Is the bible inerrant?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Traverse
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nicea325 said:
Luvtosew;8974910:
No Jewish council codified the OT prior to Jesus life time. Many will say the Jewish historian Josephus mentions the current 66 book canon. If that were true,I wonder why a fundamentalist here at one time never answer the following:

Under whose authority?
What Jewish sect fixed the OT?
When and where was it fixed?
Why was it fixed?
Click to expand...
Why would anyone, especially the Christian Martin Luther, consult with Jewish authorities regarding the OT canon - Jewish authorities who reject the Messiah that is hidden in the OT? Nonsensical.
Click to expand...
 
JonNC said:
Not exactly, my friend. Luther’s translation had 74 books, and the Lutheran Confessions never make a statement regarding which books are canon, and which are not. Lutherans practice a rather conservative approach, looking at scripture regarding whether or not, in the history of the Church, which books were in dispute, and which books were not.
There are some Lutherans who continue to use the duetero-canon liturgically.
Jon
Click to expand...
Well, it is fairly clear that the idea had its genesis, so to speak, with Luther. He made an attempt to reduce the size of the NT as well, but was stopped, or convinced not to. Was not the Deuterocanon in his 1545 Bibel, but separated, being placed between the OT and NT? That was a judgment call. Since then, some Lutheran denominations have removed the DC completely, and virtually all other “protestant” denominations, numerically speaking, have done so. It all hinges on authority.
 
Nicea325 said:
Luvtosew;8974910:
No Jewish council codified the OT prior to Jesus life time. Many will say the Jewish historian Josephus mentions the current 66 book canon. If that were true,I wonder why a fundamentalist here at one time never answer the following:

Under whose authority?
What Jewish sect fixed the OT?
When and where was it fixed?
Why was it fixed?
Click to expand...
From what I’ve read, the process of the OT canonization/codification occurred over a roughly-400 year period, from 200 BC to 200 AD. Josephus doesn’t mention 66 books, but rather 22 (most of the OT canon, some books being folded together as one). He writes in such a way as to suggest that this was the generally accepted list, but, again, more time would pass.

The OT canon seems to have been codified on the basis of a cessation of prophecy. This would mean, though I’m not sure if Jewish people think it so, that the process of codification was, in fact, guided by the Holy Spirit.

I was incorrect in mentioning councils, as gatherings of Jewish leaders are an altogether different concept than what we think of as a council.

I say this with all gentleness, but the Church, Catholic or otherwise, doesn’t have a monopoly on determining the Old Testament. Jewish people had these writings long before we Christians did.
Click to expand...
 
Marie_Gregg said:
Nicea325;8974932:
From what I’ve read, the process of the OT canonization/codification occurred over a roughly-400 year period, from 200 BC to 200 AD. Josephus doesn’t mention 66 books, but rather 22 (most of the OT canon, some books being folded together as one). He writes in such a way as to suggest that this was the generally accepted list, but, again, more time would pass.

The OT canon seems to have been codified on the basis of a cessation of prophecy. This would mean, though I’m not sure if Jewish people think it so, that the process of codification was, in fact, guided by the Holy Spirit.

I was incorrect in mentioning councils, as gatherings of Jewish leaders are an altogether different concept than what we think of as a council.

I say this with all gentleness, but the Church, Catholic or otherwise, doesn’t have a monopoly on determining the Old Testament. Jewish people had these writings long before we Christians did.
Click to expand...
Marie, thats not my post, I did agree with the part I highlighted tho, so sorry , wrong person here, my screw up using the quote function.:o
Click to expand...
 
Marie_Gregg said:
Nicea325;8974932:
From what I’ve read, the process of the OT canonization/codification occurred over a roughly-400 year period, from 200 BC to 200 AD. Josephus doesn’t mention 66 books, but rather 22 (most of the OT canon, some books being folded together as one). He writes in such a way as to suggest that this was the generally accepted list, but, again, more time would pass.

The OT canon seems to have been codified on the basis of a cessation of prophecy. This would mean, though I’m not sure if Jewish people think it so, that the process of codification was, in fact, guided by the Holy Spirit.

I was incorrect in mentioning councils, as gatherings of Jewish leaders are an altogether different concept than what we think of as a council.

I say this with all gentleness, but the Church, Catholic or otherwise, doesn’t have a monopoly on determining the Old Testament. Jewish people had these writings long before we Christians did.
Click to expand...
Yes I meant 22 books,my apologies. However,if I am correct Josephus does not provide a list of the 22 books? Yes it took a long time to canonize,but what many argue is that it was already “fixed” set-in-stone prior to Jesus life and I have yet to a single ancient source ever confirming such an event.
Click to expand...
 
