Against you, not much is needed.
-
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?
- Thread starter Wandering Monk
- Start date
It renders your argument invalid. That you use it as an excuse reveals your level of understanging. That your posts amount to you holding your fingers in your ears and chanting 'la la la la la ....' as loud as you can, while you run in circles, well that's just funny.
I haven't seen any explanations from him.
"INSPIRATION" AS A CRITERIA FOR TEXT WE INCLUDE, OR EXCLUDE FROM OUR PERSONAL CANONS
Clear asked Good-Ole-Rebel : "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.).
Can you describe WHY you think this specific text SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be included in the Christian canon? (Post #163)
@Good-Ole-Rebel responded : “Nothing written in the book of Enoch is inspired.” (post #198)
IF you believe the concept in this phrase is not inspired by God, then should this phrase from 1Enoch be excluded from the Christian Canon?
Second question : Old Testament Judges 18:30 says : “And the sons of Dan set up for themselves the carved image and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh….”
In your religion, is this specific phrase inspired of God?
Clear
εινετζσιω
Clear asked Good-Ole-Rebel : "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.).
Can you describe WHY you think this specific text SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be included in the Christian canon? (Post #163)
@Good-Ole-Rebel responded : “Nothing written in the book of Enoch is inspired.” (post #198)
IF you believe the concept in this phrase is not inspired by God, then should this phrase from 1Enoch be excluded from the Christian Canon?
Second question : Old Testament Judges 18:30 says : “And the sons of Dan set up for themselves the carved image and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh….”
In your religion, is this specific phrase inspired of God?
Clear
εινετζσιω
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
Sorry. It does. 39 in the Old and 27 in the New. The Old Testament is the same as the TANAKH.
I just showed you that the inspiration of God was the criterion in the canonization of the Bible. You have showed nothing but, 'no it's not'.
If inspiration, written by God is not the criterion, what is? What was the criterion of the Old Testament Scriptures?
Good-Ole-Rebel
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
Other considerations were involved, but even though they may not have been satisfied, that did not stop an inspired writing from God being added to the Canon. Many had issues with several New Testament books such as (James) or (Revelation) or even (Esther) in the Old Testament. Some books were not written by 'apostles'. And some we don't even know the authors. Didn't matter in the long run. The books carried with them the authority of the inspiration of God to the people of God. They could not be denied. All others could be and were.
You still didn't answer the question.
Because I am Christian. If you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, how can you claim to be Christian? What makes you Christian?
Good-Ole-Rebel
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Nope. The Tanakh is 24 books, not 39.
“Inspiration” and “written by God” are tow different animals.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
The book of (Jude) is inspired Scripture. The book of Enoch is not. It doesn't matter if a so called 'concept' is found in one similar to the other. It doesn't matter if a phrase is word for word. Who is doing the talking is the question. Is one from God or not from God is the question.
The book of (Judges) is inspired Scripture. All of it.
Good-Ole-Rebel
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I believe it did.
Paul is the only apostle known to have written anything.
Most we don’t know the authors.
You don’t believe the Bible is what it is. How can you claim to be Christian?
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
Same exact content as I have already said. Go back and reread.
No, inspiration and written by God are the same.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And Paul never saw Jesus except in "visions".
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
Well you can believe whatever you want, yet I have the Bible in front of me. All 66 books.
As I said, the human writer was not the determining factor. Inspiration by God was.
I believe the Bible is what it is...the Word of God. Again, how can you claim to be Christian and not believe the Bible is the Word of God? Crawfishing.
Good-Ole-Rebel
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
There’s no helping you.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
And I have all the other canonical texts in front of me — all in the Bible. Seems to me you’re ignoring part of the word of a God.
Nope. That’s not it.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
If the Bible is not the Word of God, as you now say, are those books that you have the Word of God?
From (The Canon Of Scripture, F.F. Bruce, IVP, 1988,) "Inspiration--more particularly, prophetic inspiration--was identified by many as the distinguishing feature of the Old Testament collection when once it was reckoned to be complete." p.(280)
"Christians have been right in discerning the Holy Spirit similarly at work in the New Testament scriptures, although (as has been said) only one book of the New Testament explicitly claims prophetic inspiration." p. (280-281)
"The theological aspect of canonization has not been the subject of this book, which has been concerned rather with the historical aspect, but for those who receive the scriptures as God's Word written the theological aspect is the most important. The Holy Spirit is not only the Spirit of prophecy; he is also the witnessing and interpreting Spirit." p.(281)
"The work of the Holy Spirit is not discerned by means of the common tools of the historian's trade...it would be wiser to speak of the providence or guidance of the Spirit than of his witness." p.(282)
"Certainly, as one looks back on the process of canonization in early Christian....it is easy to conclude that in reaching a conclusion on the limits of the canon they were direced by a wisdom higher than their own." p.(282)
"But it is not mere hindsight to say, with William Barclay, that 'the New Testament books became canonical because no one could stop them doing so' or even, in the exaggerated language of Oscar Cullmann, that 'the books which were to form the future canon forced themselves on the Church by their intrinsic apostolic authority, as they do still, because the Kyrios Christ speaks in them." p.(282)
Good-Ole-Rebel
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This is a non sequitur.
This quote is spot on, because it is by apostolic authority that the canon was set.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
No it is your statement that does not logically follow. Which is why you avoid my question. The whole point of the canonization was to identify the Word of God.
Some books are written by those who were not prophets or apostles. Some we don't even know who the writers were. It doesn't matter. Because an inspired writing carries with it it's own authority from God.
You don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, yet that is why the Bible was formed, because it is the Word of God.
Good-Ole-Rebel
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Nope. But thanks for playing.
Nope. But thanks for playing.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
You can 'nope' all you like. It doesn't change the fact that the purpose in recognizing the Canon of the Bible, was recognizing that which is inspired by God, that which is the Word of God.
From: (A General Introduction To The Bible, Geisler and Nix, Moody Press, 1968) "Canonicity is determined by God. Actually, a canonical book is valuable and true because God inspired it. That is, canonicity is determined or fixed conclusively by authority, and authority was given to the individual books by God through inspiration. The real question is not where a book received it's divine authority, for this can only come from God alone, but how did men recognize that authority? " p.(133)
"Authority is recognized by men of God. Inspiration determines canonicity. If a book was authoritative, it was so because God breathed it and made it so. How a book received authority, then, is determined by God. How men recognize that authority is another matter altogether (see discussion in chap. 11)." p. (133)
Good-Ole-Rebel
Last edited: