Christians: How do you know which books of the bible are "inspired?"

[Rational Agnostic]

I use the KJV, and also know that there are other documents that have wisdom. I don't trust ANY human authority well enough to hang on their words. Most of what you need to know about God's will for you can be on a single typewritten page that shows about a dozen scriptures. There is a theme that God expresses that rings through all the documents I've seen. Those who seek to make your belief system burdensome and uncertain are not from God.

I sit in a church on Sunday to praise God, and receive the Sacrament if offered.

So, which canon do you use?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Not sure how you got that.

It isn't about "the original Christian church was wrong". There is nothing "wrong" about including historical text, the Apocryphal books in the Bible.

Not sure why you are making Luther the standard but the 66 books were created even in the time of Jerome way before Luther.

the 39 Books were created even before the Christian Church was formed... so what's your beef?

The original Biblical canon, and the first Gutenberg bible, was 73 books, not 66. The Bible Canon – 73 Books or 66 Books? - Catholic Stand

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Basically you need a personal relationship with God and especially you need to be full of the holy Spirit then you will know what is from God because as the scriptures assure us over and over God will teach us.

Like most of the respondents, you aren't answering the question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, why do you reject the 84-book bible used by Ethiopian Christians then? Why do you reject other gospels not included in the bible like the Gospel of Thomas? Do you realize that the bible was decided by a vote in the fourth century AD and that different church fathers disagreed on what books to include?

"I know it is not because my God magic tells me so".

At least that is the best argument given so far. The problem is that the God magic tells different Christians different things. If there was a clear answer to your question there would not be on the order of 40,000 different sects of Christianity.

 

[Audie]

Hah! That is just because you are duped by Satan.

Checkmate atheists!

Rats

Hah! That is just because you are duped by Satan.

Checkmate atheists!

Ra

 

[Rational Agnostic]

"I know it is not because my God magic tells me so".

At least that is the best argument given so far. The problem is that the God magic tells different Christians different things. If there was a clear answer to your question there would not be on the order of 40,000 different sects of Christianity.

The only answer I've heard when asking this in the past is that they believe Christians know God's "voice." But then when they realize that other people that they also consider to be Christians can be wrong about which books should be included, then they end up realizing that they could be wrong as well. This is probably why they are avoiding answering the question, because they know it will lead to being backed into a corner.

 

[Audie]

Yeah, sorry 'bout that. Unfortunately, we disagree somewhat fundamentally on "meaning of life" stuff, wherein is the crypt.

True, but I don't think I was going there. Maybe.


I'm almost always impressed. Wish I understood more of it.

Impressed by all the different inerrant readings? I am too,
in a way. Want to learn more of them? No!

 

[Kenny]

The original Biblical canon, and the first Gutenberg bible, was 73 books, not 66. The Bible Canon – 73 Books or 66 Books? - Catholic Stand

That may have been the first time they "printed" a Bible but the complication that they had decided would be canon was in the time of Jerome - way before the Gutenburg Bible and Luther.

"It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon."

How were the books of the Bible chosen?

 

[nPeace]

How people can pretend that "the Bible" as we know it today (and I'm not even talking about the hundreds of different translations, but the books that constitute the canon) was somehow signed, sealed and delivered to us exactly as God wanted it to be is beyond me. Of course, this doesn't mean that we should toss the Bible out in its entirety. We should simply recognize it for what it is -- a recorded record of God's dealings with mankind in one part of the world. It never claims to be complete. As a matter of fact, it claims quite the opposite. In the end of John, we're told that Jesus Christ did so many things as part of His ministry, that had they even been recorded, they'd more than have filled all of the books in the world. That's quite a statement, and to me, it's saying that we should love the Bible for what it is, but not try to make it into something it isn't, or even claims to be.

I mostly agree with what you said here.
That's why I concluded that the one or two book difference would not affect the texts overall, just as copying errors do not affect the overall message.

I personally believe God has a hand in his works, and the lives of his people, so if the writings in the Bible come from writings originally inspired by him, then he will make sure he preserves his word, whether he has to use his power to move people to act to defend it, or uphold it.

