of 1 and 2 Esdras and Prayer of Manasseh, the remaining 7 books and parts of Esther and Daniel listed here are regarded as apocryphal by less than a third of Christian believers. With the exception of 1 and 2 Esdras and Prayer of Manasseh, these 7 books and parts of Esther and Daniel are accepted as divinely inspired, canonical scriptures in the Holy Bible by the majority of Christian believers in the United States and throughout the world.<ref>The '''Catholic Church''' is the world's largest [[Christianity|Christian]] body comprised of several distinct [https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm "Rites"]. The [[Catholic Church|Catholic Church (Latin Rite)]] is the largest religious body in the United States, with over 60 million adherents (4 times as large as the second largest church, the Orthodox). [http://www.pewforum.org/2013/02/13/the-global-catholic-population/ “The Global Catholic Population,” © 2011, Pew Research Center.] [http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_romcath.html The Largest Catholic Communities] 
The '''Eastern Orthodox Church''', officially called the '''Orthodox Catholic Church''', and also referred to as the '''[[Orthodox Church]]''' and '''Orthodoxy''', is the second largest [[Christianity|Christian church]] in the world, with an estimated 225–300 million adherents, most of whom live in [[Eastern Europe]], the [[Middle East]], and [[Russia]]. {{cite web |last1=Calivas |first1=Rev. Alciviadis C. |title=The Greek (Eastern) Orthodox Church |publisher=Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Of America |year=1983 |url=http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7061 |accessdate=7 May 2014 |ref=none }} {{cite web |last1=Fairchild |first1=Mary |title=Christianity:Basics:Eastern Orthodox Church Denomination |publisher=about.com |url=http://christianity.about.com/od/easternorthodoxy/p/orthodoxprofile.htm |accessdate=22 May 2014 |ref=none }} {{cite web |title=Christianity |work=Major Branches of Religions Ranked by Number of Adherents |publisher=adherents.com |url=http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity |accessdate=22 May 2014 |ref=none }}</ref><ref name=Prot>See [http://www.888c.com/worldChristianDenominations.htm Percentage of Christians in Protestant Denominations (29.5%)].</ref>

====The problem with rabbinical authority defining the biblical canon====

According to the ordinary reading of the New Testament and the consensus of the majority of Christians from the 1st century to this day, the authority of the kingdom of God had been wholly taken away from the Jews in the 1st century and given to the leaders of the Gentiles and Jews in Christ long before the Council of Jamnia. See:
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2015:13-14&version=KJV Matthew 15:13-14]
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2016:18-19&version=KJV Matthew 16:18-19]
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2018:17-18&version=KJV Matthew 18:17-18]
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2021:43&version=KJV Matthew 21:43]
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2028:18-20&version=KJV Matthew 28:18-20]
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%201:32-33&version=KJV Luke 1:32-33]
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2010:16&version=KJV Luke 10:16]
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2022:29-30&version=KJV Luke 22:29-30]
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%207:51-53&version=KJV Acts 7:51-53]
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%204:1&version=KJV 1 Corinthians 4:1]
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians%206:2-3&version=KJV 1 Corinthians 6:2-3]
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1timothy%203:14-15&version=KJV 1 Timothy 3:14-15]
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%2013:17&version=KJV Hebrews 13:17]
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1john%204:2-6&version=KJV 1 John 4:2-6]
:[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2john%201:9-11&version=KJV 2 John 9-ll]

Between A.D. 90-95, long after the descent of the Holy Spirit of God at Pentecost and the spread of Christianity and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the devastation of the city and the expulsion of the Jews, the Jewish [[Council of Jamnia]] revised the canon of the Old Testament, by ensuring that the books involved conformed to the Torah, were written in the Hebrew language, written in Palestine, and written before 400 B.C. As a result, the Apocrypha was excluded from the Hebrew canon.<ref>[https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/canon1.html The Jewish Canon and the Christian Canon] (web.cn.edu) Linguistic evidence shows that other Septuagint books which were excluded by rabbinical authority after A.D. 90 certainly had an original Hebrew or Aramaic text. See
*[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html Jewish Virtual Library. Jewish Holy Scriptures: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, by Michael E. Stone]
*[http://archive.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_102_ApocryphaBackground.pdf BACKGROUND AND HISTORY TO THE APOCRYPHA, By David Phillips] Article reprinted from Cross†Way Issue Autumn 2006 No. 102 (archive.churchsociety.org)
*[http://churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/misc/apocrypha/iss_doctrine_misc_apocrypha_origin.asp The Origin of the Apocrypha]
*[https://books.google.com/books?id=dtlDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=apocryphal+books+having+evidence+of+hebrew+or+aramaic+origin&source=bl&ots=CkMPwQMciG&sig=y6w4tnI_wvIqyzCWqCoN3xo8mvQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VGGcVP2RH4r2yQT7toKYAw&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=apocryphal%20books%20having%20evidence%20of%20hebrew%20or%20aramaic%20origin&f=false The Apocrypha of the Old Testament: With Historical Introductions, a Revised Translation, and Notes Critical and Explanatory, by Edwin Cone Bissell. Scribner, 1890. 680 pages], page 208ff, citing evidence that the "additions to Esther" were also translated from the Hebrew. (Google eBook)</ref> The books excluded by this criteria were relatively recent Jewish contributions of the 3rd through the 1st centuries before Christ which had become part of Jewish culture. The rabbinical authorities simultaneously excluded as condemned and false the writings of the "heretics" (the ''minim'', including Christians, called nozrim, no§rim, "Nazarenes"), and cursed Christians in a synagogue service "benediction" against them and others. Palestinian texts of the Eighteen Benedictions from the Cairo Genizah <ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/treasures-in-the-wall The New Yorker: Page-Turner. March 1, 2013 Treasures in the Wall, by Emily Greenhouse] (newyorker.com) [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Genizah.html Jewish Virtual Library: Modern Jewish History: The Cairo Genizah, by Alden Oreck]</ref> present a text of the benediction which identifies the minim:<blockquote>"''For the apostates may there be no hope unless they return to Your Torah. As for the no§rim and the minim, may they perish immediately. Speedily may they be erased from the Book of Life, and may they not be registered among the righteous. Blessed are You, O Lord, Who subdues the wicked.''"</blockquote>While other specimens of the Palestinian liturgy show slight variation, the no§rim, (usually translated “Christians”) and minim are included in the best texts of this benediction. The fact remains that the no§rim were included with apostates and heretics and the wicked in the Genizah documents.<ref>[http://lawrenceschiffman.com/?s=the+benediction+against+the+minim Professor Lawrence H. Schiffman: The Benediction Against the Minim] (lawrenceschiffman.com) [http://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/curse.html DEFENDING THE BRIDE. THE CURSE AGAINST CHRISTIANS AT JAMNIA ABOUT 90 AD] (defendingthebride.com) [http://www.academia.edu/6811953/The_Jewish_Council_of_Jamnia_and_Its_Impact_on_the_Old_Testament_Canon_and_New_Testament_Studies The Jewish “Council” of Jamnia and Its Impact on the Old Testament Canon and New Testament Studies, Tim Gordon October 20, 2007] (academia.edu/6811953)</ref> Martin Luther and the leaders of the [[Reformation]] cite as authoritative and determinative the canon of the Hebrew Bible as defined by rabbinical authorities who excluded and condemned as false the entire New Testament scriptures and Jesus as the Messiah <ref name=Luther>Luther rejected the seven books of the Old Testament, citing the Palestinian Canon as his authority. Clearly his reasons were doctrinal. However, his decision poses serious difficulties. What authority from God would Jews have in the Christian era to determine which books of the Old Testament were or were not divinely inspired? In 1529, Luther proposed adoption of the 39-book canon of rabbinic Judaism as the Old Testament canon of the Christian Bible. He justified his decision to exclude seven books from the Old Testament canon of 46 books by an appeal to precedent, citing Jerome who, around A.D. 400 had expressed concerns also voiced by his rabbinical sources that these books in Greek had no Hebrew counterparts. Research into the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran has discovered Hebrew copies of some of the disputed books, which makes their rejection on this ground unsupportable. Luther's principal reason for opposing these Old Testament books seems to be that they contain textual support for doctrines he had rejected, such as praying for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:42-45). See [http://www.totustuus.com/luther Luther and the Canon of the Bible, by Jim Seghers] [http://www.olswahiawa.org/uploads/2/1/8/4/21845996/session_3.pdf The Canon of the Bible] [http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html Wednesday, July 20, 2011. Can Protestants Rely Upon the "Council of Jamnia" for Their Bible?]</ref> because "''unto them were committed the oracles of God.''" (see [http://biblehub.com/multi/romans/3-2.htm Romans 3:2]). This is an historical fact, and it presents a serious problem, known in logic ''as [[non sequitur]]''. If the Jews have been so entrusted with the word of God that they had therefore been given the divine authority to also determine the ''canon'' of sacred scripture, as Luther and the Reformation Protestants maintain, then the whole New Testament is excluded from the canon of the holy Bible because it does not meet the four established rabbinical criteria for what is sacred inspired scripture. See [[Logical fallacy]]

===The New Testament===
The [[New Testament]] is a collection of twenty-seven books and letters, written by the early Christian community, and written primarily in [[Greek]]. The emphasis of the New Testament is the life, teachings, and gift of salvation from the central figure of the whole work, Jesus of Nazareth. These books are grouped into the following:

====[[Gospels|The Gospels]]====
The ''Gospels'' contain the history of Jesus. The ''Acts of the Apostles'' are a continuance of the Gospels, documenting the history of the early church, beginning immediately following Jesus' death and resurrection. Of the authors, only Matthew and John had met Jesus; they were among His disciples during His earthly ministry. Eusebius, in his ''Ecclesiastical History'', says:<blockquote>"Matthew and John are the only ones that have left us recorded comments, and even they, tradition says, undertook it from necessity. Matthew also, having '''first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew''' when on the point of going also to other nations, '''committed it to writing in his native tongue''', and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings. But after, when Mark and John had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who during all this time was proclaiming the gospel without writing, at length proceeded to write it on the following occasion. The three Gospels previously written, having been distributed among all, and also handed to him, they say that he admitted them, giving his testimony to their truth; but that there was only wanting in the narrative the account of the things done by Christ, among the first of his deeds, and at the commencement of the Gospel. And this was the truth." —Book III, Chapter XXIV.<ref>''The Ecclesiastical History Of Eusebius Pamphilus: Bishop Of Caesarea, In Palestine'', translated from the Greek, by the Rev. C. F. Crusé, A.M., assistant professor in the University of Pennsylvania. With Notes from the Edition of Valesius. London: George Bell and Sons, York Street, Covent Garden. 1874. ''Legacy Reprint Series''. Book III, Chapter XXIV The order of the Gospels. page 97</ref> (''book in the public domain. Boldface emphasis added'') .</blockquote> Eusebius relates the already-existing tradition in his day that Matthew wrote the first Gospel. In every manuscript of the New Testament, Matthew is always placed first, and for almost 1900 years the traditional view prevailed unchallenged that Matthew was the first Gospel written. This is called the [[Augustinian Hypothesis]], which holds that Matthew was the first Gospel, written by Matthew the Evangelist. Mark, according to tradition a Roman, and a companion of Peter, was author of the second Gospel, but beginning in the 19th century [[Heinrich Julius Holtzmann]] together with other German scholars, abusing the literary tools of [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)|historical-critical methods]] in opposition to Christian tradition, declared on their authority as German scholars that Mark's gospel was the first to be written down, about A.D. 50. This theory is called "Marcan priority", and it was aggressively spread as part of [[Otto von Bismarck|Bismarck's]] anti-Catholic 'Kulturkampf' policy.<ref>[http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/KULTGOS.TXT Kulturkampf and the Gospel, by John Beaumont] [http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/farmer%28n%29.htm Church in History. The ChurchinHistory Information Centre. BISMARCK AND THE FOUR GOSPELS 1870 - 1914, by William R. Farmer (University of Dallas) Editor of A NEW CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY. The theory that Mark's Gospel was published before Matthew's is widely held in German and English speaking countries. This article shows how this theory, with little supporting evidence, came to be spread as part of Bismarck's anti-Catholic 'Kulturkampf' policy. BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM. THE FOUR GOSPELS. 1992] (churchinhistory.org)</ref> This view is widely held by liberal biblical scholars in German and English speaking countries. In the United States acceptance of Marcan Priority has often been a test of the "academic competency" of those faculty members who teach Biblical Studies.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=UYKvAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=academic+persecution+regarding+Augustinian+hypothesis&source=bl&ots=iDysvbe5ii&sig=oNOrQku42-Tx-n-yBzhQtzAeQls&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VHKkVNa7IceiyAStsYKYAw&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=academic%20persecution%20regarding%20Augustinian%20hypothesis&f=false Mark's Gospel--Prior or Posterior?: A Reappraisal of the Phenomenon of Order, By David Neville]</ref> Luke is traditionally considered to be the author of both the third Gospel and the ''Acts''.
*[[Gospel of Matthew]]
*[[Gospel of Mark]]
*[[Gospel of Luke]]
*[[Gospel of John]]
*[[Acts of the Apostles]]

====[[Pauline Epistles]]====
The Pauline Epistles are letters (epistles) written to early Christian communities written by the [[Apostle Paul]].
*[[Epistle to the Romans]]
*[[First Epistle to the Corinthians]]
*[[Second Epistle to the Corinthians]]
*[[Epistle to the Galatians]]
*[[Epistle to the Philippians]]
*[[Epistle to Philemon]]
*[[First Epistle to the Thessalonians]]
*[[Second Epistle to the Thessalonians]]
*[[Epistle to the Ephesians]]
*[[Epistle to the Colossians]]
*[[First Epistle to Timothy]]
*[[Second Epistle to Timothy]]
*[[Epistle to Titus]]
*''Possibly the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]]''

[[Liberal]] Bible scholarship over the last two centuries has denied that Paul wrote Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus; and doubted that he wrote Colossians and 2 Thessalonians. However, all the epistles listed above except Hebrews say they are written by Paul. As they are authoritative Scripture which "cannot lie", their claims should be believed.

