Which Bible is inerrant and inspired?

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

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?

An exact date is not important. The end result is. The Bible.

I have said repeatedly that the writings of God carry their own inspiration. The people of God recognized them. Thus you have the Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

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.


How do you know it’s not inspired?


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


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


I didn’t say it should be.

The Old Testament of Protestant Christians is the exact same Old Testament, as the TANAKH. The grouping or placement is different but it is the same.

I have already told you. The people of God rejected it as inspired. Why do you believe Thomas is the Word of God?

I know, I have found some.

The whole point of the Canon is the inspired Word of God. You can read anything if you like. That means nothing.

So, why are you....whining?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

"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 that 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

You can think all you want but you can't change it. The book of Enoch is not inspired.

It is not inspired because the people of God recognized no inspiration in the book.

It doesn't matter what is said. Is what is said from God.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[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.

No they were not.

No, it is you who are confused about canonization and inerrancy. Canonization deals with the inspiration of Scripture.

Yes, I know. That is why I asked you what group of apostolic authorities? Which you have yet to answer.

Yes, I know you keep saying that. Strange. Why makes you Christian when you don't recognize any writing as the Word of God?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

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.

Sorry, I'm not.

No, it renders my argument impossible for you to defeat.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[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.

Please...is this all you got?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[McBell]

You can think all you want but you can't change it. The book of Enoch is not inspired.

It is not inspired because the people of God recognized no inspiration in the book.

It doesn't matter what is said. Is what is said from God.

Good-Ole-Rebel

What about Jashar:
2 Samuel 1-18
Joshua 10-13

Or is your "argument" simply: It is not in my preferred Bible thus it was not inspired

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

What about Jashar:
2 Samuel 1-18
Joshua 10-13

Or is your "argument" simply: It is not in my preferred Bible thus it was not inspired

What about it?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[McBell]

What about it?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Thank you for your reply.
It reveals much.

Have a nice day.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Thank you for your reply.
It reveals much.

Have a nice day.

As does yours. You're quite welcome. I will.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[sojourner]

The Old Testament of Protestant Christians is the exact same Old Testament, as the TANAKH. The grouping or placement is different but it is the same

Except that the original OT texts do not add up to 66 when including the NT. And 66 seems to be of paramount importance to you.

I have already told you. The people of God rejected it as inspired. Why do you believe Thomas is the Word of God?

No. They didn’t. Maybe some have, but not all.

The whole point of the Canon is the inspired Word of God

No. That’s not the point of the canon, despite what you wish were the case.

So, why are you....whining

Not whining ... explaining.

 

[sojourner]

No, it is you who are confused about canonization and inerrancy. Canonization deals with the inspiration of Scripture

See above post.

Yes, I know. That is why I asked you what group of apostolic authorities? Which you have yet to answer

You never asked me that question.

Yes, I know you keep saying that. Strange. Why makes you Christian when you don't recognize any writing as the Word of God

Bibliolatry is not a criterion for being a Christian.

No, it renders my argument impossible for you to defeat

It renders your argument a self-defeating non-argument.

 

[sojourner]

What about it?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Pathetic.

 

[Clear]

REGARDING GOOD-OLE-REBELS THEORY OF SCRIPTURE CANON

Clear said :
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? (Post #163)


Good-Ole-Rebel replied : "The book of Enoch is not inspired." (post #183)



Hi @Good-Ole-Rebel

I am not asking about the entire book of Enoch, I am asking specifically about the quote FROM the book of 1Enoch of approx 300 b.c.
The text from enoch I am asking about is : “Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment....” (I Enoch ch 2 of approx 300 b.c.).

Are you saying this specific quote from 1Enoch is NOT inspired and should NOT be included in the Christian Canon?

Clear
ειακτζδρω

 

[Wandering Monk]

Did Rebel ever get around to explaining who 'the people of God' were?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Except that the original OT texts do not add up to 66 when including the NT. And 66 seems to be of paramount importance to you.


No. They didn’t. Maybe some have, but not all.


No. That’s not the point of the canon, despite what you wish were the case.


Not whining ... explaining.

What? I said 'Old Testament'. With the New Testament included in the Bible, the number of books is 66.

Yes, inspiration is that which makes a writing Scripture and which had to be recognized in order to be canonized. No writing would ever be considered by the people of God if not inspired, written by God.

From (A History Of Christianity, Vol. I, Kenneth Scott Latourette, Prince Press, 2005, p.135): "It was, then , by the slow consensus of the Church that the New Testaement was assembled and accorded recognition as especially inspired. It was not merely supposed actual apostolic authorship which ensured for a book inclusion in the New Testament. This had an important place. It was also by the test of experience through long use that the Christian community came to recognize in the writings which were admitted to the accepted canon a quality which distinguished them from those books which were rejected, a quality which to the Christian mind was and continues to be evidence of a peculiar degree of divine inspiration, the crown of the process of revelation recorded in the Old Testament."

From (A Manual Of Church History, Vol. I, Albert Henry Newman, D.D.,LL.D., Judson Press, 1976, p. 301): "Thus we see that the formation of the New Testament canon was the work of centuries. From the human point of view we may say that the selection of books that should form the canon was a product of Christian consciousness; from the divine point of view we may say that this process was presided over and directed by the Holy Spirit."


Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

See above post.


You never asked me that question.


Bibliolatry is not a criterion for being a Christian.


It renders your argument a self-defeating non-argument.

See post #(196). Canonization of Scripture is all about inspiration of God.

See post #(159). I did ask you.

What makes you a Christian when you don't recognize any writing as the Word of God?

Then don't believe it.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

REGARDING GOOD-OLE-REBELS THEORY OF SCRIPTURE CANON

Clear said :
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? (Post #163)


Good-Ole-Rebel replied : "The book of Enoch is not inspired." (post #183)



Hi @Good-Ole-Rebel

I am not asking about the entire book of Enoch, I am asking specifically about the quote FROM the book of 1Enoch of approx 300 b.c.
The text from enoch I am asking about is : “Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment....” (I Enoch ch 2 of approx 300 b.c.).

Are you saying this specific quote from 1Enoch is NOT inspired and should NOT be included in the Christian Canon?

Clear
ειακτζδρω

Nothing written in the book of Enoch is inspired. If in the book there is a verse found which is also used in the New Testament, it does not make Enoch's writing inspired. The book of (Jude) is inspired by God. The book of Enoch is not.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[sojourner]

What? I said 'Old Testament'. With the New Testament included in the Bible, the number of books is 66

I said that the number of original OT books plus the NT books does not equal 66.

Yes, inspiration is that which makes a writing Scripture and which had to be recognized in order to be canonized. No writing would ever be considered by the people of God if not inspired, written by God

Nope. “Written by God” is not a criterion.

 

[sojourner]

See post #(196). Canonization of Scripture is all about inspiration of God

Inspiration may be one criterion, but there were also other considerations. And the inclusion/exclusion of any text was never an absolute judgment of that text’s inspired status. The canon was simply a baseline. It never meant that “other writings weren’t inspired.” They certainly did think that other texts were inspired. Inclusion/exclusion in/from the canon simply meant that what was included was suitable to be read in church, not that excluded texts weren’t inspired.

See post #(159). I did ask you

There is no “which” though. Apostolic authorities are all persons who stand in the Apostolic succession. And those people disagree with your stance.

What makes you a Christian when you don't recognize any writing as the Word of God

What makes you an authority to judge my spiritual disposition based on an arbitrary criterion that was never part of holy tradition?