Why is the belief in Biblical inerrancy important to people?

1457910

Comments

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    The problem with citing Luther for a 66 book canon is that he is pretty much a textbook case of deciding books are dodgy based on your own theological biases. Recall that Luther wanted to trim the New Testament too, objecting to James, Revelation, Hebrews and Jude because they undermined his Solas. Incidentally, the 4th century council of Rome listed the canon in full, including most of the deuterocanonical texts, the same canon affirmed at Trent.


    Well Luther was not permitted to eliminate James was he? Nothing ever comes down to one guy’s opinion.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Enoch wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    ... the KJV followed suit, partially because portions of the Apocrypha continued to be read in churches in England until the mid-17th Century.
    Not quite. Portions of the Apocrypha have remained in the 1662 BCP lectionary down to the present day and are in the Common Worship lectionary. . . .
    Thanks for the correction and additional information, Enoch.

    MPaul wrote: »
    I think the Bible we have inherited is the Christian Bible. It is neither Protestant nor Catholic. Do what you want with that.
    Rather than making assumptions, I’d prefer to know what you do with that—what significance stating it that way has for you.

    And I’d also like to know what “official list” you were referring to above. Who compiled that list and when?
    I do not know who compiled what. It seems to be a matter of gradual corporate recognition. In Nicea for instance, there was a recognition rather than any other process that the books the church was using were scripture and they agreed..in the end. It seems that the Holy Spirit overlooked the process.

  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited February 9
    MPaul wrote: »
    I just think it is significant what Jesus and the apostles cited. Whatever they cited was obviously authoritative and pretty well all scholarship views this as a criterion.
    As a criterion of what, exactly?

    If it is a criterion of canonicity, then my point above stands: some eight books in the OT shouldn't be there, because they are not "cited" in any "authoritative" manner in the NT. Either that, or the argument that the 'apocryphal' books are not canonical are not quoted in the NT is no argument at all. Do you disagree?
    In much the same way, that the NT criteria for scripture was apostolic authority.
    This brings me back to Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3:8. In your view, are these names definitive, authoritative, by virtue of the fact that Paul gives them? Even though they are drawn from a non-canonical work and tradition?

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Well, You are reverse reasoning here. It is not that books not directly referenced are on that account non canonical, just that if they are, then we have a line of support that they are canonical. It is true that the names of Pharoah’s magicians is not otherwise known except via the NT. I would merely say that for some reason, because an apostle said so, that those were their names and for some reason,that is significant although I cannot think why. I assume that these names were commonly known via oral traditions..shrug.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    It is not that books not directly referenced are on that account non canonical, just that if they are, then we have a line of support that they are canonical.
    It's certainly evidence that they had some authority, but as you admit, books cannot be ruled out on this basis and as such I would suggest that "criterion" is not an appropriate term.
    It is true that the names of Pharoah’s magicians is not otherwise known except via the NT. I would merely say that for some reason, because an apostle said so, that those were their names and for some reason,that is significant although I cannot think why. I assume that these names were commonly known via oral traditions..shrug.
    Just to be clear, does that mean you could not countenance the idea that Paul was merely repeating what was known via oral tradition without this necessarily meaning those were their actual names?

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    I would assume that Paul was correct as to fact, even if he did not know he was.
  • Because what he said on the matter could not be anything other than factually true in all points?
  • MPaul wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Enoch wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    ... the KJV followed suit, partially because portions of the Apocrypha continued to be read in churches in England until the mid-17th Century.
    Not quite. Portions of the Apocrypha have remained in the 1662 BCP lectionary down to the present day and are in the Common Worship lectionary. . . .
    Thanks for the correction and additional information, Enoch.

    MPaul wrote: »
    I think the Bible we have inherited is the Christian Bible. It is neither Protestant nor Catholic. Do what you want with that.
    Rather than making assumptions, I’d prefer to know what you do with that—what significance stating it that way has for you.