There is speculation that Paul may have written the ''Epistle to the Hebrews'', which does not mention an author; however, under the pure divine power of the Holy Spirit of God the Father through Jesus Christ himself—"he has spoken through the Prophets"—it could easily have been written by any early Christian except for Timothy, who is mentioned by name in the final chapter. The controversy, however, does not affect the genuineness of the epistle. <ref>Unger, pg. 748; Eusebius ''The History of the Church'' 3:3</ref>

The Council of Trent (1546) dogmatically affirmed that the Epistle to the Hebrews is one of the fourteen genuine epistles of Paul.
:—[http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. The Fourth Session. Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year 1546. English translation by James Waterworth (London, 1848)]

====[[General Epistles]]====
*[[Epistle of James]]
*[[First Epistle of Peter]]
*[[Second Epistle of Peter]]
*[[First Epistle of John]]
*[[Second Epistle of John]]
*[[Third Epistle of John]]
*[[Epistle of Jude]]

====Revelation====
The [[Book of Revelation]] is the last work in the New Testament as well as the whole Bible, written close to A.D. 100 by the [[Apostle John]] during his exile on the Greek island of [[Patmos]]. Revelation is concerned with the condition of the [[Seven Churches of Asia]] before going deeply into a description of the [[Last Days]] prior to the beginning of the [[Millennial Age]].

Most [[Fundamentalism|Fundamentalists]] hold to "[[Dispensationalism]]", an interpretive theory of the meaning of Revelation and other prophecies that was developed in the 19th century by British theologian [[John Nelson Darby]] (1800–82) and the [[Plymouth Brethren]], and is summarized in the ''[[Scofield Reference Bible]]'' edited and [[Christian Zionism#Dispensationalism|annotated]] by [http://poweredbychrist.homestead.com/files/cyrus/scofield.htm Cyrus I. Scofield] (1909, 1917). See [http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/scofield-reference-notes/ Scofield's Reference Notes]

==Non-uniformity of language and style of original Scriptures==

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament, in the original languages of Hebrew (and Aramaic) and Greek, exhibit a non uniformity of style and language. This is in sharp contrast to most modern translations which treat the Scriptures throughout as if they are one book instead of the many books they are. Modern translations can be erudite, dignified, folksy and common, clear and geared for the "common man", or replete with language resonant with literary associations for the "accomplished" reader. But they are that way throughout. The Biblical originals, on the other hand, for example, embedded in the Hebrew within the narrative of the deeds of the prophetess Debora, have in the Song of Deborah (Judges chapter 5) a much more ancient and even archaic Hebrew than that of the main text of the book, probably emanating from a chant from the time of Deborah herself, plainly evident to any person who has studied Hebrew language. The same with the narrative and poetic portions concerning Moses. The human authors, inspired by God, were careful to preserve the integrity of the original inspired songs which they had faithfully recorded or otherwise copied and included in their narratives. There are even different Hebrew languages (rather dialects) from the same historical period but from different authors living during the same time, having come from different origins and cultural levels.<ref name=Steinberg/>

For the New Testament, an example of non-uniformity can be found in the stark differences of language in the Gospel of Luke, written by Luke the physician. The early accounts, those concerning the birth of Jesus and early life, are written in a stilted and often crude Greek while the rest of the Gospel is written in fine Greek befitting of the background and ability of a learned physician. But when the stilted and crude Greek is retranslated, word for word and phrase for phrase, into the Hebrew current in the first century in most parts of Israel (a technique called "back translation"), it becomes excellent Hebrew - Mishnaic Hebrew. This is because of the intent and fastidiousness of Luke, who derived his material, as he says, from people that had been "on the scene", and his success in transmitting it faithfully as he had received it. Both the Old and New Testaments, for various reasons, exhibit little or no concern to "level through" or override the content of what they are saying by stylistic considerations.

===Inspiration===
Although the Old Testament is written by many [[homo sapiens|human]] authors, New Testament authors know that these men were writing under the inspiration of God.

The apostle [[Paul]] wrote that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
Similarly the apostle [[Saint Peter|Peter]] wrote, "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

====Formation of New Testament and Jewish technical transmission====
In the first century and prior, the ear was more important than the eye, as far as retaining in memory. Jews would receive orally, that is, from hearing, the laws that they believed originated with Moses and then passed them on to others, down through the generations. It was important to link the present rabbis by names who taught it with the rabbis by name who had passed it on to them, on back as far as possible to Moses on Mt. Sinai. This was the startling difference of Jesus. By saying "You have heard it said, but I say unto you...", He was by-passing Moses and the others after and getting His teaching direct from the Father.

This Jewish way of receiving (QBL) and handing on (MSR) is summed up in the lead saying of the "Ethics of the Fathers" tractate of the [[Mishna]], "Moses received Torah from God at Sinai. He transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders to the prophets, the prophets to the members of the Great Assembly [Sanhedrin] (1:1)." The teaching thus transmitted was memorized word for word by groups of disciples (Talmidim) together, thereby minimizing, by the common knowledge and public repetitions, all innovations and errors, though there might well have been "stylizing" for ease of retention and recall, receiving and handing on (transmission).

This methodology, with its technical Hebrew terminology appears in the New Testament with the same technical meaning and purpose, for how the earliest Christian teaching was carried on prior to the formation of the New Testament and during the time of its formation. This ensured the validity of the teaching and its authenticity going back, not to Moses, but to the time of Jesus Himself. "For I handed over (Gk. pare'doka, Heb. MSR) to you at the first what I also received (Gk. pare'labon, Heb. QBL) that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that He was raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures..." l Cor. 15:3. Paul knew all of the "deposit of faith" three ways, in the usual "collaborative" way of God - from Scriptures (the Old Testament), from experience (seeing the living Christ on the road to Damascas), and from authenticated oral tradition/transmission involving "receiving" and "handing on".

==Authority of Bible in religious communities==
The role of the Bible in the life of differing communities varies widely by both the inner tenents of the community and the outer influences bearing on the community.
===Judaism===
Orthodox Judaism through the centuries, while it was only marginally affected by growing secularization and modern learning, held to a "differing levels of authority" understanding of the authority of the Hebrew Bible. This did not imply different levels of inspiration, but rather that importance to the regulation of life was prime for the Torah of Moses, the 5 books of the Law. But the Pharasaic teaching also posited an Oral Law given to Moses by God that was passed on through the centuries through Joshua, the prophets, pairs of Rabbis, until this day. The Oral law is found in the Talmud (Mishna and the Gemara together). The oral law became the decisive interpreter, teacher and regulator of the Written Law and determined the course of Jewish Orthodox life. The second section of the Old Testament, the Prophets, is known to the Jewish Community primarily through the synagogue readings of the prophets, the Haftorah, that are assigned to conclude the weekly reading of the Law. The Psalms, the most formative of all the Writings, besides being common throughout the synagogue services, are used in various devotional prayer contexts. Orthodox Judaism has little been affected by modern Higher Criticism of the Bible. Reformed Judaism, originally developed in Germany, and Conservative Judaism, to a lesser extent, have been greatly affected.

===Mainline Protestants===
Mainline Protestantism, represented in the major Protestant churches, denominations, sects and their seminaries, has greatly been affected by "modernism" based on advanced scholarly research, especially from Germany in the 19th century. Those who abused the legitimate tools "Higher Criticism" chose as a fundamental liberal [[premise]] to ignore God's participation in the production of Scripture. Prime among these theories is the Documentary theory of Penteteuch origins (Wellhausen-Graff) that posits that Moses wrote little or nothing. Instead, they propose that the Bible originated in four unknown hypothetical sources coming from various periods. These four sources are termed J (for the use of "Jehovah" for the name of God), E (for the use of "Elohim"), P (priestly), and D (Deuteronomic). The "spirit" of the New Testament (according to their understanding of what they think is the probable main attitude of the writers, derived from the overall impression gained from a generally humanist religious point of view) is far more important than the text of either Testament for modern Protestant theology.

====Orthodox Jewish critique of Documentary theory====
Jewish Orthodox scholars have pointed to flaws in the Documentary Hypothesis. For instance, Orthodox Jewish Scholar Cassuto has pointed out that rather than the names for God varying according to author and period, they vary according to emphasis from the same period, that of Moses - "Jehovah" being used for God in his dealing with His covenental people Israel, and "Elohim" being used when His dealings with mankind are emphasized. Likewise the two terms usually translated "making a covenant", ''lkhrot brit'' (to "cut" a covenant) and ''lehaqim brit'' (to "raise" a covenenat) are not from two sources but mean two different things - to initiate a covenant and to fulfill a covenant.

===Evangelical Protestants===
Evangelical Protestantism believes strongly in the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the whole Bible and has been the most receptive of the doctrine of the full sufficiency of Biblical Authority. Believing in full inspiration of the whole of Scripture does not mean to evangelicalism the equal importance of all Scriptures for the healthy growth of the Christian community. This is because Evangelicalism, following Scripture's own self-disclosure, believes in progressive revelation throughout Biblical time, culminating in Jesus Christ, and no further (thus obviating the role of Tradition). Thus Evangelicalism, does not hold to the application of Mosaic Legislation, and other biblical elements that Orthodox Judaism holds to. This applies to faith and to morals. The Mosaic regulation on executing a rebellious child does not present a problem for evangelical thought as, according to Paul and Hebrews, the Law has been rendered obsolete by the New Covenant. The Destruction of the Temple and of the place for sacrifice of all kinds, present no problem for evangelicalism, as they did for Judasim, as Christ's sacrifice on the cross has now "fulfilled" the prescriptions of the Law and the ceremonials attached. Thus there is a sort of "levels of authority" understanding for evangelicalism similar to the levels of authority of Judaism (but for different reasons).

Evangelical Churches vigorously promote the reading of Scripture through Sunday sermons and Bible study programs. Emphasis is placed on "each one understanding". Coupled with American individualism, and lack of traditional vehicles of authority, this sometimes leads to splintering of worshiping communities and the insistence that each man's interpretation "is as good as any other". Nevertheless, "The Fundamentals" defined in 1910 are strongly retained by the Evangelical Churches - the divinity of Christ, His death for sins and Resurrection from the dead, His second coming.<ref>''[http://web.archive.org/web/20030101082327/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fundcont.htm The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth'', 1910–1915, 4 Vol.] [http://www.biola.edu/about/history/ Bible Institute of Los Angeles,] ed. [http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/ACDIXON.PDF A. C. Dixon], [[Reuben Archer Torrey]].</ref>

===Eastern Orthodox===
The Orthodox Churches throughout the world, whether Greek, Russian, Romanian, the various middle eastern varieties, emphasize the role of the synod (Council) of Bishops, based on the example of the "Council" of Jerusalem in the book of Acts, as the divinely authorized agent of interpretation and application of the Scriptures. Understanding that Jesus' words, "He (the Holy Spirit) will lead you into all truth", Orthodoxy believes that the synod of bishops, no one of whom is held to be individually infallible, are given guidance from the Holy Spirit so that the Scriptures are rightly applied to the Christian Community, enabling the Church to never stray from Christ, that is, the Church is given "indefectability". A minority of Orthodox Church thought holds to "infallibility" in synodal decision rather than, or instead of, "indefectability". The Scriptures in the Orthodox churches are buttressed by creedal formulations, the decisions of belief of past synods, and are less susceptible to the liberalist abuses of the legitimate methods of modern Higher Criticism. The Resurrection of Christ, virgin birth, return of Christ from Heaven to Earth, are all part and parcel of these churches. Individual interpretation of Scripture and manner of life are limited, then, by the teaching authority (the magisterium) granted to the Episcopate - the Synod of bishops.

