Which Bible is inerrant and inspired?

[Wandering Monk]

The only written Word of God consists of the 66 books of the Bible.

When was it settled that the particular 66 books you believe are canon became 'the canon?' Who figured out that these were God's inspired words?

 

[sojourner]

The only written Word of God consists of the 66 books of the Bible. That is the Canon of Scripture. You can have another book collection somewhere all you want

Until you realize that some of the Hebraic texts were split into two by Christians who cobbled the Bible together. What you recognize as 39 are actually 24 in the original Hebrew scrolls. Your “canon” is a mess.

Thomas is not in the Bible because it was not inspired by God

How do you know it’s not inspired?

You can find 'reputable scholars' anywhere

You can find idiots anywhere too. At least the scholars provide you with texts that you can read in your own language.

You say God wrote nothing. Yet you say Thomas should be in the Bible. The whole point of what is in the Bible is that it is inspired, written, by God.

The whole point of what is in the Bible is that “this is stuff that’s ok to read in church.”

So, why should Thomas be in the Bible?

I didn’t say it should be.

 

[Clear]

"THE WHOLE POINT" OF WHAT SHOULD BE IN THE CANON ACCORDING TO GOOD-OLE-REBELS THEORY

Good-Ole-Rebel said : "The whole point of what is in the Bible is that it is inspired, written, by God..." (post #158)

Hi @Good-Ole-Rebel

Perhaps the discussion about canon has been complicated. Α more simple example may be helpful for you to demonstrate your criteria for a "canon".


1) INSPIRATION AS THE "WHOLE POINT" OF INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION FROM THE CANON

You claim the criteria for inclusion in your "canon" is that the text is "inspired". If I understand you correctly this means "That which is inspired is or should be included in the canon and that which is not inspired should be excluded from our canon."


2) A SIMPLE EXAMPLE :

DO WE INCLUDE, OR EXCLUDE THE FOLLOWING TEXT FROM THE CANON?

I personally think many texts and references in the different early Judeo-Christian canons were inspired. But they are not in your canon.

For example, the words of Old Testament Enoch, says :

“Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment....” (I Enoch ch 2 of approx 300 b.c.).

I think this IS an inspired textual statement and it SHOULD be included in our canon of scripture.

Do you agree that this specific text IS inspired and SHOULD be include our Christian canon?
OR
Do you think this specific text IS NOT inspired and SHOULD NOT be included in our Christian canon?

Can you describe WHY you think this specific text SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be included in the Christian canon?

Clear
εισεσετωω

 

[sojourner]

No, they were never part of Scripture.

You're confusing canonization with inerrancy. Go back and reread.

What group of Apostolic authorities disagrees with me? 'Us'? You don't believe the Bible is the Word of God. How do you identify with Christians? Again, there is only one written Word of God on earth. The 66 books of the Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Yes they were. The Reformers took them out.

You’re confused about canonization, inerrancy, authorship, scope.

As to authorities, I’m speaking of Apostolic authorities. Apostolic. You know: Apostolic. You know: as in: “continue in the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship. Not James Dobson. Not D. James Kennedy. Not John Hagee. Not James MacDonald, not Rick Warren, not Joel Osteen. Name someone of Apostolic authority who would support your claims.

I don’t believe God wrote anything and I’m a Christian. There are several canons of scripture. Yours is not the only one.

 

[sojourner]

Again, I am not worried about 'circular reasoning'.

You should be. It renders your argument invalid. If you want to delve into apologetics, I wouldn’t quit my day job if I were you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Recognizing the Bible as the only written Word of God is giving it it's proper place.

Again, I am not worried about 'circular reasoning'. You are. So?

Again, ran from what? It is your claim.

Good-Ole-Rebel

However you try yo rationalize your elevation of a false idol is of no concern compared to the fact that you have elevated it.

You keep bringing up your circular argument. Clearly a fetish of your concern.

You are running now.

 

[Muffled]

That all depends on what canon you are using. Certainly not mine. The Tanakh has 24 books.