    And I’d also like to know what “official list” you were referring to above. Who compiled that list and when?
    I do not know who compiled what. It seems to be a matter of gradual corporate recognition. In Nicea for instance, there was a recognition rather than any other process that the books the church was using were scripture and they agreed..in the end.
    Thanks for this answer. It seems to say what I’ve been trying to say—that process of deciding (discerning, maybe?) the canon was gradual and occurred over a period of time.
    It seems that the Holy Spirit overlooked the process.
    Hmmm. Could you unpack a little what you mean here? I would be more inclined to say that the Holy Spirit guided the process.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Does he actually mean 'overlooked' or "oversaw'? Their meanings are almost opposite.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Hmmm - I refer to Dives and Lazarus although I have no warrant to believe that's what Jesus called the Rich Man in his parable; indeed I strongly believe it's a later addition; it is just Latin for Rich. I wouldn't consider a NT writer using the traditional names as meaning anything more than his using common cultural currency.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited February 9
    MPaul wrote: »
    Is the book of Enoch even part of the Apocrypha anyway?

    Doesn't matter. According to your rule of thumb, it's part of the Old Testament.

    But wait! You're about to reverse yourself!

  • MPaul wrote: »
    Well, You are reverse reasoning here. It is not that books not directly referenced are on that account non canonical,

    Then the lack of quotations from the Deuts means nothing as to their scripture status, and we must look elsewhere to answer that question. Glad we got that cleared up.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Mousethief: we must look elsewhere to answer that question
    Well you could look at all the normal markers people use. EG is there a basis in fact, faith, prophecy and that fits with accepted canon.

    Another question for you. Is it not true that you would support any and every practice and tradition of Othodoxy? Let’s say as an eg not just the practice of infant baptism but the method of it? The repeated ducking of tiny children which has to be traumatising?
  • MPaul wrote: »
    Mousethief: we must look elsewhere to answer that question
    Well you could look at all the normal markers people use. EG is there a basis in fact, faith, prophecy and that fits with accepted canon.

    Another question for you. Is it not true that you would support any and every practice and tradition of Othodoxy? Let’s say as an eg not just the practice of infant baptism but the method of it? The repeated ducking of tiny children which has to be traumatising?

    This kind of tit-for-tatting is not my cup of tea.
  • john holdingjohn holding Ecclesiantics Host, Dead Horses Host, Mystery Worshipper Host
    MPaul wrote: »
    Mousethief: we must look elsewhere to answer that question
    Well you could look at all the normal markers people use. EG is there a basis in fact, faith, prophecy and that fits with accepted canon.

    In case you hadn't noticed, what is being discussed is "what is the accepted canon?" Because what you accept as canon is not the same as what most Christians accept as canon. You have your reasons for your opinion and they have theirs. I see no reason why anyone should accept your opinion simply because it's your opinion, anymore than why anyone should accept theirs because it is theirs. As a trained historian who has done a lot of reading in the areas you are talking about, I do have to say that most of the hard data they adduce seems better to me than what you have produced so far.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Mousethief: we must look elsewhere to answer that question
    Well you could look at all the normal markers people use. EG is there a basis in fact, faith, prophecy and that fits with accepted canon.

    Another question for you. Is it not true that you would support any and every practice and tradition of Othodoxy? Let’s say as an eg not just the practice of infant baptism but the method of it? The repeated ducking of tiny children which has to be traumatising?

    This kind of tit-for-tatting is not my cup of tea.
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Mousethief: we must look elsewhere to answer that question
    Well you could look at all the normal markers people use. EG is there a basis in fact, faith, prophecy and that fits with accepted canon.

    Another question for you. Is it not true that you would support any and every practice and tradition of Othodoxy? Let’s say as an eg not just the practice of infant baptism but the method of it? The repeated ducking of tiny children which has to be traumatising?

    This kind of tit-for-tatting is not my cup of tea.
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Mousethief: we must look elsewhere to answer that question
    Well you could look at all the normal markers people use. EG is there a basis in fact, faith, prophecy and that fits with accepted canon.

    Another question for you. Is it not true that you would support any and every practice and tradition of Othodoxy? Let’s say as an eg not just the practice of infant baptism but the method of it? The repeated ducking of tiny children which has to be traumatising?

    This kind of tit-for-tatting is not my cup of tea.

    OK Bro, I will if you will. Glad that is sorted.

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    edited February 10
    MPaul wrote: »
    Mousethief: we must look elsewhere to answer that question
    Well you could look at all the normal markers people use. EG is there a basis in fact, faith, prophecy and that fits with accepted canon.