===Roman Catholic===
The Roman Catholic Church, like the Orthodox Churches, has a strong sense of the Authority ([[Magisterium]]) given to the Bishops by Christ to teach, interpret, defend the Faith and therefore to exercise the responsibility to interpret to the Faithful both Holy Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. But since Vatican II, there has been an increased effort to bring Scriptural knowledge to the laity, and now there has been an increase of Scripture reading and study programs throughout most sections of the Church. This as been abetted by the Catholic Charismatic movement which has had the effect of promoting individual appropriation of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit, and with that, the correlate devotional and intellectual use of Holy Scriptures. However, the role of "Magisterium", that is the Teaching Authority, sets firm limits to individual interpretation. The Roman Catholic church understands that, though Magisterial authority is given to all the bishops, the definitive exercise of the Magisterium is limited to one bishop - the bishop of Rome, the Pope, and to the bishops in communion together with him. Further, Catholicism teaches that the Pope, when he declares dogma (teaching) ''ex-Cathedra'' (from the chair), he speaks infallibly (on matters of faith and morals). The first time the Pope promulgated dogma ''ex-cathedra'' formally was to promulgate the doctrine itself of Papal Infallibility, based on Scripture, history, and reason.<ref>[http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm Papal Encyclicals Online. Decrees of the First Vatican Council] [http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility Catholic Answers. Papal Infallibility]</ref> The Pope, through the Vatican prelates and all the bishops can regulate much of Catholic community life, and some of the regulation is based on the interpretation of Scripture or the application of the traditional interpretation of Scripture. An example of this is the prohibition of abortion. The Church has accepted in a fundamentally modified form most of the legitimate modern [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)|Higher Critical methodology]] of studying Scripture, including the [[Documentary Hypothesis]] of origins first developed within German Protestantism. But the effects of this on the tenets of the Christian Faith are profoundly mitigated due to the creedal affirmations of the Church developed centuries ago and to the discernment of Papal authority. Thus the Roman Catholic Church does not waver on the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the death and resurrection of Christ, and the Second Coming.

==Evangelical Understanding of the History of the Bible==
Rejecting the "Higher Criticism" accepted by the mainline Protestant denominations, Evangelicals and many Catholics hold to a more traditional history of the Bible. This section summarizes their views.

[[Image:Gospel of Luke in Arab.gif|thumb|This tenth-century Egyptian codex was donated to Pope Eugenius IV by the Coptic delegates at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. Translated from a Coptic original, it is one of the earliest Arabic versions of any part of the New Testament, none of which can be dated before the late eighth or ninth centuries.]]

Traditionally, the oldest books of the Bible are certainly the five books of the Torah and the Book of Job. In 1st Kings 6:1, Solomon is stated to have begun building the Temple "''in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come up out of the land of Egypt''". It has been established by a majority of conservative scholars and historians that Solomon had begun building the Temple in the fourth year of his reign, apparently in 961 B.C., making the probable [[date of the Exodus]] under Moses 1441 B.C. During the following forty years Moses wrote the Torah and the Book of Job, completing them before his death at [[Mt. Nebo]] about 1400 B.C. According to Biblical scholar and historian Robert D. Wilson the Torah as it stands dates from the time of Moses, the five books constitute one continuous work, and was written by a single individual, Moses himself (Wilson, pg 11).<ref>Wilson, Robert D. ''A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament'', Sunday School Times, Inc, Philadelphia, PA (1926)</ref>

The remaining books of the Old Testament were written at various times since the death of Moses, with ''Malachi'', the last Hebrew Old Testament book, being written about 455 B.C. During this period each of the books was written and re-written on parchment or papyrus, with editors taking great care in their work; a single Biblical book hand-written today can take weeks to complete. The older scrolls were disposed of by burial or storage in a ''Geniza'' room when worn from normal usage (the Cairo Geniza is famous for the antiquity of the scrolls discovered within it) because the Jews have a devout horror of destroying the sacred script containing the transmitted revelation of God; as a result, the oldest surviving examples of Biblical manuscripts are those which have been carefully preserved either by direct actions of people (such as monasteries), or by removal from forces of decay. Currently, the oldest surviving manuscripts are those found carefully stored in clay jars within the caves of Qumran in 1948 and known as the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]], dating between 250 B.C. to A.D. 70; the complete ''Isaiah'' scroll of this collection dates to 150 B.C.

Around 200 B.C. the [[Septuagint]], a Greek-language version of the Old Testament, was completed. This was due to the Hellenization of large areas of the Middle East after the conquest of Alexander the Great, making Greek the defacto language for everyday communications and business. The Septuagint marks the first time in history that the Bible was translated into a foreign language. An ancient fragment of the Septuagint containing the Tetragrammaton (Greek, "four letters", that is, of the name of God, YHWH) has been dated between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50.<ref>[http://www.eliyah.com/lxx.html Tetragrammaton Found in Earliest Copies of the Septuagint]</ref>

See [[Literalist Bible chronology]].

===Early New Testament history===
In 1st Timothy 5:8, Paul quoted as scripture ''"the laborer is worthy of his hire."'' This line is found nowhere else in the Bible except Matthew 10:10 and Luke 5:7. In 2nd Peter 3:15-16, Peter classes Paul's letters with "other scriptures". Both lines are indicative of the writing down and general use of the New Testament prior to A.D. 60 (Halley, pg. 741-742).<ref>Halley, Henry H. Halley's Bible Handbook, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI (1965)</ref> Spurious "gospels" which are known to have appeared by A.D. 100, make references to the New Testament. [[Clement of Rome]], writing in his own letter to the Corinthians in A.D. 95, refers to ''Matthew'', ''Luke'', ''Corinthians'', ''Hebrews'', ''1st Timothy'', and ''1st Peter'' (Halley, pg. 743).

The oldest surviving New Testament fragment of which there is a reliable date is the [[John Rylands Fragment]] (P52) of the ''Gospel of John'', dating from 117-138 A.D., just decades from when the Gospel was first written. <ref>[http://www.biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html N.T. Ancient Manuscripts]</ref> The time span between the writing of the New Testament and the oldest surviving fragments are well under two hundred years. By comparison, Greek classics such as [[Herodotus]], [[Plato]], [[Euripides]], and [[Homer]] have a time span well over a thousand years each between the date of the oldest known fragment of writing and the time period they were first written.

==Translations==
===The Peshitta===
The second translated version of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament (after the Greek Septuaginta) was in the Aramaic language, the Peshitta (Aram. "''simple, common''"). In A.D. 36, both the Queen of Adiabene (the last existing Province of that Assyrian Empire hated and feared by the Jews), known in Greek as Queen Helena (not the mother of Constantine), and known to the Jews as Queen Shlom Zion ("Peace of Zion"), and her son King Ezad were converted to Judaism. Queen Helena's conversion, as well as others of the Kingdom, furthered the already developing translation of the Hebrew Scriptures in her Kingdom's language -Aramaic. That developing translation came to be known as the Peshitta - meaning simple or common speech, in much the same way as the Hebrew Bible would be translated into Latin by Jerome, with extensive help from a Rabbi, and the resultant translation would be called the Vulgate - meaning simple or common speech. The Peshitta, retaining elements of the then Jewish "[[Targum]]ic" (interpretive) and other Jewish understandings of the Hebrew Bible (see [[Midrash]]), is primarily based on the Pre-Masoretic Hebrew Scriptures - though certain books, such as the Prophet Isaiah, are translations primarily from the Septuagint. The development of the Old Testament Peshitta translation is held by some to have taken place alternatively in Adiabene's nearby neighbor Edessa.

As Thomas and his followers went to India, others (possibly Adai [Thaddeus] among them, the Galilean from Caesarea Phillipi) arrived in [[Adiabene]]. Having gone probably to the synagogues first, as did the Apostle Paul, they found already there, if not a populous citizenry, then an elite governmental element, conversant with the Biblical message in Aramaic. From these people, hearing the preaching of the messengers from Israel, came believers in Jesus Christ, and soon after, came the translation of the Greek New Testament Scriptures into Aramaic, and so the Peshitta was increased by inclusion of the New Testament in Aramaic. Most of the deuterocanonical and apocryphal books of the Old Testament are found in the Syriac, held to have been translated from the Hebrew and not from the Septuagint. The rest of the Old Testament known to the early Syrian church was substantially that of the Palestinian Jews but it arranged them in a different order. First there was the Pentateuch, then Job, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Book of Sirach and most of the deuterocanonical and apocryphal books of the Old Testament, Ruth, Canticles, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, Isaiah followed by the Twelve Minor Prophets, Jeremiah and Lamentations, Ezekiel, and lastly Daniel. Unlike the Greek canon of the New Testament Scriptures, the Peshitta originally did not include the following books: the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second Epistle of John, the Third Epistle of John, the Epistle of Jude and the Book of Revelation. But these books translated into the Syriac (as Christian Aramaic is known) are now part of the Peshitta and used by the Aramaic based churches today, primarily in India and the Middle East - the Syrian Catholic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East (Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East), the Indian Orthodox Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Maronite Church, the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, the Syro-Malabar Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church.<ref>See the following articles and resources:
*[http://www.bible-researcher.com/syriac-isbe.html International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915) Article: Syriac Versions. Thomas Nicol]
*[http://www.peshitta.org/initial/peshitta.html History of the Peshitta]
*[http://www.peshitta.org/ Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament]
*[http://scrollandscreen.com/syriac/index.htm Biblical Studies and Technological Tools. Syriac Tools and Resources] ''access to Syriac Old and New Testaments''
*[http://aramaicnt.org/articles/problems-with-peshitta-primacy/ Problems with Peshitta Primacy]
*[http://madenkha.net/holy_bible/ Index of Holy Bible] ''online access to Aramaic Text of Old and New Testaments of Peshitta''</ref>

Adiabene and its surroundings then became the sending center for a mission to the East that would eventually take advantage of the newly rediscovered monsoon winds blowing for months across the Arabian sea, making it possible for ships' pilots to no longer hug the coasts. And taking advantage of the "[[Silk Road]]" all the way from Antioch in Syria to China, they took the message of Jesus Christ to India (bringing about the Aramaic [Syriac] language churches of Kerala) and even to China itself. And so, the Peshitta, written in the Middle East, for a while became the Scriptures of the Far East Churches of Jesus Christ, particularly in India.

See [[Monophysite]]

===The Vulgate===
[[Jerome]], a Latin scholar deeply interested in the study of the Scriptures, completed the second edition of the Bible in the Latin language. The ''[[Vulgate]]'' was meant to replace the inaccuracies of the earlier ''[[Vetus Latina]]'' (the Old Latin version), the standard Bible of the early Catholic Church in Latin. Jerome had moved to [[Jerusalem]] in 382, and set to work on what eventually became a fresh Latin translation of the Old Testament from the Greek of the ''Septuagint'' and a translation of the Greek New Testament into Latin; then from 390-405 he decided to re-translate his Old Testament directly from the Hebrew text then in use by the Jewish community, which pre-dated the revision of the [[Masoretic Text|Hebrew text]] later written by the Masoretic Hebrew scholars of Judaism between the 7th and 10th centuries. The ''Vulgate'' Bible of 76 books (49 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books) had a marked influence in church history, and it remained the standard Latin Bible in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries. After the Council of Trent defined the canon of the holy Bible as 73 books of scripture "with all their parts", and 1 and 2 Esdras and Prayer of Manasseh had been placed in an appendix to the definitive Clementine Vulgate critical edition, the Vulgate was henceforth the dogmatically defined canonical Bible of the Catholic Church. After 1450 years of use the Vulgate was finally replaced by the ''[[Nova Vulgata]]'' in 1979. The earliest surviving complete manuscript of the entire Latin Bible is the Codex Amiatinus, produced in eighth century England at the double monastery of Wearmouth-Jarrow.<ref>The Codex Amiatinus is the most celebrated manuscript of the Latin Vulgate Bible, remarkable as the best witness to the true text of St. Jerome and as a fine specimen of medieval calligraphy. [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04081a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Codex Amiatinus] [http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-27372773 BBC News Tyne and Wear. 15 May 2014. Codex Amiatinus Bible returns to its home in Jarrow] [http://www.facsimilefinder.com/facsimiles/codex-amiatinus-facsimile Codex Amiatinus Facsimile Edition]</ref>

===Early English translations authorized by Rome===

Vernacular translations into English and other languages have been authorized by the [[Holy See]] since as early as A.D. 600. Partial translations of the Bible into languages of the English people can be traced back to the end of the 7th century, including translations into Old English and Middle English.<ref>[http://www.bible-researcher.com/anglosaxon.html Anglo-Saxon Versions of Scripture (A.D. 600–1150)] (bible-researcher.com)</ref> A number of Old English Bible translations survive, as do many instances of glosses in the vernacular, especially in the Gospels and the Psalms.<ref>See Roberts, Jane (2011). “Some Psalter Glosses in Their Immediate Context”, in ''Palimpsests and the Literary Imagination of Medieval England'', eds. Leo Carruthers, Raeleen Chai-Elsholz, Tatjana Silec. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 61-79, which looks at three Anglo-Saxon glossed psalters and how layers of gloss and text, language and layout, speak to the meditative reader. See Marsden, Richard (2011), "The Bible in English in the Middle Ages", in The Practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages: Production, Reception and Performance in Western Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), pp. 272-295.</ref>

The age of Middle English (1066-1500) beginning with the Norman conquest and ending about 1500 covers the period of authorized and unauthorized Middle English Bible translations.

