The canon was closed with Deuteronomy

[FSSL]

All I want is the truth. Just looking for evidence. Shallow arguments like....It quotes Deut 4.... it must be Scripture.... is just down right silly.

Nope. I said, "John got the background for his teaching directly from Deut. Without the OT, Revelation does not make sense."

If you cannot accept that and need to continually twist my words... play on. It is obvious to all that you cannot debate honestly.

 

[praise_yeshua]

All I want is the truth. Just looking for evidence. Shallow arguments like....It quotes Deut 4.... it must be Scripture.... is just down right silly.

Nope. I said, "John got the background for his teaching directly from Deut. Without the OT, Revelation does not make sense."

If you cannot accept that and need to continually twist my words... play on. It is obvious to all that you cannot debate honestly.

What "background"? Deut 4:2? That's the only "background" you've referenced.

I never twisted your words. Don't be a sore loser.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

By the way, which canon was closed "no additions, no deletions" because Revelation says so?  We can eliminate Marcion's list, because he doesn't include Revelation.  But the others do (red indicates not included).  According to FSSL's mythical logic, we should have stopped at Irenaeus' list.

 

[FSSL]

What "background"? Deut 4:2? That's the only "background" you've referenced.

I did also cite chapter 12 and the one in Proverbs. Also, I said more than that, but your head starts to assume before your eyes read the sentences: ""John got the background for his teaching directly from Deut. Without the OT, Revelation does not make sense."

There, I bolded what you overlooked.

I never twisted your words. Don't be a sore loser.

LOL... the irony as you just twisted them again and I had to untwist them.

 

[FSSL]

Well Rogue... Someone got it right and someone got it wrong. As far as I am concerned, there is no book in our current 66 that I could ever claim is not God's word.

You may be convinced that you have found errors to discredit the 66. Your assumptions and speculations have been dealt with handily.

 

[Vince Massi]

Gong back to your very first post in this series, Rogue, you make an excellent point.

 

[praise_yeshua]

What "background"? Deut 4:2? That's the only "background" you've referenced.

I did also cite chapter 12 and the one in Proverbs. Also, I said more than that, but your head starts to assume before your eyes read the sentences: ""John got the background for his teaching directly from Deut. Without the OT, Revelation does not make sense."

There, I bolded what you overlooked.

I never twisted your words. Don't be a sore loser.

LOL... the irony as you just twisted them again and I had to untwist them.

I don't see those verse quotes in this thread. Maybe you dreamed it...

 

[praise_yeshua]

Well Rogue... Someone got it right and someone got it wrong. As far as I am concerned, there is no book in our current 66 that I could ever claim is not God's word.

You may be convinced that you have found errors to discredit the 66. Your assumptions and speculations have been dealt with handily.

No one believes you've done that... You're living in a fantasy.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Well Rogue... Someone got it right and someone got it wrong. As far as I am concerned, there is no book in our current 66 that I could ever claim is not God's word.

You may be convinced that you have found errors to discredit [some of] the 66. Your assumptions and speculations have been dealt with handily.

And you may be convinced that the 66 are the be all and end all. 

That doesn't mean you're the one who has it right.  It just means you're convinced. 

But, based on your reasoning that Rev 22:19 seals the whole canon, Irenaeus got it right, and you have it wrong.  People after him violated Rev 22:19 and added to the closed canon of scripture.  So either you're wrong about the 66, or your reasoning about Rev 22 is wrong, or both. 

I'm leaning toward "both". 

 

[FSSL]

Funny... If you get rid of Rev 22.19, then what do you do with Deut 4, 12 and the Proverb?

It seems there is a lot of capricious picking and choosing going on.

A verse sounded harsh and people don't think John could have said it... Now THAT is convincing

Get rid of the whole book of Rev.

 

[FSSL]

What "background"? Deut 4:2? That's the only "background" you've referenced.

I did also cite chapter 12 and the one in Proverbs. Also, I said more than that, but your head starts to assume before your eyes read the sentences: ""John got the background for his teaching directly from Deut. Without the OT, Revelation does not make sense."

There, I bolded what you overlooked.

I never twisted your words. Don't be a sore loser.

LOL... the irony as you just twisted them again and I had to untwist them.

I don't see those verse quotes in this thread. Maybe you dreamed it...