Nicea325 said:
Marie_Gregg;8975178:
Yes I meant 22 books,my apologies. However,if I am correct Josephus does not provide a list of the 22 books? Yes it took a long time to canonize,but what many argue is that it was already “fixed” set-in-stone prior to Jesus life and I have yet to a single ancient source ever confirming such an event.
Click to expand...
Sooo…I guess we agree? 🙂
Click to expand...
 
Marie_Gregg said:
I say this with all gentleness, but the Church, Catholic or otherwise, doesn’t have a monopoly on determining the Old Testament. Jewish people had these writings long before we Christians did.
Click to expand...
But, aren’t you making a division that is artificial? Christ was born and lived under the Mosaic law. Christ was sent as the fulfillment of that Mosaic law. He was sent to the lost sheep of Israel. He explained from the scriptures to Cleopas and the other disciple all of the OT verses that pointed to Him. He opened the Apostles’ minds to understand the (OT) scriptures. Should we not then listen to the Church He founded for those same scriptures?

How does it make any sense, as a Christian, to go to those who reject Jesus for a list of books that help us discover Jesus? That is nonsensical.
 
po18guy said:
But, aren’t you making a division that is artificial? Christ was born and lived under the Mosaic law. Christ was sent as the fulfillment of that Mosaic law. He was sent to the lost sheep of Israel. He explained from the scriptures to Cleopas and the other disciple all of the OT verses that pointed to Him. He opened the Apostles’ minds to understand the (OT) scriptures. Should we not then listen to the Church He founded for those same scriptures?

How does it make any sense, as a Christian, to go to those who reject Jesus for a list of books that help us discover Jesus? That is nonsensical.
Click to expand...
Now, wait a minute. The implication I see here is that we have to ignore the history of the Jewish people working to codify the Old Testament. That doesn’t make any sense. The Jews had the OT long before Christians did. I think we have to acknowledge that.

Gotta go for now - date with the hubby. 🙂
 
Marie_Gregg said:
Now, wait a minute. The implication I see here is that we have to ignore the history of the Jewish people working to codify the Old Testament. That doesn’t make any sense. The Jews had the OT long before Christians did. I think we have to acknowledge that.

Gotta go for now - date with the hubby. 🙂
Click to expand...
Okay…but you said:

I say this with all gentleness, but the Church, Catholic or otherwise, doesn’t have a monopoly on determining the Old Testament. Jewish people had these writings long before we Christians did.

So are you stating we as Christians should exclude the OT from our Bibles since no Christian or Christian Church has a monoply on determining the OT?
 
Marie_Gregg said:
Now, wait a minute. The implication I see here is that we have to ignore the history of the Jewish people working to codify the Old Testament. That doesn’t make any sense. The Jews had the OT long before Christians did. I think we have to acknowledge that.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. I knew someone in university who is an Orthodox Jew, and the way she saw the stories in the Tanakh was very different from the way I (raised a Catholic) saw the Old Testament. “What do you mean, Jews don’t believe in Original Sin? The Song of Songs is WHAT?” In my mind, Christians over the years have done the same sort of thing that they accuse Muslims of doing to the Bible (ie. going around saying that they know better than the group that actually wrote the text).
 
Marie_Gregg said:
Now, wait a minute. The implication I see here is that we have to ignore the history of the Jewish people working to codify the Old Testament. That doesn’t make any sense. The Jews had the OT long before Christians did. I think we have to acknowledge that.

Gotta go for now - date with the hubby. 🙂
Click to expand...
My point is that Jesus was and is a Jew, born of a Jewess, raised under Jewish law, and sent to the lost sheep of Israel. The early Church was Jewish. All of the Apostles were. The 120 in the upper room were. The 3,000 added at Pentecost were. The Church was founded by a Jew for the Jews.

The fact that it has become majority gentile does not mean that Jewish history is now a separate thing, and off-limits to the Church that a Jew founded on behalf of Israel. See what I mean? It is one, continuous history, not Christians vs. Jews.

There is every reason to believe that the Jewish “canon”, a response to the rise of Christianity, was steered toward books and doctrines that supported their rejection of Jesus.

Knowing, or even suspecting this, why then go to those who reject Jesus in order to obtain from them the writings that you hope will point to Him? That is what makes no sense.
 
po18guy said:
My point is that Jesus was and is a Jew, born of a Jewess, raised under Jewish law, and sent to the lost sheep of Israel. The early Church was Jewish. All of the Apostles were. The 120 in the upper room were. The 3,000 added at Pentecost were. The Church was founded by a Jew for the Jews.

The fact that it has become majority gentile does not mean that Jewish history is now a separate thing, and off-limits to the Church that a Jew founded on behalf of Israel. See what I mean? It is one, continuous history, not Christians vs. Jews.

There is every reason to believe that the Jewish “canon”, a response to the rise of Christianity, was steered toward books and doctrines that supported their rejection of Jesus.

