Validity of the Bible

[heymike3]

Authoritative is another useful word.

The Bible is a fallible (human authority) collection of infallible (divine authority) books.

[03Cobra (Vance)]

@beaglelady

No, that is not terrible! Our churches have taken a stand–“This is what we accept.” You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and it’s not working.

The practice of excluding followers of Jesus from the assembly of believers based on differences that are debatable, such as the components of the canon, is in direct contradiction to what Jesus said in John 17 right before facing the trial and cross:

18 As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.

19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth.

20 "I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word,

21 that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

22 The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one,

23 I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

We don’t have to agree on the minor details, and we should never exclude from the fellowship of believers people who disagree on things like the canon, sprinkling or immersion, spiritual gifts, and a long list.

[Bill_II]

@03Cobra

So, if you have an example of the 66-book canon being used anywhere before the 1800s, I would love to see it.

My point is that at various times the OT canon was less than the 53 books in your example of the KJV.
In discussing the formation of the OT canon McDonald says

A. Jepsen (‘Canon and Text’, 69f.) has mounted a very strong historical case that each province of the Christian church tended to form its own canon. He demonstrated that in the East four major forms of the Old Testament canon can be identified according to geographical areas.

Still don’t know why you are objecting. If I understand you correctly you don’t accept the 80 book canon as is. I am certainly not arguing that the 66 book canon is correct.

[beaglelady]

@03Cobra

The practice of excluding followers of Jesus from the assembly of believers based on differences that are debatable, such as the components of the canon, is in direct contradiction to what Jesus said in John 17 right before facing the trial and cross:

Jesus said nothing about the canon. His Bible was the Old Testament. btw, you quoted from the Canonical Gospels.

@03Cobra

We don’t have to agree on the minor details, and we should never exclude from the fellowship of believers people who disagree on things like the canon, sprinkling or immersion, spiritual gifts, and a long list.

Is this some new Evangelical thing, to question the canon? If so, it’s the first I’ve heard of it. The canon is important to mainline churches because the church gets her doctrines from the books named in the canons. But hey, whatever floats your boat. Gospel of Thomas, anyone?

[bluebird1 (Robin)]

It might be very useful here to cite book title, author name, year of publication — and to use quotation marks. Summing up what an author “basically” said is great but then…all the reader gets is someone’s interpretation (potentially) of what was being summed up…

Thanks

[bluebird1 (Robin)]

Gospel of Thomas was written late. Jesus may not have mentioned the canon…but then He lived before the NT canon was developed.

[beaglelady]

@bluebird1

Jesus may not have mentioned the canon…but then He lived before the NT canon was developed.

And therefore his comments weren’t about the canon. But we get our ideas about Jesus from the canonical Gospels.

@bluebird1

Gospel of Thomas was written late.

I brought up GoT because it presents a very different picture of Jesus than the one we see in the canonical Gospels.

[bluebird1 (Robin)]

Well…yes but Jesus’ comments are in the gospels which “are” the canon.

Now, I really am more interested in that other person supplying his sources. I see that Rave has “left the building” so to speak.

[Bill_II]

@bluebird1

Summing up what an author “basically” said is great but then…all the reader gets is someone’s interpretation (potentially) of what was being summed up…

Actually I was correcting Vance’s summary of what Metzger said.

@bluebird1

and to use quotation marks.

That is the point of the quote blocks.

I mentioned the book before but this quote came from The Canon of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger, 1987.

[beaglelady]

@bluebird1

Well…yes but Jesus’ comments are in the gospels which “are” the canon.

Which is what I’ve been pointing out all along.

[03Cobra (Vance)]

@Bill_II

Actually I was correcting Vance’s summary of what Metzger said.

What I wrote was accurate and needed no correction, yet I am still waiting on you to present any example of the 66-book canon that existed before the 1800s.

Your earlier attempt only focused on Luther’s doubts about the apocrypha, yet it was invalid because Luther questioned other other books in the canon (as others have pointed out).

[03Cobra (Vance)]

@beaglelady

Is this some new Evangelical thing

I have noticed that you seem to see Evangelicals as a source of problems.

I wonder about that.

No, don’t blame Evangelicals for my desire for people to think about the canon and my desire that people actually understand church history.

[Bill_II]

You said

@03Cobra

I will check — I think Bruce Metzger used the word “haphazard” in his book on the New Testament canon, at a minimum recognizing the establishment of the canon could be seen that way.

But what he actually said was

To some scholars the seemingly haphazard manner in which the canon was delimited is an offence. It is sometimes asked how the canon can be regarded as a special gift of God to the Church when its development from a ‘soft’ to a ‘hard’ canon progressed in what appears to be such a random and, indeed, haphazard manner. According to Willi Marxsen, ‘from the historical point of view the fixing of the Canon of the New Testament is accidental’.
The Canon of the New Testament, Bruce Metzger, 1987

So you made it seem that “haphazard” was Metzger’s position when it isn’t. Which I gently corrected by adding “by some” to what you said. A very minor correction indeed.