He has done this throughout history, so I believe that's why certain books were removed, certain people played a role in developing the canon, copying and translating, etc.

Even if one or two errors slips in, as long as God sees them as no serious threat, he may well decide to leave them, because 1) they can serve as a means of determining those who genuinely and humbly search for truth - and he can definitely use his spirit to help them, and 2) God allows corruption to take its course, without intervening, but at the same time acting accordingly to maneuver each situation, to the end that his will be done.

I'm confident that despite man's attempts to corrupt and destroy the true writings, God has done his part in making certain they did not succeed.
Hence, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, they testified to this fact. Differences in the Septuagint were not critical to the texts. So I think we can be confident that the same applies to the originals

All these evidences, as well as the ones I mentioned in Post #2, and other posts, is enough to verify the authenticity of the scriptures.
Attacks against it will not cease until, Revelation 16:14-16 is fulfilled.

 

[nPeace]

If you start your post with a dishonest statement how do you expect anyone to believe you? This was you major claim and none of your sources support it:



"There is solid evidence that the books were written by those claiming to have written them, and that what they wrote of Jesus of Nazareth is true."



Wow, you are confused.

Please try again. And no excessive green ink please. It makes your posts illegible and impossible to respond to properly. The bottom line is that your own resources tell us that you are wrong.

Perhaps you should try to address one point at a time since multiple points appear to be beyond your ability to deal with properly.

You are right. I am confused.
Perhaps you can try to help me by taking one point at a time, and showing me my errors.

When was John written?
I say well before 70 AD, What do you say?

\Sorry about the green ink. I should have changed the font size. I'll do that now. I just thought it would make it easier to see what was agreed on as a more positive view than a negative or doubtful one.
All the information is important imo, so I placed it there for easy reference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I mostly agree with what you said here.
That's why I concluded that the one or two book difference would not affect the texts overall, just as copying errors do not affect the overall message.

I personally believe God has a hand in his works, and the lives of his people, so if the writings in the Bible come from writings originally inspired by him, then he will make sure he preserves his word, whether he has to use his power to move people to act to defend it, or uphold it.

He has done this throughout history, so I believe that's why certain books were removed, certain people played a role in developing the canon, copying and translating, etc.

Even if one or two errors slips in, as long as God sees them as no serious threat, he may well decide to leave them, because 1) they can serve as a means of determining those who genuinely and humbly search for truth - and he can definitely use his spirit to help them, and 2) God allows corruption to take its course, without intervening, but at the same time acting accordingly to maneuver each situation, to the end that his will be done.

I'm confident that despite man's attempts to corrupt and destroy the true writings, God has done his part in making certain they did not succeed.
Hence, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, they testified to this fact. Differences in the Septuagint were not critical to the texts. So I think we can be confident that the same applies to the originals

All these evidences, as well as the ones I mentioned in Post #2, and other posts, is enough to verify the authenticity of the scriptures.
Attacks against it will not cease until, Revelation 16:14-16 is fulfilled.

But once again you didn't. In fact if anything you supported the other side with the sources that you used. None of them give an early date for the gospels.

And there is far more than just one or two errors. They are rife with them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are right. I am confused.
Perhaps you can try to help me by taking one point at a time, and showing me my errors.

When was John written?
I say well before 70 AD, What do you say?

Sorry about the green ink. I should have changed the font size. I'll do that now. I just thought it would make it easier to see what was agreed on as most certain as opposed to what was less certain.
All the information is important imo, so I placed it there for easy reference.

Modern scholars put the date at 90 CE at the earliest. Where are you getting your claims from? Since you used Wikipedia before, and it does have links to sources:

"The gospel of John went through two to three stages, or "editions", before reaching its current form around AD 90–110.[12][13] "

Gospel of John - Wikipedia

And it was the underlining that made the post impossible to respond to properly.

 

[Ellen Brown]

So, which canon do you use?

Could you please explain your question? I use the King James Version.