Nah.. I wrote "cited" and you read "quoted." You can't keep anything straight. You are day dreaming. See Post #7

 

[praise_yeshua]

What "background"? Deut 4:2? That's the only "background" you've referenced.

I did also cite chapter 12 and the one in Proverbs. Also, I said more than that, but your head starts to assume before your eyes read the sentences: ""John got the background for his teaching directly from Deut. Without the OT, Revelation does not make sense."

There, I bolded what you overlooked.

I never twisted your words. Don't be a sore loser.

LOL... the irony as you just twisted them again and I had to untwist them.

I don't see those verse quotes in this thread. Maybe you dreamed it...

Nah.. I wrote "cited" and you read "quoted." You can't keep anything straight. You are day dreaming. See Post #7

I didn't see where you "cited" the verses. Maybe those admin powers you have changed it. I know Ransom changed a comment he posted the other day and it didn't show as being edited.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Funny... If you get rid of Rev 22.19, then what do you do with Deut 4, 12 and the Proverb?

It seems there is a lot of capricious picking and choosing going on.

Yeah. You've made some rather capricious chooses....what about  Sirach 39:18? or 35:12? Here. I'll post them for you.

Sir 39:18  His whole favor appeared by his commandement, and none can diminish that which he will say

Or Sir 35:12?

Sir_35:12  Diminish nothing of thine offering: for he will not receive it, and abstain from wrongful sacrifices: for the Lord is the judge, and regardeth no mans person.

If these aren't good enough for you.... I'll post some more. The various authors of the deuterocanon said the same things. You reject them but accept Deut 4, 12, and Proverbs 30 because they are similar.

Don't be a sore loser....

A verse sounded harsh and people don't think John could have said it... Now THAT is convincing

I didn't saying anything about the verse being harsh. Prove it. What I said, in another thread, was it was added to combat those who were corrupting the texts.

Get rid of the whole book of Rev.

Again. A lie. I never said such and you refuse to acknowledge this. You just keep repeating your lie.

 

[FSSL]

I didn't see where you "cited" the verses. Maybe those admin powers you have changed it. I know Ransom changed a comment he posted the other day and it didn't show as being edited.

It must be the English language that is giving you a difficult time. Nothing has been edited.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I didn't see where you "cited" the verses. Maybe those admin powers you have changed it. I know Ransom changed a comment he posted the other day and it didn't show as being edited.

It must be the English language that is giving you a difficult time. Nothing has been edited.

Yeah. That's it. Pray for me!!

 

[FSSL]

FSSL: Get rid of the whole book of Rev.

PY: Again. A lie. I never said such and you refuse to acknowledge this. You just keep repeating your lie.

FSSL: I know you didn't say that. Since you believe that Rev 22.19 is a corruption, then the entire book must be. Get rid of it. Get rid of the whole book if you cannot accept Rev 22.19.

 

[praise_yeshua]

FSSL: I know you didn't say that. Since you believe that Rev 22.19 is a corruption, then the entire book must be. Get rid of it. Get rid of the whole book if you cannot accept Rev 22.19.

I don't make such nonsensical arguments. I'm not a KJVOist or a 66 BookOnlyist that deals in such absolutes. If someone made a mistake by altering the text, I don't reject the text entirely. I just recognize the problems in the text and move on. Contrary to what you might think, I'm not a higher critic.

Question for you.... I can name dozens of NT texts that we know have been altered. Either accidentally or intentionally.

Would you reject those texts as well since the text contains a verse that has been altered or inserted?

Daniel Wallace is a honest man. He deals with such things honest in this short article below...

https://bible.org/article/significance-scribal-corruptions-new-testament-text

 

[praise_yeshua]

FSSL: Get rid of the whole book of Rev.

PY: Again. A lie. I never said such and you refuse to acknowledge this. You just keep repeating your lie.

FSSL: I know you didn't say that. Since you believe that Rev 22.19 is a corruption, then the entire book must be. Get rid of it. Get rid of the whole book if you cannot accept Rev 22.19.

Be the way...... why did you ignore my references to Sirach?

 

[FSSL]

I look at the textual evidence, not assumptions made by an early church father.

The only problem with Rev 22.19 is "book" attested to very late manuscripts.

The verse, itself, has wide and full mss support.

Our difference lies in you following speculations and assumptions.

 

[FSSL]

Be the way...... why did you ignore my references to Sirach?

It is a complete diversion.