Canonicity

[praise_yeshua]

I remember one of the first internet forums that I really actively participated in. The "Net Bible" was being translated at the time and bible.org was much different than it is today. Most of my internet experience debating theology took place in yahoo groups and yahoo chat till that point. Not that it was my first forum experience. Bulletin Boards were around in 90s but most people did not embrace the internet until windows 95 came along.

I was privileged to extensively debate the Biblical canon with the members of bible.org. In fact, I believe it was some of those debates that actually lead them to shutdown their forum. Bible.org had so much rich content during those years. Most of it has long been removed. It really was sad and I have long missed some of the participants. I realized long ago that the subject of the "Biblical Canon" is often the weakest subject found in any individual's theology. I hope to try and change that with this thread....

I'd like to ask everyone a few questions.

1. What does "Inspiration" mean to you?
2. How do you apply "Inspiration?
3. Do you adhere to the Protestant Canon, Catholic Canon, or do you have your own?

I believe these three questions will help to begin the conversation on what you consider "canonical".

I will provide short answers to these questions below.

1. Inspiration is the process by which God imparted His words to the human writers that originally wrote various manuscripts that survive today. I'm limiting this conversation to extant witnesses. I believe Enoch is generally considered to be the first prophet to have recorded/written words that he preached/declared. Though today, the "book" of Enoch is fractured and corrupt in many places and can not be completely trusted. Nevertheless, Jude appeals to words from Enoch as being Scripture. "Inspiration" literally can be seen as "God breathed". Meaning, that these authors did not record their own words, but words directly from God. Which establishes doctrines such Inerrancy.

I will clearly state that all canons contain words from various sources. Words from the authors of various manuscripts, words from translators/editors, and "Thus saith the Lord". It is vitally important that we recognize the differences.

2. We apply "Inspiration" only to the words that fall within the category of "Thus saith the Lord".

3. I have my own list of canonical books. I believe this subject is important enough to not allow other men to define that list for me. I put forth extensive effort to know the subject so as to accurately defend my list.

I look forward to the conversation. Thanks

 

[Diserner]

1. What does "Inspiration" mean to you?
2. How do you apply "Inspiration?
3. Do you adhere to the Protestant Canon, Catholic Canon, or do you have your own?

Good post I was thinking of posting something similar.


1. Very, very nuanced and complicated to describe for me. Probably doesn't quite parallel a lot of ideas out there.

I think inspiration means God has put a supernatural quality to a certain set of Words such that he uses them in distinctly powerful way.

I do NOT think inspiration means complete literal factual accuracy or 100% comprehension and ability to immediately utilize all truth.

I do NOT think inspiration means EVERY work referenced by the inspired texts make those also inspired in some kind of inspiration chain.


2. I apply it to giving special importance to the reading, memorization and study of what I consider inspired.

One important consideration to my above view of inspiration is, less of an intellectual and mental view of Scripture.

You do not have to fully understand the Bible for it to do something for you; it's words will supernaturally change and empower you.

However, just because words are inspired does not automatically mean they are always interpreted correctly, and that becomes very tricky.


3. At one point, I considered I have to somehow verify any canon for myself.

I started looking at apocryphal books with a skeptical view, as I was taught they were inherently bad juju.

I was surprised at what I found—some books were even more demonic than I thought, and yet some books actually seemed okay.

But none had the same settled feeling of stability and presence that I found on the canon of the original 66.


4. It is difficult to separate the concept of inspiration from the concept of interpretation.

I don't think mental studies alone can lead us to the truth of what God wants to communicate to us.

I found myself eventually becoming Sola Spiritus—without the Holy Spirit we can not "exegete" our way to the truth through study.

Some object this makes the truth too fickle and arbitrary and hard to verify for others, but honestly, we all have to depend directly on God.

 

[Handaan]

This is a great thread, made me realize I don't know much about it. I've always just believed that the Bible we have today was God's inspired word. And never went much deeper than that. So I too am looking forward to the discussions that hopefully will take place here.