Knowing, or even suspecting this, why then go to those who reject Jesus in order to obtain from them the writings that you hope will point to Him? That is what makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Jesus asked the high priest of the temple to release Him from the responsibly He had in attendance to a religious worship among the Jews. Jesus said that He felt the priests were in fault of pompous pride and letting persons die of hunger, diseases, and sinfulness. Jesus was not a proponent of the Jewish form of worship. From slavery, imposed by Jewish worship, it was Jesus who lead Israel into the light of the All Mighty God…and, why the Jewish people insisted upon killing Him. The freedom away from Jewish laws is the divine purpose of Jesus. :highprayer:
 
karaleigh said:
Jesus asked the high priest of the temple to release Him from the responsibly He had in attendance to a religious worship among the Jews. Jesus said that He felt the priests were in fault of pompous pride and letting persons die of hunger, diseases, and sinfulness. Jesus was not a proponent of the Jewish form of worship. From slavery, imposed by Jewish worship, it was Jesus who lead Israel into the light of the All Mighty God…and, why the Jewish people insisted upon killing Him. The freedom away from Jewish laws is the divine purpose of Jesus. :highprayer:
Click to expand...
Of course, but Jesus also revealed from the Old Testament everything that pointed to Him (Luke 24:27). That is integral to Church history, and the Church is Jesus’ Body. We’d best keep it.
 
iT IS LATE FOR ME AND MY BRAIN IS HARDLY WORKING.

OT: The Masoretic Text (Jewish OT) was transcribed in circa 500 AD. More recent finds of the Dead Sea Scrolls written circa 500 BC proved the Masoretic Text, written 1000 years later, was word for word identical with the Masoretic Text in more than 95% of the Text. the 5% of variation consisted mostly of obvious slips of the pen and variations of spelling.

The New Testament evidence is overwhelming, There are about 5,370 manuscripts available today to compare and draw conclusions from.

The questionable verses in our current Bible are:

John 1:21 “Who are you then: are you Elijah.” There are 5 possible arrangements of these words.

1 John 5:7 Only 1 manuscript out of 1,520 manuscripts of the Gospel Of John that have these words.

John 7:53 - 8:11 All early manuscripts, translations, and the early Church Fathers writings omit this passage in John. Even those later manuscripts that do have it place it in 4 different places in John.

Mark’s Gospel 16: 9-20, is most likely a later add on. The original of the ending of Marks’ gospel is uncertain.

The Remainder of the NT is sound based upon the manuscripts we do have.

But even if we found no NT manuscripts at all, we can reconstruct the entire NT from quotes of the various New Testament in Greek from the quotes of the early Church Fathers of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century writings, except for eleven verses from 2 and 3 John.

In contrast, There are only 10 copies of Julius Caesar’s GALLIC WARS, and no one doubts it, even though the earliest dates 1000 years after the original was written.

The above information came primarily from Christian Scholars: Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks "When Skeptics Ask’.
 
po18guy said:
Well, it is fairly clear that the idea had its genesis, so to speak, with Luther. He made an attempt to reduce the size of the NT as well, but was stopped, or convinced not to. Was not the Deuterocanon in his 1545 Bibel, but separated, being placed between the OT and NT? That was a judgment call. Since then, some Lutheran denominations have removed the DC completely, and virtually all other “protestant” denominations, numerically speaking, have done so. It all hinges on authority.
Click to expand...
This isn’t exactly true, either. The disputes regarding the deuterocanon and that of some of the NT books goes way back before Luther - back to Jerome and Eusebius, and does not end even for Catholics until Trent.
The separating of books by Luther precisely reflects the disputed and undisputed books of both the old and new Testaments. It wasn’t a judgement call, but a reflection of the historic nature of the view of the canon in the west througout the history of the Church.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
This isn’t exactly true, either. The disputes regarding the deuterocanon and that of some of the NT books goes way back before Luther - back to Jerome and Eusebius, and does not end even for Catholics until Trent.
The separating of books by Luther precisely reflects the disputed and undisputed books of both the old and new Testaments. It wasn’t a judgement call, but a reflection of the historic nature of the view of the canon in the west througout the history of the Church.

Jon
Click to expand...
The difference, of course, being that both Jerome and Eusebius remained in the Church.
 
po18guy said:
The difference, of course, being that both Jerome and Eusebius remained in the Church.
Click to expand...
All the more reason to understand that Luther’s problems were not simply a dispute with Rome. He, when translating, was already not in communion with Rome, and yet he still kept the DC’s in his translation. He didn’t have to by that time.

And of course, we can’t know how Eusebius would have responded to Rome and Carthage, much less Trent. Further, I don’t think the canon is quite the issue with lutheranism as it is with other communions that are non-Catholic.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top