Don't point your canon at me please.

[Justin Adams]

Hello from the FAR-SIDE of reason and thought. This little post has been something that's on my mind for a good while. I understand anyone can shoot holes in any argument I make, so I am not making any. Rather I am hoping that you will point your ideas of 'canon' elsewhere. Maybe understand what was said by Paul, that all scripture might be found to be of some value for exhortation and reproof...etc.

First Enoch never made a viable bid for canonicity in the Jewish community. While it obviously shaped Jewish thought, only the Qumranites seemed interested in preserving it. They viewed it as an appendix to and interpretation of Scripture instead of Scripture itself.¹⁶ As the apocalyptic works tended to stir national fervor, the rabbis suppressed them in normative Judaism after the failed Zealot revolt of A.D. 70.

On the other hand, Enoch enjoys a long history of various Christians arguing for its inclusion or exclusion. That early Christians shared the Jewish fascination with this man who never died cannot be disputed. No less than 24 ancient works identify Enoch and Elijah as the two witnesses of Revelation 11.¹⁷ However, 1 Enoch’s place in the canon was not assured.

While Tertullian argued that Enoch belonged in the canon based on Jude’s quotations, others argued that Jude should be removed from the canon because of its quotations from non-canonical works like Enoch.¹⁸ Agreeing with Tertullain, the Ethiopic Church canonized 1 Enoch.¹⁹ Likewise, the Manicheans kept another related but separate work of Enoch, The Book of Giants. The Epistle of Barnabas and Athenagoras’ Embassy for Christians both allude to Enoch in favorable ways. Clement and Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4.16.2) both quote Enoch favorably (but not as Scripture).²⁰However, all of these arguments together did not prevail, and the early Church ultimately rejected Enoch from the canon.

The above is Public Domain and worthy of some study along with the Church Father's ideas.
_________________________________

I have looked and studied somewhat and find no real evidence that the 'canon' of our 'bible' is any more perfect than the preacher that might proclaim a 'biblical inerrant' text. Or the 'experts' that voted for or against the inclusion of various books. We may wish to put these learned folk on a pedestal, but have to be very careful of doing so. We have some additional texts to choose from since 100-450 AD and are not quite so superstitious. (Well, some of us are not.) Others may cling to their sacred cows for no other reason that security of mind and some weird kind of fear that 'non-inspired' words will hurt them.

Early Christians often carried mini-bibles with them as 'proof' of their Christian beliefs. It was often considered iconoclastic to touch a 'bible' and much superstition surrounded this.

Some of the more extreme branches of Roman power deemed it sacrilege for a 'commoner' to touch the scripture and death was the often the outcome.

Yes, I said DEATH for owning a bible! These are some of the 'rational people' that created the canon...

It is very confusing to a modern day reader to be able to see the mind-set of the early believers and the 'holy-grail' attitude regarding texts. There were no space ships or fancy modern tech. There was the written word which was the be-all and end-all of much that was considered rational and real.

I do know that Revelations was nearly excluded from the biblical canon along with the Pauline writings.
Scholars argued about that for hundreds of years, some groups accepted it, some accepted other collections of writings.

Reading the accounts of the various church fathers is quite illuminating to say the least.

I understand that this post may seem to bring into question some peoples beliefs. This is not intended at all.
We should, as Christians, believe in Yeshua, His Words and Works.
We should be careful of the works and rituals and icons of men. 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by Justin Adams
typos

[Guest shiloh357]

35 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

Hello from the FAR-SIDE of reason and thought. This little post has been something that's on my mind for a good while. I understand anyone can shoot holes in any argument I make, so I am not making any. Rather I am hoping that you will point your ideas of 'canon' elsewhere. Maybe understand what was said by Paul, that all scripture might be found to be of some value for exhortation and reproof...etc.

 

Where do you stand on the inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible as we have it now?   Do you believe the 66 books of the Bible are 100% the Word of God with no mixture of error?

[Justin Adams]

https://www.gotquestions.org/translation-inspiration.html

Most translations of the Bible are done by committee. This helps to guarantee that no individual prejudice or theology will affect the decisions of word choice, etc. Of course, the committee itself may have a particular agenda or bias (such as those producing the current “gender-neutral”, mis-translations). But there is still plenty of good scholarship being done, and many good translations are available.