    In case you hadn't noticed, what is being discussed is "what is the accepted canon?" Because what you accept as canon is not the same as what most Christians accept as canon. You have your reasons for your opinion and they have theirs. I see no reason why anyone should accept your opinion simply because it's your opinion, anymore than why anyone should accept theirs because it is theirs. As a trained historian who has done a lot of reading in the areas you are talking about, I do have to say that most of the hard data they adduce seems better to me than what you have produced so far.


    So as a trained historian you will realise 2 things. Primary sources are pretty well everything and no one is free from agenda. The issue here is what the Bible is. The reformation tradition resulted in the KJV In 1611.

    As most of the sources used to produce it are no longer accessible, and the apocrypha was sometimes included and sometimes not AND the collective wisdom of Reformed theology now excludes it and that of Catholicism and Othodoxy includes it. What in your view, IS the Bible made up of?
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    As a trained historian who has done a lot of reading in the areas you are talking about, I do have to say that most of the hard data they adduce seems better to me than what you have produced so far.

    I reproduce here what I posted above regarding Apocrypha

    “Philo, (20BC-40AD)quoted the OT prolifically but not the apocrypha. Josephus excludes it as well numbering the OT books as 29. Jesus and the NT writers do not quote from it. The Jamnia council 90AD, does not recognise it. Many of the church fathers rejected it eg Cyril of Alexandria and Origen. Jerome rejected it. Many Catholic scholars rejected it and Catholicism only accepted it after Trent. As I said above, it is probably the doctrine of Purgatory that was behind that.”

    Against that, it is maintained by Catholicism and Orthodoxy that the Apocrypha is actually scripture, despite the fact that it contains spurious fictional and mythical events and mostly appears after Malachi. We do not even have a restriction on what is in there. What about what is called the Pseudipigraphia. Why exclude that? In for a penny and all that!

    On what basis are you “as a historian” convinced by their case which it seems to me is really nothing more than: “our tradition maintains it”
  • Your quotation above seems to be leaning heavily on the work of Norman Geisler, one of the co-founders and framers the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. As an aside his Wikipedia entry is "interesting" - I don't think I've ever seen an article so dependent on the individual's work as that one.

    His work feels cut from the same cloth as that of creation deniers- built on half truths, discounting anything that doesn't fit into the already fixed viewpoint.

    There's a rebuttal of that quotation here.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    MPaul

    I don't understand why you discount the evidence of the very early compilations. Jerome's view is not definitive. Eusebius who compiled the Codex Vaticanus in about 330 BC includes all of the OT deuterocanonicals apart from the Maccabees and the 5th Century Codex Alexandrinus, produced after Jerome's death, includes all the deuterocanonicals.

    It is also known for example that Augustine disagreed with Jerome and Jerome changed his opinion about the book of Judith.

    The historicity of the Council of Jamnia has been under a cloud for some time, and the conservative scholar F F Bruce concurs with that view.

    There is no doubt that the Septuagint original translation pre-dates the earliest complete Masoretic version by a thousand years. The Masoretic version has vowels added to the original consonantal version and could not have been the OT known to Jesus and the Apostles.

    It was perfectly logical for the early church to seek to retrieve and translate the Septuagint as its main OT source and also for Jerome to look at 4th C Hebrew sources. Eusebius gives us a decent idea of the contents of the Septuagint and the Codex Alexandrinus takes into account the work and views of Jerome and other scholars.

    I appreciate you may draw your own conclusions about which parts of the historical evidence is most significant to you. But I think your view makes selective use of the history
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Because they claim it translated an earlier and more authentic Hebrew text, I'm under the impression the Orthodox regard the LXX as more authoritative than the Masoretic Hebrew version that most of the rest of Christendom now translate their Hebrew Bible from.

    If one is nerdy enough to look at the translators' notes that some modern Bibles are printed with, you may notice that there are some places where many of them prefer other readings from the obvious translation of what the Masoretic text appears to say. Sometimes this is based on alternative pointings (i.e. the translators think the Masoretes added the wrong little dots representing the vowels). Sometimes this is based on speculation that the LXX or another early translation was translating a text that for that verse was more convincing than the Masoretic one.