 

[nPeace]

It seems to me that you can't answer the question. You're saying that the books "considered canonical" seem to harmonize perfectly. Considered canonical by whom? As I have emphasized, different Christian denominations consider different books to be canonical and you haven't identified which canon you use and why you believe that this canon is superior to the others.

Sorry about that.
I clearly missed that one.
I didn't realize there were more than one Bible canon.
You see, we learn something everyday.
Could you show me a reference to this please?

 

[Ellen Brown]

So, which canon do you use?

I'll just say that I am Christian, but with strong reservations. Humanity has really mucked up this worship of our Creator. My KJV has 66 books, though I do not rely on JUST the Bible. I accept the OT as it presently is, but have severe reservations about parts of the NT. Christians seem obsessive about emphasizing certain things, and ignoring others, and that undermines the credibility of the book. I am aware of and read at one time, documents that had the fate of Jesus Christ two ways. I have not gotten to research the sources of both documents.

Perhaps paranoia about beliefs is simply smart. Speaking from the depth of my own ignorance about some things, the folk who came up with Celibacy for Priests made a huge error and have failed to remedy it for nearly 1000 years. And now in the news, we see the grievous consequences. There are other places where belief systems have departed from the truth. After all, we are humans and not perfect. And, I'm not singling out the Catholic Church.

 

[nPeace]

Modern scholars put the date at 90 CE at the earliest. Where are you getting your claims from? Since you used Wikipedia before, and it does have links to sources:

"The gospel of John went through two to three stages, or "editions", before reaching its current form around AD 90–110.[12][13] "

Gospel of John - Wikipedia

And it was the underlining that made the post impossible to respond to properly.

This is exactly the reason I went through the trouble of getting and organizing the information.

New Testament - Wikipedia
All the works that eventually became incorporated into the New Testament are believed to have been written no later than around 120 AD,. John A. T. Robinson, Dan Wallace, and William F. Albright dated all the books of the New Testament before 70 AD. Others give a final date of 80 AD,or at 96 AD.

Jesus - Wikipedia
Canonical gospels
According to the Marcan priority, the first to be written was the Gospel of Mark (written AD 60–75), followed by the Gospel of Matthew (AD 65–85), the Gospel of Luke (AD 65–95), and the Gospel of John (AD 75–100).

Gospel of John - Wikipedia
Composition
The gospel of John went through two to three stages, or "editions", before reaching its current form around AD 90–110. It arose in a Jewish Christian community probably located in Ephesus in modern Turkey, although other possibilities include Antioch (Syria), Palestine, and Alexandria (Egypt).

Apostolic Age - Wikipedia
The Apostolic Age of the history of Christianity is traditionally regarded as the period of the Twelve Apostles, dating from the Great Commission of the Apostles by the risen Jesus in Jerusalem around 33 AD until the death of the last Apostle, believed to be John the Apostlein Anatolia c. 100.

Gospel of John
The work is anonymous, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions. It is closely related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles, and most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation, as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author.

The Johannine epistles, the Epistles of John, or the Letters of John are three of the catholic epistles of the New Testament, thought to have been written AD 85–100. Most scholars agree that all three letters are written by the same author, although there is debate on who that author is.


Notice, the source says "The gospel of John went through two to three stages, or "editions", before reaching its current form around AD 90–110."
Hence a period, leading up to...

We have dates given from 70 to 96 CE, and 75 to 100. [John supposedly died around 100 CE.]

I gave a probability of 40 AD, but of course I can't prove that. John would have been 30 at that time, so I think that makes my pick wrong. Uh... Sorry.

Since they don't know. Is it okay if I choose 60 / 65 CE. to be fair?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is exactly the reason I went through the trouble of getting and organizing the information.

New Testament - Wikipedia
All the works that eventually became incorporated into the New Testament are believed to have been written no later than around 120 AD,. John A. T. Robinson, Dan Wallace, and William F. Albright dated all the books of the New Testament before 70 AD. Others give a final date of 80 AD,or at 96 AD.