 

[Diserner]

This is a great thread, made me realize I don't know much about it. I've always just believed that the Bible we have today was God's inspired word. And never went much deeper than that. So I too am looking forward to the discussions that hopefully will take place here.

Sounds like we're in the same boat. I've heard the word before but if you ask me what it meant...I don't have a clue. So yes this should be a good learning experience for both of us. I did do a little research and found this. I've noticed got? get quoted here quite a bit and it seems to have some good information.

How and when was the canon of the Bible put together? | GotQuestions.org

How and when was the canon of the Bible put together? Who decided what books belonged in the Bible?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[praise_yeshua]

Sounds like we're in the same boat. I've heard the word before but if you ask me what it meant...I don't have a clue. So yes this should be a good learning experience for both of us. I did do a little research and found this. I've noticed got? get quoted here quite a bit and it seems to have some good information.

How and when was the canon of the Bible put together? | GotQuestions.org

How and when was the canon of the Bible put together? Who decided what books belonged in the Bible?

www.gotquestions.org

There are some inconsistencies and "word parsing" in that article. I will expand that thought later. Thank you for participating. I enjoy this subject.

 

[Diserner]

There are some inconsistencies and "word parsing" in that article. I will expand that thought later. Thank you for participating. I enjoy this subject.

Thank you as I'm the one that's going to learn something.

 

[praise_yeshua]

4. It is difficult to separate the concept of inspiration from the concept of interpretation.

I don't think mental studies alone can lead us to the truth of what God wants to communicate to us.

I found myself eventually becoming Sola Spiritus—without the Holy Spirit we can not "exegete" our way to the truth through study.

Some object this makes the truth too fickle and arbitrary and hard to verify for others, but honestly, we all have to depend directly on God.

Thank you. I look forward to our conversation. I wanted to respond to this while I had it "on my mind".

While I am sympathetic to your view above, I have grown hesitant to believe that I can actually always know when God is leading me. I find this to be one of the most difficult tasks in our lives. Knowing exactly how to seperate myself from the conversation. Knowing myself enough to realize my tendencies, I try never to "blame" God for my position. (Not saying you are. Just sharing my thought process). God is always right. Me..... I'm often wrong. Which is why I enjoy open discussions. I hope this makes sense.

Thanks

 

[Diserner]

Which is why I enjoy open discussions. I hope this makes sense.

Oh, any of us can make a mistake. I've made a million mistakes.

But "cursed is the man who trusts in man."

Ultimately, as I perseverre with a willingness to keep starting over or humbling myself, I know God will eventually get me there.

"But blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord."

 

[Love Fountain]

3. I have my own list of canonical books. I believe this subject is important enough to not allow other men to define that list for me. I put forth extensive effort to know the subject so as to accurately defend my list.

Hello,

Which canon do you take issue with?

Have you made your own canon? What books are in your canon?

Blessings,
Love Fountain

 

[praise_yeshua]

Hello,

Which canon do you take issue with?

Have you made your own canon? What books are in your canon?

Blessings,
Love Fountain

I basically believe that the Greek OT is essential to understanding God. I have no problem with including any of the writings found in the Greek OT in my canon/collection of choice.

I generally accept the traditional canon associated with the NT. However, I don't believe it is necessary to argue for the "inspiration" of the NT as collected. I simply judge the NT worthy of being true based upon the canonical Greek OT. I don't believe any author of the NT would claim to be "inspired" based upon the generally accepted understanding of "inspiration". In fact, I believe the way that "inspiration" is taught today actually limits understanding.

Examples for the NT...

I don't believe everything the book of "James" teaches is true and accurate to the revelation of God. However, I would still include it in the necessary list of NT books to understand. I do not believe it is "authoritative" to the degree of NOT questioning the words found therein. Which is how "inspiration" is falsely taught today. The "canon" is complicated and it was a "dirty" process that attempted to define it. I feel no obligation to accept the choices of others. I will/do study to defend and understand what I accept as being true to the revelation of God.

