• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Which Bible is inerrant and inspired?

PearlSeeker

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
Skwim said:
I take it then that you've read all 13 of the different OT cannons and 7 different NT cannons in the tables and compared them. Yeah, sure. :rolleyes: My bet is that you haven't even bothered to look at the link I presented, whose tables, in condensed form, looks like this.


View attachment 35081

View attachment 35084


Think there's not a "theological level of variance" among them? My bet is that there's quite a bit.


Does my "several" imply "a lot" to you?


Oh yes. the green is "YES" The buff rose is "NO" All other colors describe specific differences.

.
Click to expand...
Not much difference between NT canons.
 
Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
The question isn't about degree of difference, but about the fact that there are differences in canons to begin with.

Which canon is the one God intended for us to have? Which one did he 'breathe?'
 
Muffled

Muffled

Jesus in me
Wandering Monk said:
Most of the Christian world believes in the inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible, but I am not sure that most of the Christian world is aware that there are different collections of books (canons) of the Bible. The greatest differences are in the New Testament books.

The Nestorian canon excludes 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation

The Armenian canon included 3 Corinthians and excluded Revelation until about 1200 AD. The Armenian Apostolic churches at times included the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs in their Old Testament canon.

The Coptic-Arabic church included the Apostolic Constitutions and the Epistles of Clement.

At various times different Protestant sect sought to exclude 2 and 3 John and 2 Peter.

Luther excluded James.

So, do you still believe there is ONE inerrant or inspired collection of NT books? If so, which one?

I am NOT talking about versions or translations, but canons.

Biblical canon - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

I believe it is the one in my NASB version.
 
Muffled

Muffled

Jesus in me
Good-Ole-Rebel said:
Actually, the greatest debate concerns the Old Testament, not the New.

Yes, there is one correct canon of Scripture. The 39 books of the Old Testament, and 27 in the New. Genesis to Malachai. Matthew to Revelation.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Click to expand...

There is an interesting number coincidence. There are 66 books in our current canon and 66 chapters in Isaiah.
 
IndigoChild5559

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
PearlSeeker said:
If we take canons as a whole (not individual books) then they are basically the same in inspiration.
Click to expand...
I would disagree with this. We Jews make a distiinction.

  1. The Torah (the 5 books of Law) were spoken to Moses directly by God. They have the highest amount of authority.
  2. The prophets received their messages through dreams and visions. It's indirect, but more than mere inspiration.
  3. Then there are the writings (which is everything else). These are merely inspired. I say merely, because I am comparing them to the Torah and Prophets. Of course, they are much higher than non-canonical books.
 
PearlSeeker

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
IndigoChild5559 said:
I would disagree with this. We Jews make a distiinction.

  1. The Torah (the 5 books of Law) were spoken to Moses directly by God. They have the highest amount of authority.
  2. The prophets received their messages through dreams and visions. It's indirect, but more than mere inspiration.
  3. Then there are the writings (which is everything else). These are merely inspired. I say merely, because I am comparing them to the Torah and Prophets. Of course, they are much higher than non-canonical books.
Click to expand...
That's what I was talking about but the question was the NT canons.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Good-Ole-Rebel said:
Actually, the greatest debate concerns the Old Testament, not the New.

Yes, there is one correct canon of Scripture. The 39 books of the Old Testament, and 27 in the New. Genesis to Malachai. Matthew to Revelation.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Click to expand...

Not quite right. There was always more debate or differences in canon when it comes to the New Testament than the OT.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Muffled said:
There is an interesting number coincidence. There are 66 books in our current canon and 66 chapters in Isaiah.
Click to expand...

By "Our current canon" you mean "your particular view of the canon according to your church". I understand that your canon is paramount to you and maybe the correct one, but you must also understand that others have other canons and they could be correct too. Unless of course you have done extensive analysis and identified "your canon" as the right canon.

Isaiah having 66 chapters doesnt mean anything. In that case the book of Leviticus has 27 chapters. Your NT has 27 books. Joshua has 24 chapters, and the Tanah of the Rabbinic Judaism has 24 books. So does 2nd Samuel have 24 books. Just that you should ask the Jews if Samuel has 1 and 2 or not. ;)

Yes, these are all coincidences.

The Old Testament does not have 39 books (Protestant Canon). It has been made to look like it has 39 books. I am not a Jew but the Jewish faith has 24 books in their canon. Christian church has taken the latter canon known to them as the septuagint for their text and that should be from the 3rd century. But if you truly wish to go to the Old Testament deeply i believe that you must go to the Jewish tradition because thats the oldest and more authentic tradition when it comes to their own scripture.

And of course, reason.
 
MikeDwight

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
Those differences would amount to chicken scratch, at this point. So the Nestorians are a heretical extinct group and movement, from the rejection of the Bishop Nestorius from the Byzantine Creed Councils, just like the Byzantines couldn't control or lead Coptic Egypt, or the Israel region. Nestorians were in ancient Persia. This is gone at 600 ad. The Armenian Apostolic Church now accepts the rest of the world's Bible, you say. I mean I am sincerely interested in an impactful sentence here. The Scots identify Nestorius as a heresy in the 1560 Scots confession.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top