    There are also places where Hebrew text is seriously opaque and the LXX doesn't make sense either. The natural, and probably correct, conclusion to draw from that, is that the verse in question had already been corrupted before the LXX translation was made.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    What is blindingly obvious is that the LXX existed in apostolic times, the Masoretic text did not. Looking purely at a list of included books, and accepting that there are issues with both OT versions, the evidence is very strong that the early Christian church accepted the deuterocanonicals as canonical.

    The Wiki entry is informative about the various complexities and in particular it is worth looking at the section headed Anagignoskomina. Profitable readings.

    The Catholic and Orthodox positions are not sola scriptura and so they live easily with a softer boundary between which writings are profitable and useful and which are not.

    The notion of profitable writings was preserved to some extent by the inclusion of these books in the early protestants translations, e.g the Luther Bible, the KJV. The hard canonical boundary is a more modern invention.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    There's a rebuttal of that quotation here.
    I was aware of Geisler and Nix. The site you quote is Designed to discredit opposition to Catholicism so it is not really a rebuttal, as the main ploy is to cast doubt on Geisler s assertions but without a lot of substance.
    The evidence is very strong that the early Christian church accepted the deuterocanonicals as canonical

    If this is true then they would have been quoted prolifically in the NT. They are not. The 250 times the OT is clearly cited by Jesus and the apostles notably do NOT include the Apocrypha. You have to hunt around for Possible oblique references. And when you speculate about them, you find there is actually a link to an accepted canonical source.

    The reference in Jude to Enoch is like that. It states that he is the 7th from Adam which we can verify from Genesis but then Jude adds a tantalising detail found nowhere else. This is that Enoch prophesied that Jesus will come with his many saints. Now, there is no indication where that came from but it is in scripture so it is true. It may have been an oral tradition but it is certainly not a clear citation from anywhere else.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    edited February 11
    The OT books not cited in the NT are Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, and arguably, according to a more rigorous definition of quotation - not including where an event or story is mentioned, but not quoted, the list is longer: Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Jonah, Zephaniah.

    NT quotation, or even, more broadly, NT reference is not a reliable guide to the OT canon.

    And, of course, you are choosing to limit Barnabas 62’s “early church” to only those writings of the early church that are included in the NT canon.

    Here, for example, is Augustine’s list
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    MPaul

    They are included in the 4th C Codex Vaticanus by Eusebius, a compilation made before the Ecumenical Councils, and also in the 5th C Codex Alexandrinus, a revision put together after consideration of the scholarship of Jerome and others. How early do you want?

    The Masoretic OT text including vowels was completed in about the 8th C. There were no doubt earlier Hebraic consonantal texts, some of which are preserved in the Dead Sea scrolls, but the earliest evidence we have of the total book content of the OT is from the LXX translations.

    The Dead Sea scrolls do not support your case. Rather they support the argument that at the time of Christ there was considerable variety in the contents of the Hebraic scriptures and what writings they included.

    The nemesis of the sola scriptura position is precisely the amount of both textual variation and variations re inclusion for both the OT and the NT. There is no undisputed collection nor is there undisputed content. There are church pronouncements on both issues and they differ.

    Which is why the Orthodox and Catholic positions recognise the authority of the church in drawing lines and making choices on these matters. The church guards the scriptures and the scriptures guide the church.

    Now if you want to make the contents and boundaries of scripture a matter of Protestant church authority that is a different matter. That's fundamentally the Orthodox and Catholic position, but asserting a different authority. Scripture does not define its own boundaries and contents. It is presented by various compilers as having certain boundaries and contents. Compilation and selection are human activities, guided by some understanding of what has been and remains inspired and profitable for use.
  • So in this utterly human chaos, we are justified in having any faith at all? How do you manage B?
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    https://ariel.org/FAQRetrieve.aspx?ID=62554&Q=

    Now we are going round in circles. The fact of being quoted in the NT is significant, but it is not the only reason that an OT book is scripture so by stating “Ah but not every canonical OT book is cited in the NT!” you prove precisely nothing.

    The OT is what the Jews said it was. This is obviously the Torah, the prophets and the Writings. If the Writings included the Apocrypha as some assert, then you have to make a case for why it is. It is not enough to say because it was translated with the LXX. There could have been lots of reasons for that. The apocrypha deals with Jewish history and issues and was valuable. Lots of Jewish sources still do not see it as part of scripture. FF Bruce probably knew more about this stuff than most people and he saw no big deal here. The link above is to Ariel ministries. It is the comment of Jewish scholar Arnold Fructenbaum.