Example for OT

There is zero doubt that the books of the Maccabees should be included. They are at a very minimum historical. If anyone wants to include the book of "Kings" as being "inspired"... you can't possibly reject the historical narrative of the "Maccabees". Jesus Himself referenced the "Festival of Lights". A historical narrative essential to understanding Judaism at the time of Christ. That said, 1st and 2nd Maccabees is far better than 3rd and 4th Maccabees.

Also, I don't have a "closed" canon in the sense that I'm hopefully that new manuscripts will be found that remove the uncertainty associated with the various streams of manuscripts witnessed within the DSS.

I'm also open to manuscript additions/removal for existing canonical "words" based upon future discoveries.

I try to be considerate of any and all extant information associated with this subject. I don't simply reject knowledge because someone cries "inspiration"..... "inspiration".

I hope this helps. There is much detail behind my words above.

 

[DavidTree]

I remember one of the first internet forums that I really actively participated in. The "Net Bible" was being translated at the time and bible.org was much different than it is today. Most of my internet experience debating theology took place in yahoo groups and yahoo chat till that point. Not that it was my first forum experience. Bulletin Boards were around in 90s but most people did not embrace the internet until windows 95 came along.

I was privileged to extensively debate the Biblical canon with the members of bible.org. In fact, I believe it was some of those debates that actually lead them to shutdown their forum. Bible.org had so much rich content during those years. Most of it has long been removed. It really was sad and I have long missed some of the participants. I realized long ago that the subject of the "Biblical Canon" is often the weakest subject found in any individual's theology. I hope to try and change that with this thread....

I'd like to ask everyone a few questions.

1. What does "Inspiration" mean to you?
2. How do you apply "Inspiration?
3. Do you adhere to the Protestant Canon, Catholic Canon, or do you have your own?

I believe these three questions will help to begin the conversation on what you consider "canonical".

I will provide short answers to these questions below.

1. Inspiration is the process by which God imparted His words to the human writers that originally wrote various manuscripts that survive today. I'm limiting this conversation to extant witnesses. I believe Enoch is generally considered to be the first prophet to have recorded/written words that he preached/declared. Though today, the "book" of Enoch is fractured and corrupt in many places and can not be completely trusted. Nevertheless, Jude appeals to words from Enoch as being Scripture. "Inspiration" literally can be seen as "God breathed". Meaning, that these authors did not record their own words, but words directly from God. Which establishes doctrines such Inerrancy.

I will clearly state that all canons contain words from various sources. Words from the authors of various manuscripts, words from translators/editors, and "Thus saith the Lord". It is vitally important that we recognize the differences.

2. We apply "Inspiration" only to the words that fall within the category of "Thus saith the Lord".

3. I have my own list of canonical books. I believe this subject is important enough to not allow other men to define that list for me. I put forth extensive effort to know the subject so as to accurately defend my list.

I look forward to the conversation. Thanks

What is your canon that you follow?

 

[Love Fountain]

I basically believe that the Greek OT is essential to understanding God. I have no problem with including any of the writings found in the Greek OT in my canon/collection of choice.

Hello @praise_yeshua

Thank you for your response!

It appears you accept everything in the Greek OT(Septuagint) and perhaps take issue with the Hebrew Bible canon of the Masoretic Text, is that correct and fair to say?

I generally accept the traditional canon associated with the NT. However, I don't believe it is necessary to argue for the "inspiration" of the NT as collected. I simply judge the NT worthy of being true based upon the canonical Greek OT. I don't believe any author of the NT would claim to be "inspired" based upon the generally accepted understanding of "inspiration". In fact, I believe the way that "inspiration" is taught today actually limits understanding.

Whether OT or NT, humility is a part of the inspiration and it's doubtful anyone utilized by the spirit of God would claim inspiration and self exalt. Read your thread about inspiration and how you place inspiration into three groups(words of men, words of inspired men, dictation from God) and understand how a person could arrive at this understanding through various parts of the biblical texts, rather than complicate inspiration all three of the groups you share in your other post could be simplified into "given from above", for all three, whether the words of men, words of inspired men or dictation from God are all "given from above" or none would occur in relation to anything about God. Perhaps you'll agree and we can move on to the subject of the Canon under the agreement of inspiration simply defined as "given from above"?