===Heresies based on abusive use of vernacular translations===

The abuse of vernacular translations of Sacred Scripture made available to the common people was a prominent feature of heresies during the roughly 400 year period from 1100 to 1500.

For example, the Albigensians (also called Cathari "''the pure''"), prevalent during the 12th and 13th centuries in western Europe, particularly in southern France and northern Italy, rejected the authority of Church and State. They appealed to the Scriptures as authority for their doctrines, mostly the New Testament, because the Old Law was regarded by them according to their teaching as mainly a demoniacal creation. Like [[Marcion]] in the 2nd century, they taught the [[Manichaean]] doctrine of two Gods, and that the evil God created matter and the whole physical universe to entrap and enslave divine spirits of light, and was the God of the Old Testament and the God of the Jews. They forbade marriage, sexual relations between spouses, condemned the begetting of children, and praised those who chose to starve themselves to death.<ref>[http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Heresies_Heretics/Heresies_Heretics_006.htm Albigensianism, by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.] [http://www.stisidore-yubacity.org/faqalbigenses.html What is the Albigenses/Albigensian Heresy? Albigenses] [http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=31727 Dictionary: Albigensians] (catholicculture.org)</ref>

Another example is Waldo (Valdo), from the city of Lyons, also variously referred to as Valdes, Valdesius, Valdensius. References to the movement he founded call his disciples "Waldensians", "the poor of Lyons", "the Leonese", "the Poor of Lombardy", or simply "the Poor". He arranged for the Gospels and some other books of the Bible to be translated into common speech which he read very often, but without understanding their real meaning. The translations produced were full of mistakes and mistranslations which changed the meaning of the scriptures. Infatuated with his own interpretation of these defective scriptures he usurped authority by presuming to preach the Gospel in the streets, where he made many disciples, and involved them, both men and women, in a similar act of presumption by sending them out, in turn, to preach. These people, ignorant and illiterate, went about through the towns, entering houses and even churches, disturbing families, disrupting worship services, ignoring civil statutes and laws, and spreading many errors. The principal heresy of the Waldensians was contempt for (ignoring of) ecclesiastical power and rejection of governmental authority. They capitalized on the fact that the common people were scandalized by evident corruption and abuses of legitimate authority by individuals in Church and in secular government who, like [[Balaam]] and [[Judas]], betrayed Christ for the sake of gain, in direct and indifferent disobedience to the teaching of the Church. And they opportunistically misrepresented these clearly [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/aberration aberrent] scandals as if they were authentically representative of the actual teaching and doctrine of the Church (thereby committing what has been defined as sins of [[calumny]] and [[detraction]], fueled by actual [[scandal]]). The Waldensian dispute then, centered on the issue of authority. The fact that they translated the scriptures badly, studied these translations, drew their own conclusions as to what they meant, and "presumed" to preach whatever they believed, without reference to the clergy, was unacceptable.<ref>[http://www.xenos.org/essays/waldensian-movement-waldo-reformation Xenos Christian Fellowship. The Waldensian Movement From Waldo to the Reformation, by Dennis McCallum] (xenos.org)</ref>

A similar phenomenon has animated movements in the 20th and 21st centuries, "[[cult]]s" which claim authority from their founders' particular interpretations of the Bible, doctrines which have resulted in bizarre and self-destructive behavior, all "''based on the Word of God''", such as [[Jonestown]], the [[Branch Davidians]] of [[David Koresh]], and the [[Heaven's Gate]] U.F.O. group. In the 21st century in the United States, the extremist teaching of [[Fred Phelps]] and the [[Westboro Baptist Church]] presents a milder example, claiming the authority of the Bible for their disruptive activities.

In the late Middle Ages, because of the evident, ongoing, and repeated "''[[clear and present danger]]''" to society and to the mental, moral and physical health of the people, so consistently resulting from the direct and apparent association of heretical movements with the act of translating the Bible into the vernacular for anyone to read and interpret as he or she pleased, the Catholic Church began to severely curtail authorization for new translations into the vernacular and subsequently rarely granted permission to anyone who desired to undertake the task during that troubled period, in an attempt to avoid contributing to the problem by providing additional material which, in those days, would certainly give only more occasion for abuse of the meaning of the ''Holy Scriptures'', added to contempt for the authority of the office of the leaders of the Church and the stability of society under the legitimate authority of the office of duly appointed governors, princes and kings.

See [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%207:6&version=NABRE Matthew 7:6], also [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2corinthians%202:17&version=NABRE 2 Corinthians 2:17] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2corinthians%2011:2-20&version=NABRE 11:2-20], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians%201:6-9&version=NABRE Galatians 1:6-9], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=colossians%202:18-19&version=NABRE Colossians 2:18-19], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2peter%201:20-2:3&version=NABRE 2 Peter 1:20-2:3] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2peter%203:14-17&version=NABRE 3:14-17]. —See also [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2022:27&version=NABRE Exodus 22:27( KJV 22:28 )], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2016:1-11&version=NABRE Numbers 16:1-11],[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2013:1-5&version=NABRE Romans 13:1-5], and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:8&version=NABRE Jude 8], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:11&version=NABRE 11], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:17-19&version=NABRE 17-19]. Compare [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%202:17-24&version=NABRE Romans 2:17-24]

See [[Cafeteria Christianity]] and [[Cafeteria Catholic]].

''For a more detailed treatment, see '''[http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies The Great Heresies''']''

==Printing==
[[Image:Gutenburg1.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Printers copy of a page from a Gutenberg Bible, printed in Germany about 1469.]]
[[Johannes Gutenberg]] of [[Mainz]], [[Germany]] invented the first mechanical printing press in 1448. His machine consisted of a large press which when cranked down, pressed a sheet of paper upon a platform in which were set thousands of inked metal letter typefaces (called "movable type"), set in place to read for a particular page. The first book in history printed by this method was the [[Gutenberg Bible]], in the ''Vulgate'' Latin version, of which 180 were printed, and approximately 50 survive today in varying conditions around the world.

The Gutenberg Bible marked another first: printed Bibles could be mass produced to get them into the hands of many people at a low cost. They first had to be translated out of Latin into a common language, and [[Martin Luther]] made the great German translation, 1522-1534. The Protestant Reformers emphasized that laymen should study the Bible, and printing made it possible for them to go beyond the interpretations shown in [[stained glass windows]] (the "Bible of the illiterate") to the actual text.

==English language versions of the Bible==

===Wycliff's Bible===
The first translation of the whole Latin Bible into English by dissident scholars in the English Catholic Church was made under the supervision of the English cleric [[John Wyclif]] in the 1380's, with the assistance of Nicholas Hereford and John Purvey. Wyclif held that the Bible should be placed directly in the hands of the people, but was this was opposed by the English Church hierarchy of his day; indeed, one of Wyclif's opponents, Henry Knighton, compared giving the Bible to the people in English to "casting pearls before swine". Archbishop Arundel of Canterbury promulgated a ban on all English Bibles in 1407, and possession of one was considered evidence of [[heresy]].

Wyclif's was a scholarly translation, based on the [[Latin]], [[Greek]], and [[Hebrew]] texts, but was found to be unwieldy due to its adherence to Latin grammar (in which, for instance, verbs tend to be at the end of sentences). A second Wycliffite translation was prepared late in this period, which avoided this problem, but due to the fact that it could only be distributed in manuscript form, it was an expensive volume. Outside of the nobility and gentry, it was more common to see only a single [[The Gospels|Gospel]], or a copy of the Psalms, rather than an entire Bible, which cost more than the average working person could earn in a year.

Over the next century, its form of English gradually became antiquated, leading English Protestants such as [[William Tyndale]] to feel that an entirely new translation was needed.

===Tyndale===
During the middle of the 16th century there was a renewed sense of the need to get the Bible directly into the hands of the common man; prior to that the Bible was restricted to readings in the Church alone. The Reformers were a group of people who were shocked at the differences between what the Roman Catholic Church was practicing as opposed to their readings (interpretations) of what the Bible stated can or cannot be done (this was one of the causes of the [[Reformation]]). At great cost to themselves, the Reformers began the work of translating the Bible in the various languages of Europe; the printing press would ensure the newly-translated Bibles would be mass-produced.

[[William Tyndale]] was committed to getting the Bible into the hands of his English countrymen. Expressing open defiance of the Pope, Tyndale declared that if God would spare his life he would make it possible for even an ordinary farmer to know more about the Scriptures than the Pope. <ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_canon#Tyndale CreationWiki. Bible Canon#Tyndale] (creationwiki.org)</ref> Tyndale's translation of the New Testament was completed on the Continent by 1525. By April, 1526, 6,000 copies were printed and delivered to England. Official opposition led to the destruction of most of them, not because of the translation of the Biblical text itself, but because Tyndale also held and published views which were considered heretical, first by the Catholic Church, and later by the Church of England, which was established by King [[Henry VIII]] in 1536.<ref>Act of Supremacy, (1534) English act of Parliament that recognized Henry VIII as the “Supreme Head of the Church of England.” [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/574743/Act-of-Supremacy Encyclopedia Britannica. Act of Supremacy: England [1534] [http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm Henry VIII 's Act of Supremacy (1534) - original text]</ref> His Bible translation also included notes and commentary promoting these views.<ref>[http://www.tyndale-bible.com/tyndale-bible-history.html TYNDALE BIBLE HISTORY. William Tyndale (1494-1536). The History of William Tyndale and his Bibles] [http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4749&CFID=4143742&CFTOKEN=81204680 Tyndale's Heresy, by Matthew A. C. Newsome] [http://www.bible-researcher.com/tyndale4.html Tyndale] (bible-researcher.com) [http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html English Bible History. William Tyndale] (greatsite.com) [http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-books/william-tyndales-translation/ The Wesley Center Online: '''William Tyndale's Translation'''] ''online access to the text of Tyndale's Bible''.</ref> Tyndale's translation was banned by the authorities. Even King Henry VIII in 1531 condemned the Tyndale Bible as a corruption of Scripture. In the words of King Henry's advisors: "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects." <ref>Henry Grey Graham, Where we got the Bible: Our debt to the Catholic Church © 1977 Tan Books and Publishers, Inc. 153 pages. ASIN: B0006YDQ5Q p. 128-130.</ref> Bishop [[Tunstall]] of London <ref>[http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/tunstall.htm Cuthbert Tunstall]</ref> declared that there were upwards of 2,000 errors in Tyndale's Bible.<ref>[http://catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/charge.htm The Charge of Burning Bibles]</ref> The following year Tyndale himself, at the instigation of agents of Henry VIII and the Anglican Church, was arrested and, for his efforts, charged with heresy, and, on May 21, 1536, was executed, burned at the stake. Nevertheless, the printing press rendered it impossible to completely suppress such a book, and new copies were printed on the Continent and smuggled into [[England]]. His efforts at translating the Bible led to the [[Matthews Bible]] (1537) and the [[Bishop's Bible]] (1568), but with many of his notes radically edited by censors or editors, or entirely removed, and these versions led to the [[Geneva Bible]] (1599), and finally to the [[King James Bible|King James Version]], where ninety percent of the text closely follows Tyndale's translation.

===Authorised or King James Version===
[[Image:E-sword.jpg|thumb|200px|right|The internet has increased the availability of the Bible world-wide. Shown here is a screenshot to [[E-Sword]], a freely-downloadable Bible study program. <ref>[http://www.e-sword.net E-Sword]</ref> (Rick Meyers, 2007)]]
In 1601 King [[James I]] selected forty-seven of the ablest scholars in [[England]] to undertake the creation of a standard Bible in English, based upon careful translations of the [[Masoretic Text]] used by the Jewish community, and the best Greek translations (especially the ''[[Textus Receptus]]'') then available. The scholars were divided into six committees in [[Oxford]], [[Westminster]], and [[Cambridge]], with each scholar dedicating himself to doing a portion of the Bible, often consulting each other to check the flow and harmony of the work in progress. The result was the 1611 Authorised Version, known in [[United States of America|America]] as the [[King James Bible|King James Version]].

