Leaderboard

Bake 'em away, toys.

Hopefully the devil is busy chowing down at some Golden Corral… so let me just whip this out Some excerpts from The Origin of the Bible, editor Philip Comfort page 68 & 69, chapter title The Canon of the New Testament by Milton Fisher: The historic process was a gradual and continuous one, but it will help us understand it if we subdivide the nearly three and one-half centuries involved into shorter periods of time. Some speak of three major stages toward canonization. This implies, without justification, that there are readily discernible steps along the way. Others simply present a long list of the names of persons and documents involved. Such a list makes it difficult to sense any motion at all. A somewhat arbitrary breakdown into five periods will be made here, with the reminder that the spreading of the knowledge of sacred literature and the deepening consensus as to its authenticity as inspired Scripture continued uninterruptedly. The periods are: 1. First Century 2. First Half of Second Century 3. Second Half of Second Century 4. Third Century 5. Fourth Century Again, without meaning to imply that these are clear-cut stages, it will be helpful to notice major trends observable in each of the periods just identified. In the first period, of course, the various books are written, but they also began to be copied and disseminated among the church. In the second, as they became more widely known and cherished for their contents, they began to be cited as authoritative. By the end of the third period they held a recognized place alongside the Old Testament as “Scripture,” and they began to be both translated into regional languages and made the subject of commentaries. During the third century A.D., our fourth period, the collecting of books into a whole “New Testament” was underway, together with a sifting process which was separating them from other Christian literature. The final, or fifth period finds the church fathers of the fourth century stating that conclusions regarding the canon have been reached which indicate acceptance by the whole church. This, in the most strict and formal sense of the word, the canon had become fixed. It remains to list in greater detail the forces and individuals which produced the written sources witnessing to this remarkable process through which, by God’s providence, we have inherited our New Testament. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ End of excerpts

How about this for a segue back to the topic - my Frankenstein bass design is like wierwille’s thinking behind PFAL and Advanced Class - throw together some good parts with a cheap warped structure for a backbone - it may look good but sounds terrible when put into play.

Ok, so while we're still off topic, I'll toss this in. A lot of us learned to play bass, back in the day, on cheap six string rigs. I never did any mods or anything like that, but, yeah, we just played the bass parts on regular old guitars until we could afford the real thing. Sure, it sounded just as thin as you would expect, but, hey, it sounded ok in the basement and it was the height of the Little Black Egg era. Know what I'm sayin'? I gave up a lot of my musical activity to focus on "the ministry". Life is full of regrets, but that's Ok. You have to "keep on keepin' on" and not allow them to drag you down.

let me get in one last off-topic misfire then before they moderate my a$$ - my first bass - and I use that term loosely- was actually a cheapie electric guitar my brother bought for me. Couldn’t figure out chords - I removed 2 skinny strings - filed new channels in nut to spread out 4 strings, bought grauwyler (?) tuning keys and that Gibson humbucker pickup. I worked at a furniture store to help load delivery trucks - furniture repair guy named Lucky painted the body a satin bone white. It looked beautiful- sounded like $hit with fret buzz, warped neck and improper length for bass strings. I called it Frankenstein Bass. Waysider - cool song - I love her voice!

Just wanted to share a few excerpts from a book I had mentioned earlier on this thread – here - it’s from How We Got the Bible by Neil R. Lightfoot , from pages 159 - 162: It is sometimes said that the line of demarcation between the New Testament books and other Christian writings was not always clear, that scarcely any distinction was made between the two. But early Christians were not as uncritical or naïve about these matters as they are often made out to be. Jesus and his apostles warned about false prophets, and at least some congregations were commended for holding their ground (Rev. 2:2; I John 4:4). The church was instructed not to believe every spirit (cf. I John 4:1) certainly had some capacity for discerning divine authority. But with the rapid growth of Christianity, it was inevitable that in some quarters of the church various Christian writings would be received differently… …As for other Christian writings, a number of them were circulating among Christians. Especially important among these were the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas…Yet neither of these books were above suspicion, nor were they generally received on a par with the acknowledged apostolic writings. In the case of the Shephard of Hermas, for example, the above-mentioned Muratorian Fragment states that it could be read in public worship but that it was not to be counted among the prophets or apostolic writings. The restriction concerning the Shephard of Hermas serves to illustrate the significant principle that some books could be read for edification in public worship which were not at the time regarded as possessing divine authority… …In the final analysis, canon is not something that once and for all can be proved. The study of canon is a study of history, and each generation must give itself to that study. This is but another reason why we should try to learn more about the Bible and how it has come down to us… …In conclusion, it is important to emphasize that no church council made the canon of Scripture. No church by its decrees gave to or pronounced on the books of the Bible their infallibility. The Bible owes its authority to no individual or group. The church does not control the canon, but the canon controls the church. Although divine authority was attributed to the New Testament books by the later church, this authority was not derived from the church but was inherent in the books themselves. As a child identifies its mother, the later church identified the books which it regarded as having unique authority. ~ ~ ~ ~ end of excerpts