Examples for the NT...

I don't believe everything the book of "James" teaches is true and accurate to the revelation of God. However, I would still include it in the necessary list of NT books to understand. I do not believe it is "authoritative" to the degree of NOT questioning the words found therein. Which is how "inspiration" is falsely taught today. The "canon" is complicated and it was a "dirty" process that attempted to define it. I feel no obligation to accept the choices of others. I will/do study to defend and understand what I accept as being true to the revelation of God.

Kindly elaborate why or where you don't accept James as authoritative? Understood you accept it as Canon, would like to understand those issues you have with it?

Example for OT

There is zero doubt that the books of the Maccabees should be included. They are at a very minimum historical. If anyone wants to include the book of "Kings" as being "inspired"... you can't possibly reject the historical narrative of the "Maccabees". Jesus Himself referenced the "Festival of Lights". A historical narrative essential to understanding Judaism at the time of Christ. That said, 1st and 2nd Maccabees is far better than 3rd and 4th Maccabees.

We don't agree on Maccabees being in the Canon, it is a historical significance for sure but nowhere near the brilliance of Kings or having a place in the Hebrew Bible Canon. There are other writings that could be considered "given from above" but the Canon is more than the mere opinions of men and have the spirit of God involved.

Also, I don't have a "closed" canon in the sense that I'm hopefully that new manuscripts will be found that remove the uncertainty associated with the various streams of manuscripts witnessed within the DSS.

Perhaps there already is the proof you search for to remove "the uncertainty" you mention and perhaps we will find it together?

I'm also open to manuscript additions/removal for existing canonical "words" based upon future discoveries.

That's an interesting view and provokes many thoughts, whether OT or NT texts, it is interesting that Alexandria Egypt is in the midst of many questions of additions/removals of many words on the Massoretic or Received Texts, your asserted view regarding current or future discoveries, provokes many things brought into question of the word/s of God that should be in the Bible.

I try to be considerate of any and all extant information associated with this subject. I don't simply reject knowledge because someone cries "inspiration"..... "inspiration".

All things reveal God and His words, if we don't see His words in all things, we should look again and again asking Him to show us.

I hope this helps. There is much detail behind my words above.

Yes, thank you for sharing and look forward to your responses.

Blessings,
Love Fountain

 

[praise_yeshua]

Hi @Love Fountain

Thank you for your response. I hope you don't mind if I ask you a question or two before I respond completely to you thoughtful post. I will say that I disagree with several things you've written.

I've come to recognize that every human being makes statements that comes from their own sensibilities yet they shamelessly attribute such conclusions to God. I believe this happens so often in this life we live that it become "common practice". Considering this, hopefully we agree to "let God be true and every man a liar."

Canonical lists are not authoritative in any manner. They are lists made by men and promoted by men. Nothing more.

I can prove this statement is true in very short order.

1. Do you believe there is any authoritative canonical list? If so, please list one. No need to elaborate. If you will list one, I would like to know your perspective so I can properly answer your statements above.

2. Do you believe any writing in your "canon" of choice is Pseudepigraphical? For example, I believe the book of James is.

3. If you believe any "book" is Pseudepigraphical, then please explain how you have come to completely trust it. Notice how I used the word "completely".

Again. Many use the good name of another to sell their own preferences.

Relative to the LXX, I promote Codex Alexandrinus. Even then, I do not believe every single word was dictated by God in Codex Alexandrinus. If you're going to push the premise that every single word of anything has come to our eyes and ears directly from God, I would like to know that now.

Thanks

 

[Love Fountain]

Thank you for your response. I hope you don't mind if I ask you a question or two before I respond completely to you thoughtful post. I will say that I disagree with several things you've written.

I've come to recognize that every human being makes statements that comes from their own sensibilities yet they shamelessly attribute such conclusions to God. I believe this happens so often in this life we live that it become "common practice". Considering this, hopefully we agree to "let God be true and every man a liar."