In its early days, the KJV was heavily criticized; but in time, with official pressure, it won the field and became "the Bible" for English-reading people—a position it held for almost 400 years.<ref>''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary''. "Bible Translations", Jack P. Lewis and Charles W. Draper. p. 214.</ref>

The effects of the Authorised Version were profound. Using less than 2,500 different words in its vocabulary, this Bible was written in a poetic style matched by few. The work influenced the writings of [[Shakespeare]]. [[John Milton]] has numerous images taken from this Bible in his ''[[Paradise Lost]]''. The direct style of writing caused it to be easily available to the common man. Poets and writers, such as [[Herman Melville]], [[Walt Whitman]], [[Emily Dickinson]] and many others were deeply inspired by it. It altered the course of English history, with England growing to a world power since the book's publication. When asked by a visiting dignitary what made England great, [[Queen Victoria]] pulled out her copy of the Bible and declared "This is the secret of England's greatness."

====Problems with the King James Version====

{{main|Badger skins (Bible)}}

Beginning in the 17th century, the same century in which it was published, Protestant scholars, orientalists, hebraists and linguists began pointing out defects in the [[King James Bible|Authorized King James Version]].<ref>[[Isaac H. Hall]]. [http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvdefects.html ''The Revised New Testament and History of Revision'' (1881) "Defects of the King James Version"]
:"Our translators of the seventeenth century, in a great many instances, misunderstood the sense."</ref> One of these was the translation of 'orot tachashim as "badgers' skins", because it so plainly violates the biblical context of [[Leviticus]] [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2011:4-8&version=KJV chapter 11:4-8], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2011:24-28&version=KJV 24-29], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2011:42-45&version=KJV 42-45], and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%205&version=KJV Leviticus chapter 5]. "Badgers' skins" is the King James Version (AV) translation of the Hebrew word '''תחשׁ''' '''''taḥash''''', and of the Hebrew term (singular) '''עור תחשׁ''' '''''uwr taḥash / 'or taḥash''' "skin taḥash"'', and of the plural form '''ערת תחשׁים''' '''''uwr't taḥashim / 'orot taḥashim''' "skins taḥashim"''. [[Adam Clarke]] himself ([http://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/exodus/25.htm ''Adam Clarke's Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible'' (1831) Exodus 25]) has pointed out the substantial inaccuracy of the KJV interpretive translation:
:"badgers' skins, (rather violet-coloured skins)...Badgers' skins — ערת תחשים oroth techashim. Few terms have afforded greater perplexity to critics and commentators than this."
See [[Badger skins (Bible)#Protestant commentaries 17th through 19th centuries|Protestant commentaries 17th through 19th centuries]]

The original meaning of ''' תחשׁ ''t'''a'''ḥ'''a'''š / taḥash / tachash / techash / t'khesh''''' has been debated for centuries. According to ''Encyclopaedia Judaica'' the AV and JPS 1917 translation ''[[badger]]'' has no basis in fact.<ref name=Enc.Jud.>''Encyclopaedia Judaica'' 2nd Edition Volume 19:435. TAḤASH.</ref><ref>''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'' page 161. Badger Skins</ref> Translating ערת תחשׁים ''skins taḥashim'' as "badgers' skins" also presents a [[contradiction]]. The Book of Leviticus, chapter 11, forbids touching the carcasses of all animals that walk on '''paws''', because they are '''טָמֵא''' ''tame'' [[Taboo|unclean]]. This is no trivial matter, as [[God]] Himself is thus represented in the KJV as commanding the handling and use of skins of carcasses He forbids the Israelites to touch, and as commanding them to cover the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant with unclean skins and then commanding them to remove from the camp all that is unclean so that nothing unclean will be seen by Him in the camp ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%205:2-3&version=KJV Numbers 5:2-3]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2023:14&version=KJV Deuteronomy 23:14]). They are forbidden to defile the tabernacle, the sanctuary of the LORD ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2020:2-3&version=KJV Leviticus 20:2-3]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2021:10-12&version=KJV 21:10-12]), and they are commanded to cover it with '''טָמֵא''' ''tame'' [http://bibleapps.com/hebrew/2931.htm unclean/polluting/defiling "badgers' skins" (KJV).] Even on the sole [[hermeneutics|hermeneutical principle]] of "Scripture interprets Scripture" this is not accurate, and it presents a serious difficulty. [[John Grigg Hewlett]], D.D. (''Bible difficulties explained'' 1860) says:<blockquote>"It would involve a great inconsistency, that the ark of the covenant, which was considered so holy, that no human hand could touch it with impunity, except the hands of those who had been consecrated to God, that it should constantly be covered with the skins of unclean animals...Therefore the coverings of purple, or blue, which our translators have called 'badgers' skins', were of a material that was accounted pure, and could not impart any impurity to those who prepared them, or to those whose office it was to adjust them amidst the vicissitudes of the camp of Israel."<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=J5kCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA159&SOURCE=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q=badger&f=false ''Bible difficulties explained'' (1860) "Badgers' skins" pages 159–163].</ref></blockquote>

The KJV was first published in 1611, a year after the [[Douay-Rheims|Douay-Rheims Bible]]. The later KJV revision of 1769 <ref>[http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html Changes in the King James Version]</ref> is the version generally published today as the [[King James Bible]], and is the form of the text cited here:

[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%205:2&version=KJV Leviticus 5:2] "if a soul touch any unclean thing...he also shall be unclean and guilty"
 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%205:5-6&version=KJV Leviticus 5:5-6] "he shall confess that he hath sinned"
 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2011:5-8&version=KJV Leviticus 11:5-8] "and their carcase shall ye not touch, they are unclean to you"
 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2011:24-28&version=KJV Leviticus 11:24-28] "and whatsoever goeth upon his paws...those are unclean unto you"
 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2011:43-44&version=KJV Leviticus 11:43-44] "Ye shall not make yourselves abominable...neither shall ye make yourselves unclean...neither shall ye defile yourselves"
 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2022&version=KJV Leviticus 22] "Say unto them, Whosoever ''he be'' of all your seed among your generations, that goeth unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence: I ''am'' the LORD."
 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%204:15-20&version=KJV Numbers 4:15-20] "but they shall not touch ''any'' holy thing, lest they die"
 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2023:14&version=KJV Deuteronomy 23:14] "For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee."

The Committee appointed by [[James I of England]] that was tasked with the translation of the Bible was made of men who had read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek and Latin and knew these passages. Yet they chose to translate ''tachashim'' as unclean badgers "''that goeth upon paws''" whose carcasses the Israelites were forbidden to touch.

[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2025:1-8&version=KJV Exodus 25:1-8] "Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering...rams' skins dyed red, and badgers' skins"
 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2026:14&version=KJV Exodus 26:14] "and a covering above of badgers' skins"
 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2035:7&version=KJV Exodus 35:7] "and rams' skins dyed red, and badgers' skins"
 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2035:23&version=KJV Exodus 35:23] "and red skins of rams, and badger skins"
 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2036:19&version=KJV Exodus 36:19] "and a covering of badgers' skins above that"
 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2039:34&version=KJV Exodus 39:34] "And the covering of rams' skins dyed red, and the covering of badgers' skins"
 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%204:6-25&version=KJV Numbers 4:6-25] "a covering of badgers' skins...the covering of badgers' skins"
 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%2016:10&version=KJV Ezekiel 16:10] "and shod thee with badgers' skin"

Readers of the KJV saw a grave difficulty here because of the apparently great inconsistency that the holy ark of the covenant and the Tabernacle of the LORD should be constantly covered with skins of unclean animals which made unclean anyone who touched them. The Douay-Rheims Bible had translated the skins as [[Badger skins (Bible)#Douay-Rheims Bible|"''violet skins''"]].

The ''[[motivation]]'' for interpreting and translating ''tachash skins'' in the Bible as being skins of creatures the Israelites are clearly forbidden to touch is unclear, and a mystery, what is known in [[Logic]] as a [[non sequiter]] (Lat. "''it does not follow''"). The ''[[purpose]]'' being served by a deliberate translation of תחשׁ as badger and of ערת תחשׁים as badgers' skins, by scholars who have a thorough knowledge of the whole of the Bible, and of the history of the Hebrew language and of the ''fauna'' and varied customs of the ancient Middle East, is also a ''non sequiter'' mystery, involving an [[Evidence|evident]] contradiction of the context of the Bible. Alternate word choices, harmoniously consistent with the biblical context, and attested by the ancient sources as cited in scholarly published commentaries both technical and general, were available to the translators, who chose not to use them. Their translation covers the tabernacle, the ark and the sacred vessels with the equivalent of ''' טָמֵא ''' ''tame'' unclean [[Pig|swine]]s' skins ([http://biblehub.com/multi/leviticus/11-8.htm Leviticus 11:3-8], [http://biblehub.com/multi/leviticus/11-27.htm 11:24-28]). The inconsistency is not in the ancient biblical text, but in the interpretations of translators which violate its context.<blockquote>"A text without a context is a pretext for a [[Cafeteria Christianity#Proof texts|proof text]]." Donald A. Carson, ''Exegetical Fallacies''.<ref>Carson, Donald A., Ph.D. ''Exegetical Fallacies'', Nov. 30, 1983, 2nd edition Mar. 1, 1996. Baker Publishing Group. 160 pages. ISBN 978-0801020865.</ref></blockquote>