Having a good, honest translation of the Bible is important. A good translating team will have done its homework and will let the Bible speak for itself.

As a general rule, the more literal translations, such as the KJV, NKJV, ASB and NASB, have less “interpretative” work. The “freer” translations, such as the NIV, NLT, and CEV, by necessity do more “interpretation” of the text, but are generally more readable. Then there are the paraphrases, such as The Message and The Living Bible, which are not really translations at all but one person’s retelling of the Bible.

So, with all that in view, are translations of the Bible inspired and inerrant? The answer is no, they are not. God nowhere extends the promise of inspiration to translations of His Word. While many of the translations available today are superb in quality, they are not inspired by God, and are not perfect. Does this mean we cannot trust a translation? Again, the answer is no. Through careful study of Scripture, with the Holy Spirit's guidance, we can properly understand, interpret, and apply Scripture. Again, due to the faithful efforts of dedicated Christian translators (and of course the oversight of the Holy Spirit), the translations available today are superb and trustworthy. The fact that we cannot ascribe inerrancy to a translation should motivate us towards even closer study, and away from blind devotion towards any particular translation.

[Justin Adams]

One of the greatest of God's creative masterpieces is the inherent HOMOGENEITY of human experience.

To expect no slight variance, would make us all cookie-cutter Christians. To make us otherwise, would be to make us automatons. Variation is a wonderful asset in all of God's creatures.

...to err is human, to really screw up requires a computer...

[Justin Adams]

Far be it from me to belittle or marginalize any of the worthy scholars that did their utmost to present posterity with scripture. I would like to think that any new Christians reading this will not think us a bunch of bigots, but worthy saints that will consider all points of view (unlike most liberals I have met).

It seems that some folk today are more concerned with holding to their particular dogma than embracing other potential sources of information that the Holy Spirit may wish them to understand. Then comes the personal attack when reason will not suffice. Natural I suppose if one feels threatened. But not necessary.

Thank you for your input.

[Guest shiloh357]

6 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

https://www.gotquestions.org/translation-inspiration.html

Most translations of the Bible are done by committee. This helps to guarantee that no individual prejudice or theology will affect the decisions of word choice, etc. Of course, the committee itself may have a particular agenda or bias (such as those producing the current “gender-neutral”, mis-translations). But there is still plenty of good scholarship being done, and many good translations are available.

Having a good, honest translation of the Bible is important. A good translating team will have done its homework and will let the Bible speak for itself.

As a general rule, the more literal translations, such as the KJV, NKJV, ASB and NASB, have less “interpretative” work. The “freer” translations, such as the NIV, NLT, and CEV, by necessity do more “interpretation” of the text, but are generally more readable. Then there are the paraphrases, such as The Message and The Living Bible, which are not really translations at all but one person’s retelling of the Bible.

So, with all that in view, are translations of the Bible inspired and inerrant? The answer is no, they are not. God nowhere extends the promise of inspiration to translations of His Word. While many of the translations available today are superb in quality, they are not inspired by God, and are not perfect. Does this mean we cannot trust a translation? Again, the answer is no. Through careful study of Scripture, with the Holy Spirit's guidance, we can properly understand, interpret, and apply Scripture. Again, due to the faithful efforts of dedicated Christian translators (and of course the oversight of the Holy Spirit), the translations available today are superb and trustworthy. The fact that we cannot ascribe inerrancy to a translation should motivate us towards even closer study, and away from blind devotion towards any particular translation.

But do you believe that the original manuscripts of the 66 books of Scripture are of 100% divine origin and are fully inspired by God, and 100% inerrant and infallible?  That is what I am asking.

[Justin Adams]

As stated, that is impossible to prove. However, is God 100% in control? Yes. But here again, that is impossible to prove. Thus Yeshua took issue with the pharisees mindset, as they were attempting to be what they could never be, and in so doing totally overlooked God's Messiah, Yeshua. 

"God Breathed" has never been limited to just books, or persons, or things. He also does not share His Glory. 

I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols (Isaiah 48:8)

Edited September 17, 2017 by Justin Adams
copy format

[Guest shiloh357]

23 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

As stated, that is impossible to prove. However, is God 100% in control? Yes. But here again, that is impossible to prove. Thus Yeshua took issue with the pharisees mindset, as they were attempting to be what they could never be, and in so doing totally overlooked God's Messiah, Yeshua. 