Hello @praise_yeshua

Thank you for your response!

Indeed there are folks who say things that they attribute to God and His word everyday which are completely backwards and/or untrue, it's pretty obvious by the forty thousand plus denominations that claim Christ in the world we are living in nowadays.

There are many reasons for their error, one is clearly taking one line of biblical text and building or applying it in blanket applications.

For example, "let God be true and every man a liar.", by this it appears you are saying that you're a liar, I'm a liar, Jesus as a man is a liar, every person born through the womb of woman is a liar, etc...this is a great example of building or applying one line incorrectly to all of mankind. It's important to understanding the subjects of the biblical texts by looking at the complete thought. For example the complete thought that Romans 3:4 that you partially quoted is within a complete thought subject of The revealing of the power and righteousness of God which spans from Romans 2:12-5:11, within the complete thought, the details that lead to the sense and correct understanding of subjects comes forth. This is not done in the biblical text by merely applying a small portion of a verse and applying it to all of mankind.

Canonical lists are not authoritative in any manner. They are lists made by men and promoted by men. Nothing more.

I can prove this statement is true in very short order.

Yes, agreed, some Canonical lists are made by men and it is evident by the inclusion/exclusion of certain texts along with the various ordering of texts, etc...however God is the God of order and we can be sure that God will make straight and correct mankind from the errors of their ways which have strayed from what God intended or precisely ordered.

1. Do you believe there is any authoritative canonical list? If so, please list one. No need to elaborate. If you will list one, I would like to know your perspective so I can properly answer your statements above.

Yes, there is an authoritative canonical list. Let's start with the Massoretic Hebrew Bible aka the TaNaKh which consists of Law, the Prophets and the Writings as follows and in their precise order:

Law

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy

The Prophets

Joshua
Judges
Samuel
Kings
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
The Minor Prophets(Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachai)

The Writings

Psalms
Proverbs
Job
Song of Songs
Ruth
Lamentations
Ecclesiastes
Esther
Daniel
Ezra-Nehemiah
Chronicles

2. Do you believe any writing in your "canon" of choice is Pseudepigraphical? For example, I believe the book of James is.

Pseudepigraphical is a weird word made up by man, anything mankind touches becomes tarnished, God provides ways to clean up the messes that mankind makes, so not sure how you define that word in your understanding of things?

James is witnessed by Matthew, Luke, Paul and the Holy Spirit, not sure why you take subject to James, is it merely because of his name? Please elaborate on your issues with James?

3. If you believe any "book" is Pseudepigraphical, then please explain how you have come to completely trust it. Notice how I used the word "completely".

Sorry, not sure what you mean or are asking? I don't doubt God or His word/s, all things shall come to pass exactly as He says, in that is my complete trust and faith.

Again. Many use the good name of another to sell their own preferences.

Yep, see it and hear it everyday.

Relative to the LXX, I promote Codex Alexandrinus. Even then, I do not believe every single word was dictated by God in Codex Alexandrinus. If you're going to push the premise that every single word of anything has come to our eyes and ears directly from God, I would like to know that now.

Thanks

We don't have the original manuscripts now however it's my opinion and belief those original manuscripts would've been perfectly in the intentions and wordings that God provided and ordered even allowing the characters of those He chose to bring His word through such as a tax collector, a young boy, a doctor, a fisherman, etc...yet now we have versions and various translations in multitude that have rewritten, mixed up, changed, etc...what God originally provided. God has said His word would always continue, so clearly God has protected and provided for His word/s to be correctly established and the tarnished mucky muck to which mankind has placed upon them can be cleaned up. As for "onlyist" mentality, not even close when regarding versions that mankind has touched. Freewill is real, for He wants our love, love is not forced or love could not be true! God gave certain folks jobs to do, we enjoy their labors of love today in their words, their experiences, their trials and the things they overcame, all for a witness, all ordered by God and brought forth because He loves all His children and sent each of them a letter of love, The Bible, to tell them who, where, why, when, what, how, etc....