[[Study Bible]] footnotes, along with published articles, Bible dictionaries, commentaries, encyclopedias, and books on the Bible, and a multitude of internet online blogs and pages, which strongly support the translation of ערת תחשׁים as badgers' skins or as the skins of any kind of sea mammal, often omit the fact that within the context of the Bible these creatures are classified as unclean, defiling '''שִׁקַּץ ''' ''sheqats'' abominations, as loathsome, abhorrent, detestible, filthy and disgusting for the people of Israel. Those that do mention it offer various speculative [[Excuse|rationale]]s, [[debate]]s and [[Editorial|discussions]] to explain why in their [[opinion]] God would command the Israelites to cover the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant and the sacred vessels for worship with skins of unclean animals and abominations they are explicitly forbidden to touch, skins and hides that according to the word of the LORD defile any Israelites who touch them. Many of them assert that the prohibitions in Leviticus 11 are ''dietary'' rules only ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2011:2&version=KJV Lev. 11:2], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2011:46-47&version=KJV 11:46-47]), and declare that touching and wearing skins and leather of unclean animals is permitted as long as their flesh is not eaten.<ref name=opinion>Eight examples:
*[http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9912/jewish/Chapter-11.htm#showrashi=true Chabad.ORG —Rashi's commentary Vayikra-Leviticus-Chapter 11],
*[http://ravkooktorah.org/TRUMA61.htm Terumah: Tachash Skins in the Tabernacle, Rabbi Chaim Morrison],
*[http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/681556/jewish/Can-I-wear-pigskin-shoes.htm Can I wear pigskin shoes? By Shmuel Kogan],
*[http://www.jewishtreats.org/2012/11/picking-up-pigskin.html Jewish Treats: Juicy Bits of Judaism, Daily: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2012 —Picking Up Pigskin],
*[http://www.jewsingreen.com/2005/08/pigskin-boots Jews in Green: Jews serving proudly:—News: Pigskin Boots, Posted by Lt Joe Friedman on 03 Aug 2005],
*[http://www.jewfaq.org/animals.htm Judaism 101. Treatment of Animals. Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim <big>'''צער בעלי החיים'''</big>: Cruelty to Animals © Copyright 5756-5771 (1995-2011), Tracey R Rich],
*[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003867 Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY: Insight, Volume 2 it-2 pp. 883-884 Sealskin. Copyright © 2014 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania],
*[http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/badgers-skin-or-another-type-of-leather-in-exodus-255-et-al KJV Today: "Badgers' skin" or another type of leather in Exodus 25:5 et al.?] —''compare multiple commentaries on:'' [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/5-2.htm Leviticus 5:2]; [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/11-8.htm 11:8] and [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/11-27.htm 11:27]</ref> These commentaries say that touching the carcass of these animals is only a minor offense which did not require an atoning sacrifice, and that it applied only to ''kohanim'' (priests) and applied to the laity only during the three feasts of Passover/Unleavened Bread, Weeks/Pentecost, and Booths/Tabernacles (Deut. 16). And some cite the ''Talmud'' as their authority, for example, Tractate ''Rosh Hashana'' 16b,<ref>[http://halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Rosh_HaShanah.pdf Babylonian Talmud, Seder ''Mo'ed'', Tractate ''Rosh Hashana'', Folio 16b] —''scroll down to page'' 40</ref> and the ''Sifra'', ''Torath Kohanim'' 11:74,<ref>'''Sifra''' (Aramaic <big>'''סִפְרָא'''</big>, "book" or "The Book"), a ''midrash halakhah'' from the school of R. Akiva on the Book of Leviticus. See [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13646-sifra ''Jewish Encyclopedia'': Sifra]; ''Encyclopaedia Judaica'' Vol 18 San-Sol 18:560-562 SIFRA; See [http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%90 Sifra Hebrew text, ed. I. H. Weiss 1862 Vienna.]</ref> and Rashi's commentary,<ref name=opinion/> providing us with an example of what the prophet Jeremiah said, <blockquote>"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie" ([http://biblehub.com/multi/jeremiah/8-8.htm Jeremiah 8:8]).</blockquote> They omit any reference to that part of Leviticus which decrees that wilfully touching the carcasses of unclean animals (which must be done to harvest their skins) is a '''sin''', which even Rashi's commentary confirms. No mention is made by them of the law in the Torah which says: "Ye shall not make yourselves abominable...neither shall ye make yourselves unclean...neither shall ye defile yourselves" (Leviticus 11:43-44) <ref>See: '''Exodus''' 31:14; '''Leviticus''' 7:19, 21; 10:10; 11:43-44; 18:20, 24, 30; 20:25; 21:4, 11; 22:8; '''Numbers''' 5:3; 6:7; 19:13, 20; 35:33-34; '''Deuteronomy''' 23:14; 27:26.</ref> and that anyone who wilfully does this will be cut off.<ref>see [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%205:2-6&version=KJV Leviticus 5:2-6], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%205:17-19&version=KJV 5:17-19]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2015:29-31&version=KJV Numbers 15:29-31]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2019:20&version=KJV 19:20.]</ref> Some commentaries on the Old Testament supporting ''badgers' skins'' and ''sea mammals' skins'' as the covering of the tabernacle cite the [[New Testament]] example of [[Saint Paul]] working with Simon the tanner (Acts 9:43; 10:6, 32), as if both of them were examples of Jews wilfully working with the skins of ''non-kosher'' beasts. Some cite [[Pliny]]'s ''Natural History'' 2:56,<ref>previously cited in the 19th century: [http://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/B/badger.html ''McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature'' (1887) B: badger]; [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/exodus/25.htm ''Adam Clarke's Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible'' (1831) Exodus 25]</ref> which says that [pagan] temples had roofs of sealskin, as if this applied to the Israelites under the Law of Moses, and cite Eduard Rüppell's short-lived ''taxonomic'' designation of the dugong as ''Halicore tabernaculi'' "dugong of the tabernacle" as an additional support for their opinion.<ref>While travelling the Middle East around the Red Sea and the [[Arabian Peninsula]], Rüppell observed a variety of [[dugong]] which he subsequently designated ''[[Taxonomy|taxonomically]]'' as ''Halicore tabernaculi'' (1843) according to his view that the skin of this animal was certainly used as the outer covering of the tabernacle of the Hebrews, because the Bedouin harvested its skin for tent-curtains and for shoes and called it ''tukhesh, duchash''. His taxonomic designation ''Halicore tabernaculi'' did not last long (1843-1847) and has since been recombined several times, more recently as ''Dugong dugon'' (1963-1998). Three sources:
*[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/512932/Eduard-Ruppell ''Encyclopaedia Britannica''. "Eduard Rüppell"]
*[http://www.probertencyclopedia.com/B_DUGONG.HTM The Probert Encyclopedia of Nature. "Dugong".] "A variety [of dugong] was discovered in the Red Sea by Ruppell, and called Halicore tabernaculi."
*[http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?action=checkTaxonInfo&taxon_no65051&is_real_user=0 The Paleobiology Database:] —''when the page comes up, at'' "You must enter a taxon name" ''move cursor to'' "Full search"—''menu will appear; select'' "classifications of taxa in groups" ''and click—when'' "Taxonomic classification search form" ''appears enter '''''Halicore tabernaculi''''' in the top search field (ignore the rest), click'' [Show classification]—''page will display "Halicore tabernaculi'' Rüppell 1843"—''click highlighted link'' "Halicore tabernaculi"–''page will show list "Dugong dugon'' Illiger 1811: Classification of '''Trichechus dugon''' (''Halicore tabernaculi'' Ruppell/Rupell 1843): the listing of the zoological taxonomic nomenclature of the dugong on that page is here rearranged in chronological order:
:'''''Trichechus dugung''''' Erxleben 1777 (this nomenclature lasted 22 years)
:'''''Dugong indicus''''' Lacépède 1799 (this nomenclature lasted 12 years)
:'''''Dugong dugong''''' Illiger 1811 (this nomenclature lasted 21 years)
:'''''Halicore hemprichii''''' and '''''Halicore lottum''''' Ehrenberg 1832 (this nomenclature lasted 11 years)
:'''''Halicore tabernaculi''''' Rüppell 1843 (4 years)
:'''''Halicore australis''''' Owen 1847 (this nomenclature lasted 51 years)
:'''''Halicore cetacea''''' Heuglin, recombined as '''''Halicore dugung''''' Trouessart 1898 (this nomenclature lasted 65 years)
:It was recombined as "'''''Dugong dugon'''''" Scheffer and Rice 1963 also Husar 1978, Domning 1994, 1996, and Rice 1998 (this nomenclature has lasted for 35 years+).</ref> The 1843 published ''scientific'' nomen ''Halicore tabernaculi'', expressing as it did the personal opinion of a ''professional zoologist'', Eduard Rüppell, was soon discarded by the scientific community, but it has nevertheless persuaded many to this day that science has established that the ''dugong'' was indeed the animal whose skins were used to cover the tabernacle. However, it has no fins or scales. According to the Bible this creature is an abomination to the Jews (loathsome / abhorrent / detestible / filthy / disgusting) (Leviticus 11:10-12).<ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003867?q=Bible&p=sen Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY: Insight, Volume 2 it-2 pp. 883-884 Sealskin.]</ref> [[Jesus]] himself commented on the practice of constantly seeking pretexts for making exceptions to the ''[[Torah]]:''<blockquote>"You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!" (Mark 7:9 RSV).<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%207:9-13&version=KJV Mark 7:9-13]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2015:1-9&version=KJV Matthew 15:1-9]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2023:16-22&version=KJV 23:16-22]</ref></blockquote>

====King James Only====

Advocates of the [[King James Only]] movement are fully persuaded that the translators of the King James Version of the Bible always chose the correct reading [interpretation] of the biblical text, under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit Himself, and that therefore the translation ''badgers' skins'' is the most accurate possible English translation of the Hebrew ערת תחשׁים and עור תחשׁ and תחשׁ . They declare without reservation that the King James Bible is the divinely preserved, infallible Word of God, and that it is the only and final authority on all matters of faith and morals and practice for the whole of the English-speaking world.<ref>James D. Price. [http://www.truth.sg/resources/KJV%20Onlyism%20-%20a%20New%20Sect%20-%20Introduction%20-%20Dr%20J%20Price.pdf ''King James Onlyism: A New Sect.'' Introduction: The King James Only Doctrine Is a New Idea].</ref>
:–See the [http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm '''''Preface to the King James Version of 1611'''''].<blockquote>"...wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, '''is the word of God'''..."</blockquote>

::::—''from the'' Preface to the King James Version of 1611: The Translators to the Reader. (''boldface emphasis added'')

See '''[[Logical fallacy]]'''.

=== Other versions ===

Today, the Bible is available in many versions across the English-speaking world, and has been translated into languages spoken by the vast majority of people on Earth, and even portions into a recently-created language from the fictional world of [[Star Trek]], [[Klingon]]. <ref>[http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project Klingon Bible Translation Project]</ref> The past two decades saw the emergence of [[Internet]] use; the creation of the Bible as a software program was inevitable, and several, such as [[E-Sword]] and Theophilos, are available at no cost with a wealth of Bible-study material as well.

==Bible Scientific Foreknowledge==
[[Bible scientific foreknowledge]] holds that the Bible shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed. Many Christian scientists and apologists such as the Christian scientists and apologists at [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and [[CreationWiki]] assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>[http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml Clarifying Christianity. Science and the Bible] (clarifyingchristianity.com)</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp Modern medicine? It's not so modern! by David A. Wise] (answersingenesis.org)</ref>

==Humor in the Bible==

{{main|Humor in the Bible}}

The Bible, especially the Old Testament, contains irony, puns, sarcasm, etc. It may be noted that the sense of what is humorous varies from people to people and from nation to nation, as well as varying from age to age. What caused a chuckle, smile, or laughter in the biblical "genre" was more connected with ''satisfaction'' at the vindication of righteousness among men. Thus to our day and age, and the commonality of people, for believers and non believers, the meaning of the spewing up of Jonah on the shores (even the great fish could not stomach him!) might be viewed as God working out His original will in history. Jonah's flight from responsiblity being aborted, for the people in the "days and ages" of the Bible, there was the added satisfaction derived from the understanding that God was not mocked by the rebellion of Jonah. Likewise that the "many cattle" also found repentence and acceptance by God, would not have brought the smile of glee, mingled with doubt, but the smile of satisfaction that God's wide heart found its exultant victory over the measly, narrow perspective of the renagade prophet. There was no shame to stifle the Biblical chuckle at the "hows" of the vindication of God's justice. Yet, what we consider humorous also appears:

For example:

*After noticing that his father-in-law Laban was not treating him as in the past, Jacob decided to flee with his family. Rachel, one of Jacob’s wives, stole her father Laban’s teraphim (statues used for idolatry and/or divination). Laban pursued them and intercepted them in the Gilead mountains (Genesis 31:30): "Why have you stolen my gods?" Laban said to Jacob. The Midrash comments that it cannot be much of a god if it can be stolen (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 74:8). Jonsson (1985, 44-45) suggests that there is humor (albeit "rough" humor) in the fact that, not only was Laban deceived, but his idols were actually underneath his daughter Rachel’s posterior while she claimed that the "manner of women" was upon her. This idol did not get much respect. [http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/economic/friedman/bibhumor.htm]

*In the Orthodox Bible, in the Epistle of Jeremiah, the prophet declares with delightful contempt the stupidity of the idols of Babylon. Their faces have to be wiped to get the dust off them. They have weapons in their hands but cannot punish anyone who offends them. They are as useless as a broken dish. Their eyes are clogged with dust from the feet of the worshippers entering to adore them. Their priests lock them up like a man who has offended the king and has been sentenced to death. Bats, swallows and birds perch on their heads, and so do cats. If they are tipped over, they cannot get up. Their priests howl and shout before them as some do at a funeral feast for a man who has died. When fire breaks out in their temples the priests run away and the idols are burned in two like logs. Robbers strip them naked and they cannot help themselves. The door of a house that protects its contents, or a wooden pillar in a palace holding up the roof is better than these useless gods. Like a scarecrow in a cucumber patch guarding nothing, so are these gods.

*In the book of Esther, Haman, the prime minister of King Ahasuerus of Persia who hates Mordecai the Jew and has built a gallows 50 cubits high to hang him on it, has entered the court to ask for Mordecai's death. The king, meanwhile, not being able to sleep, hears in the reading of the records that Mordecai once saved the king from assassination, and that Mordecai received no reward. The king seeks an opinion from one of his court and asks who is immediately available. Haman enters, and the king asks him what should be done to honor the man who pleases the king, and Haman thinks to himself, "Who should the king wish to honor more than me?" So he makes his recommendation, to dress the man in the king's own robes, to set a crown on his head, to set him on the king's own horse, and have the king's most noble prince conduct him throughout the city proclaiming, "Thus shall it be done to the man whom the king delights to honor." The king then told Haman, "Quickly! Take the robes and the horse, as you said, and do it to Mordecai the Jew. Omit nothing you mentioned." When he had obeyed the king, he ran home, mourning, with his head covered.

*In the [[Acts of the Apostles]] is a serious incident which has some wonderfully slapstick comedic overtones (19:11-16). God had been doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, and even cloths that he had touched were applied to the sick and to possessed persons and they were completely cured. So some traveling Jewish [[Exorcism|exorcists]] decided to use the Name of Jesus as a ''word of power'' over people who were possessed, by saying, "I ''adjure'' you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches".<ref>[http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/adjure "adjure"] (oxforddictionaries.com). See [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01142c.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: adjuration]. [http://www.stubbornthings.org/authority-justice-law/ Authority, Justice, Law] (stubbornthings.org) ''the authority required to legitimately adjure''.</ref> When the seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, did this, the evil spirit said, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know: ''but who are you?''", and he leaped on them and beat them so badly they ran out of the house naked and bleeding.