    Really, it all comes down to an argument over the claims of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. ‘We are the oldest so we have the final say.’
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    MPaul wrote: »
    Now we are going round in circles. The fact of being quoted in the NT is significant, but it is not the only reason that an OT book is scripture so by stating “Ah but not every canonical OT book is cited in the NT!” you prove precisely nothing.
    Why is being quoted in the NT significant? A number of undisputedly canonical works are not quoted in the NT, and the NT includes some quotations which are not from canonical works.
    The OT is what the Jews said it was. This is obviously the Torah, the prophets and the Writings. If the Writings included the Apocrypha as some assert, then you have to make a case for why it is. It is not enough to say because it was translated with the LXX. There could have been lots of reasons for that. The apocrypha deals with Jewish history and issues and was valuable. Lots of Jewish sources still do not see it as part of scripture. FF Bruce probably knew more about this stuff than most people and he saw no big deal here. The link above is to Ariel ministries. It is the comment of Jewish scholar Arnold Fructenbaum.
    Your ‘obviously’ is not obvious. The Septuagint divides the scriptures into four categories (law, history, poetry, and prophets), rather than the three categories (law, prophets, writings) of rabbinic Judaism, and inserts the various texts into those four categories without differentiating them from the other books - the ones which are in the ‘protestant’ OT canon. Why privilege the decisions about the OT canon made by rabbinic Judaism in late antiquity over those made by Alexandrian Judaism of the intertestamental period?
    Really, it all comes down to an argument over the claims of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. ‘We are the oldest so we have the final say.’
    Really that is a massive over-simplification.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    edited February 11
    The Apocrypha link.

    This contains an anachronism. The Catholic doctrine on Purgatory was not formalised before the councils of Lyon (1274), Ferrara-Florence (1438–45), and Trent (1545–63) after a prolonged period of development by lay Christians and theologians. Orthodox Christians do not agree with the Catholic understanding of Purgatory. The notion that 2 Maccabees (only one of the deuterocanonicals anyway) was inserted into the canon in order to support the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory puts the cart before the horse. There was no such defined doctrine when the Codex Alexandrinus was compiled.

    And as a matter of interest, here are some writings by Martin Luther re Purgatory.

    Note this quote
    Luther is disagreeing on some points about the nature of purgatory and certain(sic) is condemning claims that people can buy a quick pass through of purgatory for the dead, but he is not doubting its existence in any way. It seems quite clear that he takes its existence for granted at that time. Indeed, in his own Explanation of the Ninety-five Theses, he said he was unsure of the exact nature of purgatory but affirmed "I am positive there is a purgatory."
    He did change his mind, of course.

    Calvin saw it differently of course. But as the article shows, his refutation of classic Catholic beliefs about Purgatory (as defined by the 16th Century Council of Trent) is based on his analysis of undisputed canonical texts, 2 Maccabees doesn't even get a mention.

    The argument in the link is deeply flawed.
  • It's only really a problem if you consider some books to be inerrant and others not. If you consider the Bible, and the penumbra of works surrounding it such as the Didache, as a sliding scale between inspired, accurate accounts and the works of human authors of good intent then whether Wisdom falls one side or the other of the arbitrary line becomes rather irrelevant. And it is an arbitrary line: there is no mechanism by which one can reliably determine which books are in or out - you can trust the post-temple, post-Ascension Rabbinic schools of thought on the Hebrew scriptures as seized on by the reformers, or you can trust the Christian traditions of the 1400+ years prior to the reformation.

    Inerrancy works as a theological tool to avoid making the first response to a difficult passage "well it's probably a mistake" - assuming the validity of the text and trying to understand it in the context of the saving work of Christ should always be the starting point - but there has to be a recognition that there comes a point where you have turned Christ into a corkscrew to twist him into the passage, and you have to accept that the passage cannot be of God.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    https://ariel.org/FAQRetrieve.aspx?ID=62554&Q=

    Now we are going round in circles. The fact of being quoted in the NT is significant, but it is not the only reason that an OT book is scripture so by stating “Ah but not every canonical OT book is cited in the NT!” you prove precisely nothing.