It is interesting the Alexandrinus is different in gospels than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, please elaborate your preference of Alexandrinus?

Hope my responses help you to further respond to my original two posts and perhaps this third one as well!

Blessings,
Love Fountain

 

[praise_yeshua]

Hello @praise_yeshua

Thank you for your response!

Indeed there are folks who say things that they attribute to God and His word everyday which are completely backwards and/or untrue, it's pretty obvious by the forty thousand plus denominations that claim Christ in the world we are living in nowadays.

There are many reasons for their error, one is clearly taking one line of biblical text and building or applying it in blanket applications.

For example, "let God be true and every man a liar.", by this it appears you are saying that you're a liar, I'm a liar, Jesus as a man is a liar, every person born through the womb of woman is a liar, etc...this is a great example of building or applying one line incorrectly to all of mankind.

I'm not making Jesus out to be a liar because you misunderstand what I wrote. Jesus as a man, never lied. Jesus never lied because He is more than just a man. Yes. You have lied. Yes. I have lied. Jesus didn't lie because He is Eternal and Divine. You are guilty of trying to seperate Christ's Divinity from Christ's humanity.

I'm going to start breaking points apart in my response. I ask that you deal with everyone of them.

It's important to understanding the subjects of the biblical texts by looking at the complete thought. For example the complete thought that Romans 3:4 that you partially quoted is within a complete thought subject of The revealing of the power and righteousness of God which spans from Romans 2:12-5:11, within the complete thought, the details that lead to the sense and correct understanding of subjects comes forth. This is not done in the biblical text by merely applying a small portion of a verse and applying it to all of mankind.

Thank God we come to the first example of false claims attributed to God from you. Did you even know that Paul is quoting Psalm 161 from the Greek OT?

Psa 116:11 And I said in mine bewilderment, Every man is a liar.

Feel free to "explain away" those words found in Psalm 116:11.[/QUOTE]

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yes, there is an authoritative canonical list. Let's start with the Massoretic Hebrew Bible aka the TaNaKh which consists of Law, the Prophets and the Writings as follows and in their precise order:

Why start there? The 9th century MT comes from scribes and Pharisees that hated Christ? It is reconstruction of the OT text that is horribly flawed and less than perfect.

I find ZERO authority in their actions to silence Jesus Christ. Do you care for Jesus Christ or do you reject Christ as Messiah?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Pseudepigraphical is a weird word made up by man, anything mankind touches becomes tarnished, God provides ways to clean up the messes that mankind makes, so not sure how you define that word in your understanding of things?

So you're ignore what actually means and bloviate in defense?

The word has meaning. Feel free to reference a English dictionary to understand an English word.

James is witnessed by Matthew, Luke, Paul and the Holy Spirit, not sure why you take subject to James, is it merely because of his name? Please elaborate on your issues with James?

More than one man is named by these men as being "James".

The very fact you're appealing to some supposed "authority" in this manner tells me that you're very unlearned in this subject.

James...s are named throughout the Scriptures. Not one single extant manuscript of James dates back before the words of these men. James is left off of the earliest canonical lists. James is late. Very late.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Sorry, not sure what you mean or are asking? I don't doubt God or His word/s, all things shall come to pass exactly as He says, in that is my complete trust and faith.

Are you the "Aussie" from "down under" that I mentioned earlier? Is that what has brought you hear. You noticed my posts here?

You're not really answering my questions.

I stuck between believing you're a unrepent Jew seeking to blaspheme Jesus Christ more than you have in your life already or are you a KJVOist.

Speak plainly. Are you a KJVOist or KJVP.... or are you a Jew that hates the work of Jesus Christ to free all the children of Adam and Eve from sin. You know.... like Jonah? He hated it when God forgave Gentiles.