==Bible Translations==
The Bible has been translated many times and in many ways so anyone, from the youngest child to the most learned scholar, can read the entire scripture in their own language and at their own reading level. Early versions in the languages of their people include the [[Septuagint]], Syriac [http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/syriacbib.html Peshitta] and [[Vulgate]], also the [http://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_arb_gen-1 Arabic], the [http://lexicity.com/coptic-biblical-texts.html Coptic], and Persic [http://www.wordproject.org/bibles/parallel/g/farsi.htm Farsi]. Here are some common English versions:

*[[American Standard Version]]
*[[Amplified Bible]]
*[[Douay-Rheims]]
*[[English Standard Version]]
*[[Good News Version]]
*[[King James Version]]
*[[Living Bible]]
*[[New American Standard Version]]
*[[New English Bible]]
*[[New International Version]]
*[[New King James Version]]
*[[Revised Standard Version]]
*[[Revised Version]]
*[[Septuagint]]
*[[Wycliffe Bible]]
*[[Conservative Bible]] - still a work-in-progress here at Conservapedia

==Bible versions==
Apart from Bibles that include the [[Apocrypha]], ''The [[New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures]]'' is a distinct version that was produced to justify many of the unique doctrines of [[Jehovah's Witnesses]].

[[Joseph Smith]], founder of [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]] also produced his own version of the Bible which was published after his death: see [http://www.help4rlds.com/pwtu/PWTUChap9.pdf Joseph Smith’s ''Inspired Version'' of the Bible pdf]

Online multiple versions are also available for comparison by entering '''Bibles online''' in the search-engine window of the computer.
:Simultaneous multiple versions of any one Bible verse are available at biblehub.com.
:A drop-down menu of a multiple selection of Bible translations and versions is available on the biblegateway.com site.

:For example: See a sample of the biblehub.com site with multilingual versions and translations of [http://biblehub.com/multi/john/3-16.htm '''John 3:16'''].

:For example: See a sample of the biblegateway.com site with drop-down menu feature: [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203:16&version=NABRE '''John 3:16 NABRE''']

Below at External links is featured online access to several versions of the Bible in English: '''[[Bible#English]]'''

===Greek Bible online===

'''''Greek/English Bible''''' [http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/ Greek original according to the text used by the Church of Greece. English translation by L.C.L. Brenton, published side by side] Greek Septuagint and Greek New Testament

===Clementine Vulgate online===

'''''The Clementine Vulgate''''' [http://www.saintsbooks.net/books/The%20Clementine%20Vulgate%20-%20%28vulsearch.sourceforge.net%29.pdf BIBLIA SACRA JUXTA VULGATAM CLEMENTINAM EDITIO ELECTRONICA PLURIMIS CONSULTIS EDITIONIBUS DILIGENTER PRÆPARATA A MICHAELE TVVEEDALE .pdf]

===1611 Authorized Version online===

'''''Authorized Version''''' [http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/ Official King James Bible Online. original 1611 King James Bible, Old Testament, New Testament, Apocrypha]

== See also ==
*[[Bible exegesis]]
*[[Biblical Canon]]
*[[Christian apologetics|Evidence supporting the Bible]]
*[[Bible prophecy]]
*[[Biblical accuracy]]
*[[Famous Bible paintings]]
*[[Midrash]]
*[[Targum]]
*[[Pseudepigrapha]]
*[[Aramaic Church]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[Essay: The Way of Salvation]]
*[[Essay: How to choose a Bible]]
*[[Conservative Bible Project]]
*[[Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]
*[[Messianic Prophecies]]
*[[Gospel reading in the Church: the Turgama]]
*[[Wicked Bible]]
*[[Badger skins (Bible)]]
*[[Biblical timeline]]
*[[Literalist Bible chronology]]

==External links==
===Bible societies ===
*[http://www.americanbible.org/ American Bible Society]
*[http://www.biblesociety.org/ United Bible Society]
*[http://www.ibs.org/ The International Bible Society (New York/Colorado Springs)]
*[http://www.wbtc.com/site/PageServer World Bible Translation Center]
*[http://www.wycliffe.org/home.htm Wycliffe Bible Translators]
*[http://www.labibliaweb.com/ La Biblia] In Spanish.

===Online, internet, and downloadable Bibles===
====Hebrew====
* [http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm Hebrew-English Bible] ([[Jewish Publication Society of America|JPS]] 1917 translation; includes Hebrew audio)
* [http://tanakhml2.alacartejava.net/cocoon/tanakhml/d13.php2xml?sfr=1&prq=1&pnt=tru&acc=tru&dia=tru&enc=heb XML Hebrew-English (KJV) Bible]
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/Hebrew_OT/ Old Testament in Hebrew]

====Greek====
* [http://www.ccel.org/w/westcott/gnt/toc.htm Koine Greek New Testament]
* [http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/moderngreek/ Modern Greek Bible]

====Latin====
* [http://www.LatinVulgate.com/ Latin Vulgate] — Latin Vulgate with parallel Douay-Rheims and King James English translations
* [http://www.sacredbible.org/ SacredBible.org] — Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/Vulgate/ Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405 A.D.)]

====English====
* [http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html AudioBible] — Audio version of the King James Version.
* [http://www.blueletterbible.org/ Blue Letter Bible] — On-line interactive reference library continuously updated from the teachings and commentaries of selected pastors and teachers who hold to the conservative, historical Christian faith.
* [http://www.e-sword.net E-sword] — Downloadable Bible for Windows.
* [http://www.onlinebible.net/ The Online Bible North America] — Downloadable Bible for Windows.
* [http://www.theophilos.sk/ Theophilos Bible program]
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/ASB/ American Standard Version].
* [http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/ English Standard Version] from Good News/Crossway (the publisher).
* [http://www.verselink.org/ King James Version with dictionary].
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/KJV/ King James Version].
* [http://www.newlivingtranslation.com New Living Translation]
* [http://bible.oremus.org/ New Revised Standard Version].
* [http://www.europepourchrist.org/biblesite/WEB/ World English Bible].
* [http://www.dynamicbible.com/ King James Version built using AJAX technologies], with Strongs and Greek Morphological Codes by Robinson.
* [http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm#index The Hypertext Bible] with side-by-side translations in English, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew at the [[Internet Sacred Text Archive]]
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/ Bible Gateway at GospelCom.net] text search in any one of many translations in numerous languages.
* [http://www.biblereadthrough.com/ Bible Read-Through] — read through the Bible in a year aid.
* [http://www.TheFreeBible.com/ TheFreeBible.com] Bible software downloads
* [http://www.scripture4all.org/ Interlinear (word-by-word) translation of the Christian Bible] Hebrew and Koine Greek
* [http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/aramaic_nt_resources.htm Aramaic New Testament resources]
* [http://www.spcm.org/en/versions.php Over 40 versions of the Bible]
* [http://www.armenianchurchlibrary.com/Bibletranslationsandstudies.html Eastern and Western Armenian Bible]
* [http://www.bible9.com/ Online Bible (King James Version & Old Testament)]
* [http://www.spcm.org/LSG_FR/ Bible — Louis Segond de 1910]
* [http://www.latinvulgate.com/christverse.aspx Complete Sayings of Christ]
* [http://bible.crosswalk.com/ParallelBible/ Crosswalk.com Parallel Bible]
* [http://www.blueletterbible.org/search.html#verse Blue Letter Bible]
* [http://recoveryversion.org/ Recovery Version Bible]

====Spanish====

* [http://www.wbtc.com/site/PageServer?pagename=downloads_spanish Spanish Bible] PDT version
* [http://www.labibliaweb.com/cid/1 Versiones de la Biblia] In Spanish.

====Turkish====
* [http://www.incil.info Turkish Bible] (Turkish Old and New Testament)

====Finnish====
* [http://www.raamattu-kirja.com Finnish Bible] (Finnish Old and New Testament)
* [http://vastaus.net Raamattu] (Study Finnish Bible)

====Japanese====
*[http://www.ibsstl.org/bibles/japanese/index.php On-line version hosted by the International Bible Society]
*[http://www.bible.or.jp/e/index.html Japan Bible Society]

====Others====
* [http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html Bible Timeline]
* [http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/bible/TO_Torah_880.htm?OVRAW=Torah&OVKEY=torah&OVMTC=standard My Jewish Learning.com]
* [http://search.americanbible.org/ American Bible Society] to search NASB, KJV, CEV, ASV and others.
* [http://etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html University of Virginia Library] KJV word proximity search.
* [http://www.1enormousidea.com/Default.aspx?tabid=42 Many translations in English, verse by verse]
* [http://www.bible-marathi.com Nava Karar] NT Translation from Greek to Marathi
* [http://www.bible-researcher.com/links12.html Gender-neutral Bible translations].
* [http://www.evangelicalbible.com/why.htm Word-for-Word vs.Thought-for-Thought translation] Outlines the difference between formal and dynamic equivalent translation philosopy.
* [http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project Klingon Bible].

===Commentaries and analysis===

* [http://bibleseo.com/ Bible study topics] - Bible studies and exposition online
* [http://www.ldolphin.org/icc-am.html Biblical chronology] by Alan Montgomery, B.Sc.(Hon)
* [http://www.dinur.org/resources/resourceCategoryDisplay.aspx?categoryID=411&rsid=478 Biblical History], The Jewish History Resource Center — Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
* [http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?aid=63255 Judaica Press Translation] — online Jewish translation of the Tanakh.
* [http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_bible_1.htm Reading and Understanding the Bible].
* [http://en.bibleinfo.com/ Source for Bible Answers].
* [http://www.amazingfacts.org/school/af_logon.asp Amazing Facts Bible Studies].
* [http://www.iishj.org/images/Bible.pdf Learning Bible Today] — a historical approach the Bible.
* [http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/gill/ John Gill's Exposition of the Bible] — verse by verse commentary.
* [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc.i.html/ Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible] — unabridged.
*[http://www.verselink.org/ Topical References]
*[http://www.verselink.org/ Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedia]

==Bibliography==
* Achtemeier, Paul J., ed. ''Harper's Bible Dictionary'' (1985), 1190pp; mainstream scholarship
* Ackroyd, P.R., ed. ''The Cambridge History of the Bible: From the Beginnings to Jerome; the West from the Fathers to the Reformation; the West from the Reformation to the Present Day'' (3 vol 1978), standard summary of scholarship; [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-History-Bible-Beginnings-Jerome/dp/0521099730/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243248143&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search vol 1]; [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-History-Bible-Fathers-Reformation/dp/0521290171/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243248143&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search vol 2]; [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-History-Bible-Reformation-Present/dp/0521290163/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243248143&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search vol 3]
* Coggins, R.J. ''Introducing the Old Testament'' (Oxford University Press: 1990), 172pp. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=22765464 online edition]
* Morgan, Robert, and John Barton. ''Biblical Interpretation'' (Oxford University Press: 1988), 342 pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=74356941 online edition]
* Sakenfeld, Katharine Doob, ed. ''The New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible'' ('''NIDB''') (5 vol 2009), the latest mainstream scholarship
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Dictionary'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL (1966; new edition 2006); Evangelical
**Unger, Merril F. ''The New Unger's Bible Dictionary'', (2006); 1416pp; Evangelical
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Handbook'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL (1967); Evangelical.
*Halley, Henry H. ''Halley's Bible Handbook'', Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI (1965); Evangelical
* Sandys-Wunsch, John. ''What Have They Done to the Bible: A History of Modern Biblical Interpretation'' 2005) Scholarly history of transations and interpretations to 1900; [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814650287 excerpt and text search]
* Williamspn, Peter. ''Catholic principles for interpreting scripture: a study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission's The interpretation of the Bible in the Church'' (2001); Catholic; [http://books.google.com/books?id=kooFtFGQsfsC&dq=intitle:bible+intitle:interpretation&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=2000&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpts and text search]
*Wilson, Robert D. ''A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament'', Sunday School Times, Inc, Philadelphia, PA (1926).