And you are well aware that the canons (yes plural as there is more than one) have been developed over time with books being added or removed at different points of time and place. This discussion has really be about the table of content in English translations.

And I will close with this quote which I think aligns with your position.

The best available information about the earliest followers of Jesus shows that they did not have such canons as the church presently possesses today, nor did they indicate that their successors should draw them up. Even the church’s collection of OT Scriptures was considerably broader in scope than those presently found in either the Catholic or Protestant canons and with much more flexibility than our present collections allow. To the extent that this is true, one is forced to ask the question of whether biblical canons are in fact Christian?
The Biblical Canon, Lee Martin McDonald, 2007, Chapter 15

[bluebird1 (Robin)]

Thanks…yes I do see that Vance was the one who used the word. I have read Metzger’s work and have his Canon of the New Testament…

[03Cobra (Vance)]

@Bill_II

So you made it seem that “haphazard” was Metzger’s position when it isn’t.

No, you need to read my post again.

I wrote “ I will check — I think Bruce Metzger used the word “haphazard” in his book on the New Testament canon, at a minimum recognizing the establishment of the canon could be seen that way.”

And he did use the word haphazard and quoted another scholar who saw it that way.

Here is the quote from Metzger again:

“At this point it is appropriate to consider another aspect of the development of the canon—its apparently fortuitous character.36 To some scholars the seemingly haphazard manner in which the canon was delimited is an offence. It is sometimes asked how the canon can be regarded as a special gift of God to the Church when its development from a ‘soft’ to a ‘hard’ canon progressed in what appears to be such a random and, indeed, haphazard manner. According to Willi Marxsen, ‘from the historical point of view the fixing of the Canon of the New Testament is accidental’.37”

Excerpt From
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
Bruce M Metzger

Apple Books

‎The Canon of the New Testament

‎Religion & Spirituality · 1997

This material may be protected by copyright.

He wrote some scholars saw it as haphazard.

I did not misrepresent his position.

[03Cobra (Vance)]

@bluebird1

Thanks…yes I do see that Vance was the one who used the word. I have read Metzger’s work and have his Canon of the New Testament

Yes, both Vance and Metzger used the word.

I did not say Metzger called it haphazard. I wrote that Metzger said some scholars saw it that way.

I try to be careful not to misrepresent the writings of others, and I really like Metzger’s work on the canon, textual criticism, and the NRSV.

Metzger’s stance on inerrancy is the same as mine — he held the scripture in high regard but did not accept inerrancy, believing we should not make claims for the Bible that it does not make for itself.

[beaglelady]

@03Cobra

I have noticed that you seem to see Evangelicals as a source of problems.

I wonder about that.

So your views aren’t shared by anybody else?

@03Cobra

No, don’t blame Evangelicals for my desire for people to think about the canon and my desire that people actually understand church history.

Sounds like you’re moving the goalposts.

[bluebird1 (Robin)]

Appreciate your comments. When this particular conversation site was simply (?!) “Validity of the Bible,” this was OK…I gave Rave a list of things and then he disappeared into the shadows (it seems)… But now we have veered off into a subject that, while related and important —I just think that, to do it justice, it does not fit in a forum (short phrases, quotes from somewhere etc, where-did-you-get-that-footnote? five Greek meanings of the Aramaic root of the Ubaid phrase for such and such which someone found on a pottery shard at a garage sale etc) like this one at Biologos. Too many subcategories, the-real-meaning-of-this-Greek-word-per-my-favorite- writer, multiple meanings, things-that-are-found-in-footnotes etc…I do think the Bible is inerrant but this does not mean I think there are not a range of literary styles. So even things like “what do you mean by inerrant” can have long conversations (usually emotional)…I’ve read Metzger’s Canon of the NT …also his Text of the New Testament…and works by Aland…Kofoed, …van Toorn, and other people with names that I cannot spell without looking them up somewhere…I like NRSV too…and other translations… Have a good day

[Michael_Callen]

There is no proof of God. And there is no faith except for one that is personal. It is the individual encounters that one has with the person of Jesus that allow faith to become real. You can choose to accept or reject my own experiences, and I respect that. When I mention how I have “asked God” this or that, it is not to prove to you that God exists. It is to share an example of how I, personally, know that God exists. Anyone who is curious can read about God in the Bible and see how what they read affects them, personally. But to reject another’s story as being personal and not seek one’s own personal experience is folly. I utterly agree with you that my story is not yours. But because my story is my own, it does not invalidate my story. I have studied the Bible for many years and have had many significant experiences doing so. You can do the same. Faith is not about proof. God did not leave evidence to be discovered. But God definitely left indications such that one should seek and find him. That can only happen when one, as you aptly point out, “proves” it to himself.