I believe, of course, because Isaiah is prophetic which explains why it can reflect a 66 book canon instead of a 24 one. It also goes to show you don't have the right one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe, of course, because Isaiah is prophetic which explains why it can reflect a 66 book canon instead of a 24 one. It also goes to show you don't have the right one.

Are you sure about that? To be prophetic your so called prophecies must exist in context.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe as I recall the versions would be: KJV, RSV, ASV, NASV, NIV, and bunch more. I believe my SBC church is using the Holmgren version. I and my pastor use the NASV.

I believe God doesn't speak out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.

I believe those books are not prophetic.

I believe in giving God prominence over tradition.

 

[firedragon]

I believe as I recall the versions would be: KJV, RSV, ASV, NASV, NIV, and bunch more. I believe my SBC church is using the Holmgren version. I and my pastor use the NASV.

I believe God doesn't speak out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.

I believe those books are not prophetic.

I believe in giving God prominence over tradition.

Completely irrelevant.

 

[Muffled]

Are you sure about that? To be prophetic your so called prophecies must exist in context.

It might seem like a bit of a stretch but it is amazing what God can do without people realizing He is doing it. There are also those who see the churches in Revelations as pertaining to the types of churches down through the ages. and ending up with the Laodicean type church in our age.

 

[Muffled]

Completely irrelevant.

I believe I was quite relevant but maybe what you mean is that you wish to ignore the issue.

 

[sojourner]

Can you describe WHY you think this specific text SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be included in the Christian canon?

This will be an exercise in stubborn futility.



I’ll get the popcorn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It might seem like a bit of a stretch but it is amazing what God can do without people realizing He is doing it. There are also those who see the churches in Revelations as pertaining to the types of churches down through the ages. and ending up with the Laodicean type church in our age.

Your interpretations are more than likely tuned to your belief rather than your belief following interpretation. That is one of the reasons that there are thousands of Christian sects.

 

[sojourner]

I believe, of course, because Isaiah is prophetic which explains why it can reflect a 66 book canon instead of a 24 one. It also goes to show you don't have the right one.

You understand that the earliest manuscripts aren’t divided into chapters and verses? This means that they were added later (according to “men’s traditions). So what you’re really saying is that something that has been “added to” the texts by men who were not biblically-recognized prophets is somehow more prophetic than the texts themselves.

 

[sojourner]

I believe in giving God prominence over tradition

So... “more authentic text” doesn’t mean that it’s “more authentic?”

 

[firedragon]

I believe I was quite relevant but maybe what you mean is that you wish to ignore the issue.

Okay. Great.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Of course there are major differences in theology. but differences in theology aren’t the same thing as contradiction of fact.

I have never been one to say that the sacred texts are without error in terms of history or science, so.... if that's what you are getting at, you'll have to find someone else to try to irritate.

My only point is that Christians try to say that there is one message from Genesis to Revelation, when in fact a significant deviation is made with the advent of the Christian scriptures.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe, of course, because Isaiah is prophetic which explains why it can reflect a 66 book canon instead of a 24 one. It also goes to show you don't have the right one.

Grammatically this sentence was messed up. If you have a "because" clause, then you have to have the "then" clause (with or without the word then) and you don't. Instead, you insert a "which" clause, and it is unclear what "which" refers to. Isaiah? Isaiah being prophetic? It being a 66 book canon?

If you want to reword, I'd appreciate a second go round.

 

[sojourner]

I have never been one to say that the sacred texts are without error in terms of history or science, so.... if that's what you are getting at, you'll have to find someone else to try to irritate.

My only point is that Christians try to say that there is one message from Genesis to Revelation, when in fact a significant deviation is made with the advent of the Christian scriptures.

No, not trying to irritate. I think we’re on the same page. I agree wholeheartedly that there is not one single message from Genesis to Revelation. In fact, there’s not even one single message in Genesis.

I’m not sure I agree that there’s a “significant deviation” across the board. There is deviation in some theological areas, but continuity in others.