===Language===
*Blass, Frederich, and others. ''A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature,'' translated by Robert W. Funk; University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (1961); German edition ''Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch'' Friedrich Rehkopf, editor, 14th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976.
*Moulton, James H., and others. ''A Grammar of New Testament Greek'' (two volumes), edited by Wilbert Francis Howard, T&T Clark Publishers, Harrisburg, PA (1985); originally published 1920, Edinburgh, Scotland.
*Bauer, Walter. ''Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Scriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Litteratur''. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, editors; 6th edition. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany (1988). Heading βιβλίον, columns 281-82.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Bible| ]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Book of Worship]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Homosexuality and the Bible

2015-05-17T20:19:16Z

Sorry8roNoHetero:

[[Image:FacProfilemontoya.jpg‎|right|150px|thumb|[[Alex D. Montoya]]]]
''See also:'' [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]

In respect to '''homosexuality and the Bible''', sound [[Bible Exegesis|Bible exegesis]] and Bible exposition demonstrates that the Bible condemns [[homosexuality]].<ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/romans_malick.pdf David E. Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27," Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 599(1993): 327-340]</ref><ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf David E. Malick, “The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 600 (1993): 479-492]</ref><ref>[http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/haas_hermen.html HERMENEUTICAL ISSUES IN THE USE OF THE BIBLE TO JUSTIFY THE ACCEPTANCE OF HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE, Guenther Haas, Redeemer College]</ref><ref>[http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj11h.pdf The Master's Seminary Journal (TMSJ), 11/2 (Fall 2000) 155-168 HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH, Alex D. Montoya (Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries)]</ref> In addition, [[Christianity|Christian]] apologist [[JP Holding]] refutes various arguments that assert that the [[Bible]] does not condemn homosexuality.<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/qt/romhom.html</ref><ref>http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gayjude.html</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gaydavid.html</ref> In his essay which examines [[Bible]] passages regarding homosexuality, Pastor and Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries at [[The Master's Seminary]] [[Alex D. Montoya]] states that "The Christian needs to befriend and witness to the
homosexual with such love, compassion, and wisdom that such will respond to the saving [[grace]] of [[God]]."<ref>[http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj11h.pdf The Master's Seminary Journal (TMSJ), 11/2 (Fall 2000), page 169,

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH, Alex D. Montoya (Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries)]</ref>
== Homosexuality and the Bible - specific verses in the Bible ==
[[Image:Moses.jpg|thumb|150px|right|The prophet [[Moses]] authored the book of [[Leviticus]].]]
Homosexuality is condemned in the [[Bible]]. The most comprehensive, general passage against homosexual conduct is at [[Epistle to the Romans|Romans]] 1:18-32. Below are additional specific Bible verses that condemn homosexuality:
* [[Leviticus]] 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
* [[Leviticus]] 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
* [[Romans]] 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
* [[Romans]] 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%206:9;&version=31; I Corinthians 6:9](NIV) - Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
*[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Timothy%201:8-11;&version=49; I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB)] - "But we know that the [[Mosaic Law|Law]] is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and [[sin]]ners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious [[gospel]] of the blessed [[God]], with which I have been entrusted."
*[[Jude]] 1:6-7 (NASB) - And [[angel]]s who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as [[Sodom]] and [[Gomorrah]] and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

==Homosexuality and the Bible and the City of Sodom==
The Bible mentions [[Sodom]] in variety of biblical books. The prevalent view among evangelical Christians is that Sodom was destroyed as a result of prevalent homosexuality; however, this is open to debate, based upon traditional Jewish interpretation of the event, and the fact that many undesirable practices, many vastly more reprehensible, were likely engaged in in the general region.
[[Image:Martin destruction sodom640x422.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|Destruction of [[Sodom]] by [[God]]]]
[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. Phil Fernandes states the following regarding the judgment of Sodom by [[God]]:
{{Cquote|The Bible tells us of the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah. Though homosexuality was not the only vice of these cities, the Bible makes it clear that this sin was one of the main reasons why God judged them. [[Genesis]] 19:1-11 speaks of the men of Sodom gathering at Lot's house and calling out to [[Lot]], saying, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with" (Genesis 19:5). Lot's two visitors were actually angels who manifested themselves as men. Lot's carnal attempt to rescue his visitors was his offer to provide the men of Sodom with his two virgin daughters (Genesis 19:8). But, the men of Sodom rejected Lot's offer. Finally, the angels miraculously struck the immoral men with blindness (Genesis 19:11). Jude, commenting on the destruction of Sodom and [[Gomorrah]], wrote, "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 7).<ref>http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/Biblical-Perspective-of-Homosexuality.html</ref>}}

==Pro homosexual polemics ==
{{main|Homosexuality and biblical interpretation}}

Historically, the conclusion of established Bible scholars has been that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures only allow sexual relations within heterosexual marriage, while requiring celibacy outside marriage, with homosexual acts always being intrinsically moral.<ref>Norman Lamm, Judaism and the Modern Attitude Towards Homosexuality; http://www.jonahweb.org/sections.php?secId=88</ref><ref>Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, John Gill, Keil and Delitzsch, Matthew Henry, etc.</ref> This is also the conclusion of traditional scholars today, such as hold that all Scripture is inspired of God, (2Tim. 3:16) such as Thomas E Schmidt,<ref>Professor of New Testament Greek at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California "Straight and Narrow?"</ref> Guenther Haas,<ref>Associate Professor of Religion and Theology at Redeemer College, "Hermeneutical issues in the use of the Bible to justify the acceptance of homosexual practice</ref> James B. de Young,<ref>Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon, Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law</ref> Dave Miller Ph.D.,<ref>“Sodom—Inhospitality or Homosexuality?"</ref> as well as of the overwhelming majority of Christians. However, as a product of Biblical revisionism, and primarily coinciding with the moral rebellion of the modern [[sexual revolution]], a host of pro homosex polemicists have sought to disallow the traditionally held universal injunctions against homosex, as well as find sanction for the same, attempting what one apologist asserts, to "force sex into Biblical passages where it does not belong"<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/homosexuality_and_the_bible.html</ref>

Prohomosexual revisionists labor to find ways of restricting the Levitical prohibitions against male homosex to the context of formal idolatry, rather than male and female homosex being a result of idolatry in general (Rm. 1:16-26), as illicit sex also can be, (1Cor. 10:7,8) while also striving to equate these general prohibitions to ceremonial laws, such as forbid eating such things as bacon,<ref>Countrymen, Dirt, Greed and Sex, pp. 98-123</ref> though laws against illicit sexual partners are seen as confirmed as a class under both Old and New Testaments. Another recourse is to contend that these sexual prohibitions were based upon male dominance, which is held to be wrong and must be disallowed,<ref>E. Schussler, "Toward a Feminist Biblical Heremenutics: Biblical Interpretation and Liberation Theology, ref. by The Challenge of Liberation Theology (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis 1981), p. 108</ref> rather than such being established and confirmed by God as historically transcendent. (1Cor. 11:3-12) Additionally, the condemnation of homosex is sometimes partly attributed to ignorance on the part of Biblical writers,<ref>Walter Wink, Homosexuality and the Bible http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoWinkHBTResp.pdf</ref><ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html</ref><ref>Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.</ref> thus denying their particular Divine inspiration. Another common polemic is to dismiss opposing scholarship as being due to [[homophobia]]<ref>Richard Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion</ref>

In response, traditional scholars evidence that the injunctions against homosex are foundationally based upon the uniquely established sexual union of the man with the women, which alone is sanctioned by marriage in nine states.(Gn. 1:26,27; Mt. 19:4-6; 1Cor. 11:11,12; Eph. 5:31) And that the laws and principals concerning human sexual partners are not culturally bound, but instead are universal and transcendent, with homosexual relations being fundamentally compliant to God's design and decrees, with homosex being only comended in wherever they are explicitly dealt with, (Lv. 18:22; 23:13; Rm. 1:26,27) and being just as universally applicable and immutable as those against illicit heterosexual partners.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=Zeotd-ylKtwC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=quotes+Straight+and+Narrow%3F+Compassion+and+Clarity+in+the+Homosexuality+Debate&source=web&ots=WOXT85Pbxk&sig=8W9pkL8rcJ_7PS6oXbZ1QQBWCxQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA36,M1 Straight & Narrow? By Thomas E. Schmidt]</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon]</ref> <ref>[http://www.neednotfret.com/content/view/124/89/ THE OLD TESTAMENT AND HOMOSEXUALITY, by Kevin L. Howard]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=sodom+in+Mishnah&source=web&ots=ZjUCW3j8F9&sig=F5r2UCKKoWPAAbUnK3kYO-VdgVE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA245,M1 Homosexuality By James B. De Young]</ref><ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenham.html The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality Gordon J Wenham]</ref><ref>[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html "That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture by Joseph P. Gudel -ICR]</ref><ref>[http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/hodges_response_helminiak.html A Reformed Response to Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology by Derrick K. Olliff and Dewey H. Hodges]</ref><ref>[http://www.aletheiacollege.net/dbb/11-21.htm Duncan Heaster, Gay Christian Arguments Considered]</ref><ref>[http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/03-Leviticus/Text/Articles/Ukleja-Homsex-BS.htm Homosexuality and the Old Testament P. Michael Ukleja]</ref>

Premier prohomosex polemicist D.S. Bailey confessed, "It is hardly open to doubt that both the laws in Leviticus relate to ordinary homosexual acts between men, and not to ritual or other acts performed in the name of religion",<ref>Bailey, Homosexuality, p. 30</ref> while his compatriot Robin Scroggs states, "It might seem that only a series of verbal pyrotechnics could eliminate the seemingly obvious reference to homosexuality in Romans 1",<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14</ref> though he himself attempts to do so. Noted Bible scholar [[Greg Bahnsen]] stated, "God’s verdict on homosexuality is inescapably clear. His law is a precise interpretation of the sexual order of creation for fallen man, rendering again His intention and direction for sexual relations. When members of the same sex (homo-sexual) practice intercourse with each other...they violate God’s basic creation order in a vile and abominable fashion."<ref>Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), p. 36.</ref> Calvin Smith objectively concludes, "the weak revisionist exegetical arguments, together with far more convincing traditionalist rebuttals, have led me to affirm the traditional view more firmly than ever.<ref>CONCLUDING REMARKS, Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate</ref>

In addition to being held as unwarranted and specious, an additional problem seen is that the degree of revisionism and spurious exegesis which prohomosex arguments require effectively negates the Bible as a coherent moral authority as a whole. This is understood by some as a desired effect, and few of these revisionists hold that that the Bible is wholly inspired by God, and see taking the Bible literally in this regard as resulting in disallowing their claims.<ref>Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalists, p. 154</ref> Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University, called it "dangerous" to not condemn the apostle Paul's condemnation of homosex, and advocated removing such from the canon.<ref>Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1993), p. 43. http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=7</ref> Pastor and CRI contributor Joseph P. Gudel notes, "It is extremely revealing to note that almost every pro-gay group within the church shares one thing in common: they reject the Bible as being fully the Word of God...Likewise, the many pro-homosexual books that have come out almost all reject - or even ridicule - the church's historic stance on the inspiration and authority of Scripture."<ref>Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, The Authority of Scripture, Christian Research Institute Journal</ref>

Another argument often given by pro-homosexual polemicists is that since most Christians do not faithfully follow the entire Bible, but instead [[Cafeteria Christianity|pick and choose]] which parts to follow, they have no ground to tell homosexuals to [[hypocrisy|do otherwise]]. However, that argument is based on the ''[[tu quoque]]'' fallacy. Correct Biblical interpretation is not a popularity contest (Matthew 7:13-14); the truth is based on the Bible, not on what most so-called Christians think or do.

==Ex-Homosexuals and the Bible==
The [[Paul|Apostle Paul]] wrote of the existence [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexuals]] in the early [[Christianity|Christian]] church in a letter of his to the [[Corinth|Corinthian]] church. ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%206:9-11;&version=49; I Corinthians 6:9-11 (NASB)])

==Bible, Homosexuality, and Sound Health Practices==
Given the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases associated with homosexuality]], the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is arguably one of the many examples where the [[Bible scientific foreknowledge|Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time]].

==The Bible and the origin of homosexuality==
While secular people may debate over whether [[homosexuality and choice|people choose to become homosexuals]], the first chapter of the [[Epistle to the Romans]]<ref>[http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rom/Rom001.html?q=romans%201#top Romans chapter 1 (KJV)]</ref> makes clear the origin of homosexuality. According to that chapter, God's eternal power is manifest in His [[creation]] (Romans 1:18-20). Nonetheless, certain people chose to worship the creature more than the Creator (Romans 1:21-25). Therefore, God gave them up to homosexuality and other sins and gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:26-32). As an example of the truth of this teaching, [[feminist]]s, wishing to deny the [[Women#New_Testament_statements_on_the_role_of_women|God-given role of women]], often engage in [[goddess]] worship and other forms of [[idolatry]]<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/goddess.html "Probe Ministries: Goddess Worship," by Russ Wise]</ref> and as a consequence are often given up to lesbianism.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56458 Hetero woman: Feminism turned me into a lesbian], from [[WorldNetDaily]]</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Homosexuality]]

==External Links==

*[http://thegoodpoliticalshepherd.com/is-homosexuality-still-a-sin-what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality.html Is Homosexuality Still a Sin? What does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?]
*[http://www.evangelicalbible.com/homosexual.htm Homosexuality: A Christian perspective] An evangelical approach.
*[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html Homosexual relations and the Bible]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Bible]]