    In other words, being quoted in the NT is important when it supports your case, and unimportant when it tells against it.
  • ... but there has to be a recognition that there comes a point where you have turned Christ into a corkscrew to twist him into the passage, and you have to accept that the passage cannot be of God.

    Love the image (poor Jesus!) but have to disagree on the conclusion ("you have to accept that the passage cannot be of God").

    That's because there's a third option, which should always be considered--the possibility that there's something else going on that isn't apparent at this moment, to this reader, under these circumstances--whether the "something else" is a translation error, or a misunderstanding, or a transcription error, or ...

    This is what I was referring to earlier with Keats' "negative capability." It's the ability to say humbly "I just don't know" and to refrain from making a decision on the passage at this time. To lay it aside on the edge of your plate--possibly for a short time, possibly forever, depending on when new data surfaces.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited February 11
    New data on these problematic passages has had two millenia and more to emerge. How long do we wait?
  • ... but there has to be a recognition that there comes a point where you have turned Christ into a corkscrew to twist him into the passage, and you have to accept that the passage cannot be of God.

    Love the image (poor Jesus!) but have to disagree on the conclusion ("you have to accept that the passage cannot be of God").

    That's because there's a third option, which should always be considered--the possibility that there's something else going on that isn't apparent at this moment, to this reader, under these circumstances--whether the "something else" is a translation error, or a misunderstanding, or a transcription error, or ...

    This is what I was referring to earlier with Keats' "negative capability." It's the ability to say humbly "I just don't know" and to refrain from making a decision on the passage at this time. To lay it aside on the edge of your plate--possibly for a short time, possibly forever, depending on when new data surfaces.

    Perhaps if I say "I cannot find anything of God in it" that would lead us to agreement? I accept the point about the need for humility though I also consider the KarlLB's point has merit.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    The argument in the link is deeply flawed.
    No, he merely says that Catholicism wants it there for purgatory as everyone agrees. You may not rate Fructenbaum but he has written extensively on these issues and the answer above is a dumbed down one to meet a query. I think his opinion has quite a lot of weight because he is very familiar with all aspects of Jewishness regarding the Christian faith.

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    edited February 11
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    https://ariel.org/FAQRetrieve.aspx?ID=62554&Q=

    Now we are going round in circles. The fact of being quoted in the NT is significant, but it is not the only reason that an OT book is scripture so by stating “Ah but not every canonical OT book is cited in the NT!” you prove precisely nothing.

    In other words, being quoted in the NT is important when it supports your case, and unimportant when it tells against it.

    This is nonsense and I think you know it. It is quite clear that citations do create a trail of veracity. That some books are not cited is irrelevant to this point.
  • There is nothing of God in murdering mute rape victims.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    https://ariel.org/FAQRetrieve.aspx?ID=62554&Q=

    Now we are going round in circles. The fact of being quoted in the NT is significant, but it is not the only reason that an OT book is scripture so by stating “Ah but not every canonical OT book is cited in the NT!” you prove precisely nothing.

    In other words, being quoted in the NT is important when it supports your case, and unimportant when it tells against it.

    This is nonsense and I think you know it. It is quite clear that citations do create a trail of veracity. That some books are not cited is irrelevant to this point.

    Therefore that the LXX is not cited is irrelevant. Anything else is special pleading.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    [/quote]Therefore that the LXX is not cited is irrelevant. Anything else is special pleading.[/quote]
    Was there a point here somewhere?

  • I've been thinking about this and where I stand.

    Even accepting that there might be a broader understanding of the term "inerrant" than I've ever heard before, I still think that I couldn't ever accept that idea.

    Because, quite honestly, I don't read the Bible any more and I don't really regard it as particularly useful for my daily journey as a morally awake human being through this dark world.

    To me it is like Swallows and Amazons - a book series that I loved as a child but which seems to me today seems pretty ridiculous.

    At best it seems to me that the Bible is a book of interesting questions and a developing vocabulary for tackling ethics - and yet they way that it is usually used is (a) with ridiculous levels of reverence rather than as a bunch of more-or-less random stories and (b) something to argue about the meaning of words over - when the simple truth might be that there is no meaning.

