Importance of Innerrancy to Moderate Christians

Do we know exactly what was in the originals? Beyond the first five books of the Bible are there ANY other books common to all Canon? Yet I am a believer and do not see that internal consistency. For example, much of the concept of the Fall of Satan comes from Enoch, yet Enoch is not part of YOUR Canon.So to some questions, simple ones I hope.Are there any originals of ANY book of the Bible?As asked above, are there ANY books other than the first five books of the Bible that are common to ALL Canon?Is there any reason to think that Jesus references to Genesis were any different than His references to other known experiences and common culture?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Do we know exactly what was in the originals?

---

For most of it yes, for some of it, close.

quote:

---

Beyond the first five books of the Bible are there ANY other books common to all Canon?

---

I've already answered this. The Muratorian list that truthlover mentioned is a good start:{EDIT: Had the wrong URL. This one should be the right one:The Muratorian Fragment

quote:

---

Yet I ...do not see that internal consistency. For example, much of the concept of the Fall of Satan comes from Enoch, yet Enoch is not part of YOUR Canon.

---

Bible studies I'm familiar with find it all in Isaiah and Ezekiel.The Apocrypha are not considered inspired but some of them are respected as good teaching nevertheless. But again, the fall of Satan is taught from Isaiah and Ezekiel in my experience.

quote:

---

Are there any originals of ANY book of the Bible?

---

Of course not. The earliest copies are a very few from the second century. This has been discussed in great detail on earlier threads.

quote:

---

Is there any reason to think that Jesus references to Genesis were any different than His references to other known experiences and common culture?

---

They certainly authenticate the book of Genesis. Otherwise I have no idea what you are referring to.

quote:

---

As asked above, are there ANY books other than the first five books of the Bible that are common to ALL Canon?

---

ALL canon? I have no idea. Western canon yes, and the Muratorian list should do it. The Muratorian FragmentEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : change URLEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

So we have NO originals of ANY book of the Bible.You are limiting your claims to only ONE of the Canons and simply declaring the ONE You Select is the innerant Canon? to which Faith replies:

quote:

---

They certainly authenticate the book of Genesis. Otherwise I have no idea what you are referring to.

---

How? How is Jesus references to the stories found in Genesis any different than His reference to any other custom or experience familar to His audience?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

so, in your view, if one goes against the traditional Bible they're wrong .Your standard of truth is the traditional Bible, as canonised during the Ecumenical Councils, by the early church fathers.I have to maintain then that you are putting your faith in those men who canonised the Bible, putting their judgement above everything else, including God's direct and unaltered Creation and also his unique gift of critical thinking.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Yes. The one we have now, the 66 books now, 39 OT and 27 NT, which I don't think was quite what they had then. I've already answered this charge. I'm trusting men led by the Holy Spirit through my own leading by the Holy Spirit.And that process involves critical thinking, by the way. It just disagrees with non-Holy-Spirit-inspired critical thinking.Trusting in the mute Creation over words designed to be understood by the human mind makes no sense but it's advocated here frequently as if it did.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

fair enough, but still the direct work of men not God. I strongly suspect that to you the definition of 'non-Holy-Spirit-inspired critical thinking' is any thinking that dosn't agree with you or the Canonical Bible. Mute creation?! I don't think so. Just looking at a tree trunk can tell you dozens of things , from its age to climatic variations throughout the years.Words have different meanings and interpretations, why do you think there are thousands of Christian denominations all based on the Bible but believing different things ?Physical laws, on the other hand, are applied and understood the same by all people at all times at all places on earth.IF only the same could be said of the Bible!if God chose the Bible to convey his message then he either got it very wrong or doesn't care at all about everyone understanding his message.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

No it cannot tell that to everyone, only to a few who have studied the subject. That's the point. Only words speak to everyone, trees do not. The Bible speaks to everyone, trees do not.Also, WHAT the tree "says" is extremely limited and unimportant by comparison to the Bible. The differences that you like to multiply may be quantitatively impressive but qualitatively they are very minor and do not affect anything crucial. There are always those, however, who will "wrest them to their own destruction" by ignoring their plain meaning. Only the very few of all the world's population who study science can read them. The Bible can be read or understood by hearing it, by everyone.And again, the physical laws speak of unimportant things by comparison with the Bible. Ridiculously unimportant things by comparison with the absolutely infinitely important things of the Bible. You are so wrong.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

so, you're one who holds the bible akin to an extended parable?

quote:

---

Salvation is not just a promise of eternal life in bliss. Salvation is deliverance from "sin." It is the ability to live as we believe is right and good and to live in fellowship with God, rather than living as our lusts and desires drive us to live.

---

but, it claims dominion over what is and isn't "sin" no? somehow that doesn't sit well with me.

quote:

---

Instead, you have a real, transforming power that guarantees the promise.

---

but the only way you know about the promise and the message is the book itself.I just can't... swallow the idea, of a central text of a system, the instruction manual if you will, that has holes in it.

If one accepts the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church as the Council of Nicea in 325 (convened by Emperor Constantine), certainly the book of Revelation was not an accepted part of the Canon by that time as the record shows that Bishop St. John Chrysostom argued against its inclusion and he wasn't even born until 347. The Eastern Patriarch was still disputing its inclusion in the 9th century and the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't accept it as part of their Divine Liturgy today. And of course none other than Martin Luther disputed its value as scripture. So at least with respect to Revelation your claim that the canon was "settled" before the era of the Roman Church is not true. I suspect if one did some research one could find that there were other books that were not so "settled" as well. Yes that would be because Galileo's acceptance of the Copernican solar system was not based on scripture but rather it was based on his own observations of the night sky with a telescope. Had nothing to do with the "Protestant view." And once again you are indulging in wishful thinking speculation. Show me one place in the Bible where the Copernican solar system is supported.

Me either. No matter how you spin it, the system stands or falls on the text, a text which is the ONLY source of ANY of the tenets a Christian must believe.

Every text has holes in it. Are you saying you can't "swallow" anything?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I've ONLY referred to the CORE canon as absolutely established early on, DB, and repeated that a number of times already. I've acknowledged that SOME books were in dispute. Obviously Revelation is a difficult book with its visionary apocalyptic imagery, especially considering that there were many other apocalyptic writings in circulation at the time as well. It's been vindicated over time as belonging to the canon. I was responding to someone's -- yours? -- claim that Galileo loved the Bible. That being the case he did not consider his observations to be in contradiction with it. Neither does a Protestant reading of the Bible, and I simply supposed he must have read it similarly. The Roman church was, again, following an aristotelian cosmology and apparently they read that into the Bible.I don't see anything in the Bible that contradicts Galileo.

Evenings and mornings exist as a result of the earth's rotation relative to the sun. Yet the sun is not placed in the heavens until the fourth day. This does not contradict Galileo? The sun stands still for Joshua so the day is extended. The earth's rotation relative to the sun determines day length. This does not contradict Galileo? The few places where the sun is mentioned in the Bible it is always in the context of geocentric cosmology, not Copernican cosmology. Of course it contradicts Galileo and that is what had the Pope upset.

{deleted, my mistake}Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

it can have tiny tiny holes, not holes i can stick my finger through.