"God Breathed" has never been limited to just books, or persons, or things. He also does not share His Glory. 

I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols (Isaiah 48:8)

I didn't ask you about proof.  I asked you what you believe.   Do you believe the 66 books of Scripture are 100% divinely inspired, inerrant and infallible?

[Justin Adams]

There are indeed many book that are Inspired by the Lord God. I think that the 66 books can be included in that number but I do not see that God's Inspirations can be limited by man's understanding to a particular number of books. Can the "create" limit the CREATOR?  I think not.

We tread on very dangerous ground if we dare try to limit our Lord God who made all that is from that which is not. He is Alpha and Omega. He is un-create. He is I AM.

[Wayne222]

8 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

Hello from the FAR-SIDE of reason and thought. This little post has been something that's on my mind for a good while. I understand anyone can shoot holes in any argument I make, so I am not making any. Rather I am hoping that you will point your ideas of 'canon' elsewhere. Maybe understand what was said by Paul, that all scripture might be found to be of some value for exhortation and reproof...etc.

First Enoch never made a viable bid for canonicity in the Jewish community. While it obviously shaped Jewish thought, only the Qumranites seemed interested in preserving it. They viewed it as an appendix to and interpretation of Scripture instead of Scripture itself.¹⁶ As the apocalyptic works tended to stir national fervor, the rabbis suppressed them in normative Judaism after the failed Zealot revolt of A.D. 70.

On the other hand, Enoch enjoys a long history of various Christians arguing for its inclusion or exclusion. That early Christians shared the Jewish fascination with this man who never died cannot be disputed. No less than 24 ancient works identify Enoch and Elijah as the two witnesses of Revelation 11.¹⁷ However, 1 Enoch’s place in the canon was not assured.

While Tertullian argued that Enoch belonged in the canon based on Jude’s quotations, others argued that Jude should be removed from the canon because of its quotations from non-canonical works like Enoch.¹⁸ Agreeing with Tertullain, the Ethiopic Church canonized 1 Enoch.¹⁹ Likewise, the Manicheans kept another related but separate work of Enoch, The Book of Giants. The Epistle of Barnabas and Athenagoras’ Embassy for Christians both allude to Enoch in favorable ways. Clement and Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4.16.2) both quote Enoch favorably (but not as Scripture).²⁰However, all of these arguments together did not prevail, and the early Church ultimately rejected Enoch from the canon.

The above is Public Domain and worthy of some study along with the Church Father's ideas.
_________________________________

I have looked and studied somewhat and find no real evidence that the 'canon' of our 'bible' is any more perfect than the preacher that might proclaim a 'biblical inerrant' text. Or the 'experts' that voted for or against the inclusion of various books. We may wish to put these learned folk on a pedestal, but have to be very careful of doing so. We have some additional texts to choose from since 100-450 AD and are not quite so superstitious. (Well, some of us are not.) Others may cling to their sacred cows for no other reason that security of mind and some weird kind of fear that 'non-inspired' words will hurt them.

Early Christians often carried mini-bibles with them as 'proof' of their Christian beliefs. It was often considered iconoclastic to touch a 'bible' and much superstition surrounded this.

Some of the more extreme branches of Roman power deemed it sacrilege for a 'commoner' to touch the scripture and death was the often the outcome.

Yes, I said DEATH for owning a bible! These are some of the 'rational people' that created the canon...

It is very confusing to a modern day reader to be able to see the mind-set of the early believers and the 'holy-grail' attitude regarding texts. There were no space ships or fancy modern tech. There was the written word which was the be-all and end-all of much that was considered rational and real.

I do know that Revelations was nearly excluded from the biblical canon along with the Pauline writings.
Scholars argued about that for hundreds of years, some groups accepted it, some accepted other collections of writings.

Reading the accounts of the various church fathers is quite illuminating to say the least.

I understand that this post may seem to bring into question some peoples beliefs. This is not intended at all.
We should, as Christians, believe in Yeshua, His Words and Works.
We should be careful of the works and rituals and icons of men. 

 

 

The bible was inspired because Jesus took it so. That was Old Testament. New testament was writed by the Apostles of Christ. They are the foundation of the church. We have everything we need according to peter for godliness. Why doubt the scriptures  ? I have not read anything in  them that does not point to Jesus as savior.