 

[praise_yeshua]

We don't have the original manuscripts now however it's my opinion and belief those original manuscripts would've been perfectly in the intentions and wordings that God provided and ordered even allowing the characters of those He chose to bring His word through such as a tax collector, a young boy, a doctor, a fisherman, etc...yet now we have versions and various translations in multitude that have rewritten, mixed up, changed, etc...what God originally provided. God has said His word would always continue, so clearly God has protected and provided for His word/s to be correctly established and the tarnished mucky muck to which mankind has placed upon them can be cleaned up. As for "onlyist" mentality, not even close when regarding versions that mankind has touched. Freewill is real, for He wants our love, love is not forced or love could not be true! God gave certain folks jobs to do, we enjoy their labors of love today in their words, their experiences, their trials and the things they overcame, all for a witness, all ordered by God and brought forth because He loves all His children and sent each of them a letter of love, The Bible, to tell them who, where, why, when, what, how, etc....[

I've seen an "Onlyist" say words like this before. There are many onlyists throughout history. Vulgate Onlyism has been around for a very long time.

I love the Scriptures myself. Which is why I make sure that I've vetted them BEFORE... I claim something I can't establish as being true. I suppose you just "repeat" what you read and hear without vetting them yourself?

It is interesting the Alexandrinus is different in gospels than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, please elaborate your preference of Alexandrinus?

Hope my responses help you to further respond to my original two posts and perhaps this third one as well!

Blessings,
Love Fountain

That is a very long discussion. I don't see anything from you that establishes your preferences enough to understand your methodology. Please lead the way.

I will repeat myself in saying that I make my own decisions. I know the evidence myself. My choices are not made based upon modern sensibilities. Alexandrinus contains a mixed text type. Which really means nothing relative to the claimed superiority of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

All manuscripts have the same issues. Every single one of them. EVERY one of them. If you want to deal with this issue at a manuscript level then you have no chance in this discussion. If you want to "bloviate" and appeal to a "HIGHER POWER" that supervised/orchestrated your manuscript of choice, then you're already falling under the the same issue we discussed earlier.

You simply are promoting your own choice as "the best"..... I have no desire to use such poor methods as you're appearing to employ yourself.

 

[David Koberstein]

I remember one of the first internet forums that I really actively participated in. The "Net Bible" was being translated at the time and bible.org was much different than it is today. Most of my internet experience debating theology took place in yahoo groups and yahoo chat till that point. Not that it was my first forum experience. Bulletin Boards were around in 90s but most people did not embrace the internet until windows 95 came along.

I was privileged to extensively debate the Biblical canon with the members of bible.org. In fact, I believe it was some of those debates that actually lead them to shutdown their forum. Bible.org had so much rich content during those years. Most of it has long been removed. It really was sad and I have long missed some of the participants. I realized long ago that the subject of the "Biblical Canon" is often the weakest subject found in any individual's theology. I hope to try and change that with this thread....

I'd like to ask everyone a few questions.

1. What does "Inspiration" mean to you?
2. How do you apply "Inspiration?
3. Do you adhere to the Protestant Canon, Catholic Canon, or do you have your own?

I believe these three questions will help to begin the conversation on what you consider "canonical".

I will provide short answers to these questions below.

1. Inspiration is the process by which God imparted His words to the human writers that originally wrote various manuscripts that survive today. I'm limiting this conversation to extant witnesses. I believe Enoch is generally considered to be the first prophet to have recorded/written words that he preached/declared. Though today, the "book" of Enoch is fractured and corrupt in many places and can not be completely trusted. Nevertheless, Jude appeals to words from Enoch as being Scripture. "Inspiration" literally can be seen as "God breathed". Meaning, that these authors did not record their own words, but words directly from God. Which establishes doctrines such Inerrancy.

I will clearly state that all canons contain words from various sources. Words from the authors of various manuscripts, words from translators/editors, and "Thus saith the Lord". It is vitally important that we recognize the differences.

2. We apply "Inspiration" only to the words that fall within the category of "Thus saith the Lord".

3. I have my own list of canonical books. I believe this subject is important enough to not allow other men to define that list for me. I put forth extensive effort to know the subject so as to accurately defend my list.

I look forward to the conversation. Thanks

The Jewish Didache should be in the Canon.