Jesus - Wikipedia
Canonical gospels
According to the Marcan priority, the first to be written was the Gospel of Mark (written AD 60–75), followed by the Gospel of Matthew (AD 65–85), the Gospel of Luke (AD 65–95), and the Gospel of John (AD 75–100).

Gospel of John - Wikipedia
Composition
The gospel of John went through two to three stages, or "editions", before reaching its current form around AD 90–110. It arose in a Jewish Christian community probably located in Ephesus in modern Turkey, although other possibilities include Antioch (Syria), Palestine, and Alexandria (Egypt).

Apostolic Age - Wikipedia
The Apostolic Age of the history of Christianity is traditionally regarded as the period of the Twelve Apostles, dating from the Great Commission of the Apostles by the risen Jesus in Jerusalem around 33 AD until the death of the last Apostle, believed to be John the Apostlein Anatolia c. 100.

Gospel of John
The work is anonymous, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions. It is closely related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles, and most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation, as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author.

The Johannine epistles, the Epistles of John, or the Letters of John are three of the catholic epistles of the New Testament, thought to have been written AD 85–100. Most scholars agree that all three letters are written by the same author, although there is debate on who that author is.


Notice, the source says "The gospel of John went through two to three stages, or "editions", before reaching its current form around AD 90–110."
Hence a period, leading up to...

We have dates given from 70 to 96 CE, and 75 to 100. [John supposedly died around 100 CE.]

I gave a probability of 40 AD, but of course I can't prove that. John would have been 30 at that time, so I think that makes my pick wrong. Uh... Sorry.

Since they don't know. Is it okay if I choose 60 / 65 CE. to be fair?

That is a rather sloppy way to approach the problem. The New Testament is a collection of writings that span from just after 50 CE to perhaps as late as 110 CE. You are merely trying to cherry pick the ages that you like the most and that is not proper. None of it is thought to be "eyewitness testimony". The original apostles were not scholars and it is highly unlikely that anything was written by them. This gives a good quick synopsis of when the various books were written and when:

Dating the Bible - Wikipedia

And no, picking a date that you like is clearly not "fair". In fact your date leaves out all of the gospels. Not much of a New Testament without any gospels in it.

 

[nPeace]

@Hubert Farnsworth
Man, thanks for this. No worries. I found the many Canons.
I will get back to you on which I go by, and why.

Again, sorry I didn't understand the full import of your OP.
Maybe next time a bit more information might help people like me, not miss the gist.

 

[Kenny]

The only answer I've heard when asking this in the past is that they believe Christians know God's "voice." But then when they realize that other people that they also consider to be Christians can be wrong about which books should be included, then they end up realizing that they could be wrong as well. This is probably why they are avoiding answering the question, because they know it will lead to being backed into a corner.

Actually, it has been answered by me quite clearly so it makes me wonder, after it has been answered, why you continue to say it wasn't. It puts you in a very bad light.

Can we then deduce that you don't believe in any of the books? And, if not, would any explanation ever be good enough?

Don't want to put you in a corner, but it does seem like that is where you are heading.

 

[nPeace]

That is a rather sloppy way to approach the problem. The New Testament is a collection of writings that span from just after 50 CE to perhaps as late as 110 CE. You are merely trying to cherry pick the ages that you like the most and that is not proper. None of it is thought to be "eyewitness testimony". The original apostles were not scholars and it is highly unlikely that anything was written by them. This gives a good quick synopsis of when the various books were written and when:

Dating the Bible - Wikipedia

And no, picking a date that you like is clearly not "fair". In fact your date leaves out all of the gospels. Not much of a New Testament without any gospels in it.

First, I am not cherry picking.
Second, you can't be serious. There are different opinions, and you pick the ones you like. I think you know what this is called.
Third, I have no problem with if it was written 50, 60, 70. It was written. No problem for me.
Fourth the Dating methods are not accurate. they don't have a built in history-time-lie-detector, and even lie detectors aren't accurate....and I know you don't believe in magic.
Fifth, your uses of the words 'probably',and 'highly unlikely' only supports what I am saying.
Sixth, ...Uh let me think about that one.