Is the bible authoritive and truly inspired?

'Since the Catholic Church is the origin of the Christian religion'A. Hitler said that he used the RCC as a model for the Third Reich (somehow, I suspected that before I read it). So we might as well be unbelievers, because there won't be a lot of difference between heaven and hell.

'the Septuagint would have been accurately translated'Claptrap. The LXX has known errors, plenty of them, and no self-respecting scholar would dream of using it as a base text.Edited by ochaye, : ClarificationEdited by ochaye, : No reason given.

How do you know this? At that period the Jews of that area spoke Aramaic. Aramaic is not Hebrew. It is a Semitic language like Hebrew but it is not Hebrew. A good analogy is French and Spanish. Hebrew was more the language of the priesthood and scholars. It was not a language of the humble classes.As for Greek, I think it is safe to assume most Jews of that period were at least familiar with Greek to be at least conversant.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Its a good question. A canon is merely a collection that is agreed to be inspired. Many books were written, but not all proved to be inspired and so the Jews did not include all books in their special collection of 'inspired' books.
The reason for that is because the basis for establishing the genuineness of the book related to the books fulfillment of prophecy and the consistency of its message with other inspired books.How did the Pentateuch become accepted as an inspired book? the proclamations by God were witnessed by the people. They had supernatural phenomenon displayed to them to show that Moses had really come from God...the pronouncements of Moses came to be fulfilled for all to see. So the jews knew that the books written by Moses were authentic and they were accepted as such. To this day they are accepted as authentic.Later writings also had to go thru the same process. They were not automatically accepted, but when the people saw how the fulfillments of what was written took place, then they accepted them as authentic and inspired.Evidence of inspiration was the number one requirement for a book to be included in the cannon. The Jews were not silly, in fact they often berated and persecuted (& killed) their prophets because of their own skepticism to the proclamations. (Just look at what they did to Jesus) It wasnt until the words of the prophets were fulfilled without any doubt that they would accept their words. Jesus accepted the Jewish cannon, why shouldnt we?
Josesphus showed that the books that were accepted as inspired and holy were those written prior to 200 bce. The apocrypha came after adn they were not accepted. I wouldnt call them the 'origin' of christianity, I would be more inclined to say that Christ was the origin of it. I know the Catholic Church claims to be the founder, but that is because they set 'a' canon at the Council of Carthage in 397 ce. But lets face it, christianity started much earlier with Jesus.
So its a bit of a rich claim to make that they are the founders of christianity. its not that the protestants 'changed' the canon. its that they didnt accept the aprocrypha. Even Jerome, the translator of the roman catholic Latin Vulgate, didnt accept those books. He said all apocryphal books should be avoided because they contain much that is faulty and out of harmony with scripture.So the protestants refused to accept books which appeared out of harmony with inspired writings. If the catholic church were being led by God, why couldnt they see the same thing? no, man chose the canon but not all men were guided by God to do so. Just as Hitler was not being guided by God, even though he claimed to be. the evidence is by the books fulfillment. If the things spoken of came to pass, then that was evidence that the book was inspired.

the new testament was written in greek by the Jewish diciples/apostles, this shows that they were a little more then familiar with it. the internal evidence shows Jesus reading aloud in Hebrew in a synagogue and also there is Eusubias who says that Matthew first wrote his Gospel account in Hebrew the mother tongue. (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XXII, col. 941) Jerome also mentions mathews gospel as being written in Hebrew (Concerning Illustrious Men chpt 3)and says that in his day (4th century) it was being held in a library in Cesare.this tells us something about the language they spoke...it was a mix of a greek, aramaic (for jesus used some aramaic names) and hebrew.

what errors are you referring to?Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

You have presented no evidence that the new testament was written by the original apostles. All you have is tradition, a tradition that modern scholarship shows is not correct.How can the bible be authoritative and inspired when it is impossible to identify the actual authors?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I really thought this discussion was about reality, not your own mythology.

quote:

---

Its a good question. A canon is merely a collection that is agreed to be inspired. Many books were written, but not all proved to be inspired and so the Jews did not include all books in their special collection of 'inspired' books.

---

I don't see that evidence of inspiration was part of the process. It was more about what the writings said.

quote:

---

The reason for that is because the basis for establishing the genuineness of the book related to the books fulfillment of prophecy and the consistency of its message with other inspired books.

​

How did the Pentateuch become accepted as an inspired book? the proclamations by God were witnessed by the people. They had supernatural phenomenon displayed to them to show that Moses had really come from God...the pronouncements of Moses came to be fulfilled for all to see. So the jews knew that the books written by Moses were authentic and they were accepted as such. To this day they are accepted as authentic.

​

Later writings also had to go thru the same process. They were not automatically accepted, but when the people saw how the fulfillments of what was written took place, then they accepted them as authentic and inspired.

