KJVOist, 66 Book Onlyists, Hebrew Onlyists and the like.

[Ransom]

Where did I do this? I might have. I don't remember it.....

Senile, too. Only a few minutes ago you accused me of having a high opinion of myself for calling the following gibberish gibberish . . .

Paul was referencing a canon of the OT that you don't except in your choice of canon today.

 

[Ransom]

I started this thread and referenced the canon from the beginning. We didn't change anything.

That's nice. I was referencing what I was talking about, not what you were.

I'm sure it's just your fingers' fault, though.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Where did I do this? I might have. I don't remember it.....

Senile, too. Only a few minutes ago you accused me of having a high opinion of myself for calling the following gibberish gibberish . . .

Paul was referencing a canon of the OT that you don't except in your choice of canon today.

Okay. You got me. One "work" to make some "man" speak to your justification....

 

[praise_yeshua]

I started this thread and referenced the canon from the beginning. We didn't change anything.

That's nice. I was referencing what I was talking about, not what you were.

I'm sure it's just your fingers' fault, though.

Pardon me for assuming your comments would follow the OP.

 

[FSSL]

He doesn't want to see the evidence. It might change his mind. FSSL is the same way. Neither of them have any real knowledge when it comes to establishing the historical canon...

Then tell us what books, in the 66, need to be removed and which ones should be added.

 

[praise_yeshua]

He doesn't want to see the evidence. It might change his mind. FSSL is the same way. Neither of them have any real knowledge when it comes to establishing the historical canon...

Then tell us what books, in the 66, need to be removed and which ones should be added.

You start by establishing the 66 book canon and I will. I'm not going to base my argument on your demands.

Why 66?

 

[FSSL]

LOL.... we know that would be too risky for ya! I hold to the standard 66. I have studied canonical issues. Standard arguments. Nothing too exciting. I would like to see your "study."

You already told us you eliminate James and 2 Peter from the Bible. Do you add the Macabees?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I have studied canonical issues.

We can tell.  "The book of James was written by James because he calls himself James."

 

[praise_yeshua]

LOL.... we know that would be too risky for ya! I hold to the standard 66. I have studied canonical issues. Standard arguments. Nothing too exciting. I would like to see your "study."

You already told us you eliminate James and 2 Peter from the Bible. Do you add the Macabees?

66 isn't the standard. 72 has been the standard for longer than the 66. 66 is a "Protestant" standard that was revived with the Reformation. Surely you know this?

Why do you say 66 is the standard?

No I wouldn't remove James or 2 Peter. I would put them in their proper perspective. Yes. I would add 1 and 2 Maccabees. If for nothing else, historical reasons. 1 and 2 Maccabees belongs just as much as 1 and 2 Chronicles.

 

[FSSL]

1 & 2. Maccabees belong because they are inspired or because they are historical?

 

[praise_yeshua]

1 & 2. Maccabees belong because they are inspired or because they are historical?

1 & 2 Chronicles belong because they are inspired or historical?

I'll answer when you do.

 

[FSSL]

We can tell.  "The book of James was written by James because he calls himself James."

Your lack of familiarity with my two points above shows you have not read anything regarding the authorship of James.

 

[FSSL]

1 & 2. Maccabees belong because they are inspired or because they are historical?

1 & 2 Chronicles belong because they are inspired or historical?

I'll answer when you do.

Games...

They belong because they are inspired.

Your question undermines your self-proclaimed genius of canonicity issues.

 

[praise_yeshua]

1 & 2. Maccabees belong because they are inspired or because they are historical?

1 & 2 Chronicles belong because they are inspired or historical?

I'll answer when you do.

Games...

They belong because they are inspired.

I included them in my response. You ignored them. No Games. You're demanding I lay everything on the table so you can just stand back and pick away. I want to see you put forth some effort to explain your own beliefs. Not just pick at mine.

To answer your question. I believe them both to be historically accurate. "Inspired".... well. I'm not sure I would go that far.

Tell me. Why do you say 1 and 2 Chronicles are inspired? I can show you some errors in the texts. Clear errors. Errors that can't be explained away via normal textual criticism.

1. Who wrote 1 and 2 Chronicles?
2. Just who has quoted them in later canonical writings?

 

[FSSL]

They were part of the Hebrew canon, from the beginning.

1 & 2 Samuel have errors too, does that make them non canonical? OR could it be that copies developed errors through human error.

Quotations and allusions in later writings is not enough to regard or disregard a text. There are many quotes from secular and apocryphal books.

Jesus considered the book of 2 Chronicles to be sacred. Matthew 23.35

Ezra may have authored them, but that is not certain. Nor does the identification of an author have anything to do with it being canonical.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

We can tell.  "The book of James was written by James because he calls himself James."

Your lack of familiarity with my two points above shows you have not read anything regarding the authorship of James.

Well, I've only read the basics about the authorship of James.  I haven't gotten to the advanced level of analysis and historical evidence that produces insights like, "The book of James was written by James because he calls himself James."

 

[FSSL]

You need to get better sources. Your reduction of my statement is silly.

There are a few possible choices for James. Since the brother of James was most popular, he didn't need to elaborate on his identity.

That is the logic and nearly every commentary introduction I read makes this very point.

 

[praise_yeshua]

They were part of the Hebrew canon, from the beginning.

What beginning. Name the beginning? Date, source, and etc. Don't just say "beginning". The Hebrew Bible began with Moses. It didn't include 1 and 2 Chronicles.

1 & 2 Samuel have errors too, does that make them non canonical? OR could it be that copies developed errors through human error.

Why are you saying "developed". Where the errors there to begin with? How do you know they weren't there from the beginning. I'm speaking of 1 and 2 Chronicles. You don't have to muddy the water with something else.

Quotations and allusions in later writings is not enough to regard or disregard a text. There are many quotes from secular and apocryphal books.

Name something. Just don't "allude" to them.

Jesus considered the book of 2 Chronicles to be sacred. Matthew 23.35

Not true. The prophet mentioned has long been disputed. You just can't go back and find the name "Zachariah" and say that Matthew 23:35 is referencing those verses. Isa 8:2 could well be the person referenced.

Ezra may have authored them, but that is not certain. Nor does the identification of an author have anything to do with it being canonical.

So... just anyone could write it and it would be canonical? Are you being serious?

I assume your rejecting a cornerstone of textual criticism here..... You could care less about the author?

 

[praise_yeshua]

You need to get better sources. Your reduction of my statement is silly.

There are a few possible choices for James. Since the brother of James was most popular, he didn't need to elaborate on his identity.

That is the logic and nearly every commentary introduction I read makes this very point.

Not true. Most attribute it to "James the Just"..... which is what started this argument between you two.

You need to get better sources or tell us why your sources are the best...

 

[FSSL]

Not true. Most attribute it the "James the Just"..... which is what started this argument between you two.

We could argue who the real James is.

You use the word "most" to prop up your own authority on this. Since my view is the traditional view going all the way back to the early fathers, your "most" is just a cheap debate word.

The fact that he (and possibly you) were unaware of my argument from internal evidence is a glaring omission. You are unfamiliar with the arguments.