    Of course, each to their own - but I do wonder why people who claim that the deity actually lives within them are so attached to words on a page.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited February 12
    And fwiw, from what I've heard of Islam and Sikhism, their stories are very largely much the same. Muslims and Sikhs have a different spiritual language, but I'm not sure they're in any better a position than anyone else.

    Which suggests to me that the problem is more with having a book of ideas regarded as holy as with anything specific within.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    Therefore that the LXX is not cited is irrelevant. Anything else is special pleading.
    Was there a point here somewhere?

    Yes of course. You have no consistent argument against the LXX. Your argument has been that it's not quoted in the NT, but you admit that being quoted in the NT doesn't matter. So you have no argument at all.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Therefore that the LXX is not cited is irrelevant. Anything else is special pleading.
    Was there a point here somewhere?

    Yes of course. You have no consistent argument against the LXX. Your argument has been that it's not quoted in the NT, but you admit that being quoted in the NT doesn't matter. So you have no argument at all.

    I thought what I said was the apocrypha was never seen as part of the LXX by the Jews..Oh Well ..shrug.

  • MPaul wrote: »
    The evidence is very strong that the early Christian church accepted the deuterocanonicals as canonical
    If this is true then they would have been quoted prolifically in the NT. They are not.

  • You either don't remember or no longer stand by what you said. Oh well. Shrug.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    edited February 13
    mousethief wrote: »
    You either don't remember or no longer stand by what you said. Oh well. Shrug.
    No, I remember. The assertion was the 70 translated the Bible and the apocrypha so that means the apocrypha is part of the Bible? Kind of like saying I’ll have fries with THAT..so THAT is fries.
  • No, the assertion was not that the 70 translated both so they are the same thing. That was never the assertion. Clearly you do NOT remember.

    The assertion is, the LXX was THE old testament of the nascent church, and the Deuts remained part of the church's scriptures until Luther and beyond. They are still part of the scripture of the ancient churches, just not the Protestants. Somebody made a change. Wasn't us. Somebody is wrong. That's you.

    YOUR argument was that the LXX (including the deuts) cannot have been the bible of the chrch because it wasn't quoted in the NT. That argument has now been eviscerated by your own hand.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Somebody made a change
    No one made any change.
    Your stance is majorly assuming the Apocrypha is part of the LXX. That is what is wrong. I never said it was not the Bible of the apostles, just that the apocrypha was not part of that Bible nor, incidentally part of the Bible of the Rabbis. ButI do grasp that you need to hold onto your beliefs because Othodoxy, with which you have aligned yourself, says so.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    It is widely accepted that the Septuagint included the deutero-canonical books. It was the Bible of Greek-speaking Judaism before and through the NT period.

    The more restricted canon of Rabbinic Judaism (a lineal descendant of Pharisaic Judaism) may well have existed earlier, but evidence for its formalisation is unclear.

    The rejection by Rabbinic Judaism of the canonicity of the deutero-canonical books is dated to ‘late antiquity’ - somewhere between the third and seventh centuries after Christ.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    It is widely accepted that the Septuagint included the deutero-canonical books. It was the Bible of Greek-speaking Judaism before and through the NT period.

    The more restricted canon of Rabbinic Judaism (a lineal descendant of Pharisaic Judaism) may well have existed earlier, but evidence for its formalisation is unclear.

    The rejection by Rabbinic Judaism of the canonicity of the deutero-canonical books is dated to ‘late antiquity’ - somewhere between the third and seventh centuries after Christ.

    Yes well, you can believe the gospel according to wiki ..it is a free world.

    Much scholarship exists that contradicts the assertion that the Apocrypha was part of the Bible.

    Keeping it simple there are 3 lines of evidence.

    First are the key figures both Jewish and Christian and historical (eg Josephus, Philo,) who rejected the Apocrypha.

    Second is the genesis of the apocrypha, the fact that it originated between the testaments after Malachi, the last canonical book and during the period where there were no prophetic voices. The apocrypha does no contain prophecy.

    Third is the varied and unreliable nature of its content and authorship. The apocrypha at times is mythical, at times inaccurate and at times contradictory of accepted Canonical books.

    It is easy to create a binary argument but it is not really about Catholic/Othodoxy vs Protestant. It is about what true believers and true scholars through the ages have always acknowledged because the Holy Spirit witnessed to it.

Sign In or Register to comment.