​

Evidence of inspiration was the number one requirement for a book to be included in the cannon. The Jews were not silly, in fact they often berated and persecuted (& killed) their prophets because of their own skepticism to the proclamations. (Just look at what they did to Jesus) It wasnt until the words of the prophets were fulfilled without any doubt that they would accept their words.

---

Nothing I've read supports your explanation.

quote:

---

Jesus accepted the Jewish cannon, why shouldnt we?
Josesphus showed that the books that were accepted as inspired and holy were those written prior to 200 bce. The apocrypha came after adn they were not accepted.

---

Since you accept the Jewish Canon, then you accept the way the books are classified. Torah - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
Prophets - Former Proophets: Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel (1-2 Kings), 1-2 Kings (3-4 Kings)
Latter Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Book of the Twelve
Writings - The Poetic Books: Psalms, Proverbs, Job
Five Megillot: Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther
Other Books: Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1-2 ChroniclesSo you accept that Daniel is not a prophet.

quote:

---

I wouldnt call them the 'origin' of christianity, I would be more inclined to say that Christ was the origin of it. I know the Catholic Church claims to be the founder, but that is because they set 'a' canon at the Council of Carthage in 397 ce. But lets face it, christianity started much earlier with Jesus.
So its a bit of a rich claim to make that they are the founders of christianity.

---

Just stop. You didn't further the discussion at all. I didn't think I had to spell out every little detail for you. I assumed too much apparently.The followers of Jesus were considered members of a sect of Judaism, The Way. After the destruction of the temple in 70CE the Jewish leaders reorganized and expelled sects they deemed heretical. The religions then became separate. This new religion developed into the Catholic Religion. The Protestant Reformation didn't start until the 1500's.

quote:

---

its not that the protestants 'changed' the canon. its that they didnt accept the aprocrypha. Even Jerome, the translator of the roman catholic Latin Vulgate, didnt accept those books. He said all apocryphal books should be avoided because they contain much that is faulty and out of harmony with scripture.

​

So the protestants refused to accept books which appeared out of harmony with inspired writings. If the catholic church were being led by God, why couldnt they see the same thing?

---

But the Catholics are the ones who deemed the NT writings as inspired. If they got the deuterocanon wrong, why assume they got the NT right? God only inspired them half way?
It took over 1000 years for God to inspire someone to correct the error?
Should be consider Joseph Smith to have been inspired over 300 years later to change Christianity again?You've shown no consistent standard of acceptance other than whatever one wants to accept. Again, man decides what has authority and what doesn't.

quote:

---

no, man chose the canon but not all men were guided by God to do so. Just as Hitler was not being guided by God, even though he claimed to be.

---

But you can't clearly show why one is considered to be guided by God and another isn't.

quote:

---

the evidence is by the books fulfillment. If the things spoken of came to pass, then that was evidence that the book was inspired.

---

That might be your rationale for accepting what you do, but that doesn't seem to be the corporate criteria.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Good point, why can't the the men who claim their canon is inspired be as wrong as Hitler. The only proof of inspiration is the claim in the canon itself.Edited by bluescat48, : missing "qs"Edited by bluescat48, : /

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

how do you know that modern scholars are correct?

what is the corporate criteria?

Present your evidence for the traditional authors. I am confident I can present evidence that shows that your beliefs are based on tradition and nothing else.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I provide links for a reason. Please read them before you waste a post asking a question for which I've already provided the answer. Criteria for inclusion in the Jewish canon

quote:

---

Good point, why can't the the men who claim their canon is inspired be as wrong as Hitler. The only proof of inspiration is the claim in the canon itself.

---

Exactly!Peg has yet to explain why the Catholic Church was wrong about the OT books, but right about the NT books.God took a nap while they discussed the books in the deuterocanon? If a group of protestants can decide the deuterocanonicals are not inspired, why can't Biblical scholars today decide which authors are actually known and which ones aren't? The Protestants were inspired to dump the deuterocanonicals, but the scholars aren't inspired to discern authorship?Supposedly Luther also took out four New Testament books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation). He put them in an appendix. They were later returned to the NT by other Protestants.So Luther was partially inspired to take out the deuterocanon, but lost inspiration when it came to the four books of the NT. God then had to inspire later protestants to return the four books.The sacred books are chosen to fit the theology of the group making the decision. Man is the authority.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

i'll start with the books of Moses.the prase 'The book of the law of Moses' and similar references to the first five books of the Bible, are found from the time of Moses successor, Joshua, onward. Joshua was a close assistent to Moses so the fact that he calls the writings 'the law of Moses' testifies that Moses was the author. Almost every other writer , about 200 references, says that law 'of Moses' This is likely why the Jews never needed to question who wrote the Pentateuch. Even Jesus himself said the Pentateuch was the 'Law of Moses'If Joe Blow wrote the pentateuch, it would have been referred to as 'the law of Joe Blow'