enoob57 Posted August 31, 2020 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,390 Content Per Day: 8.00 Reputation: 21,566 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted August 31, 2020 On 8/12/2020 at 1:14 PM, Justin Adams said: He was referring to the LXX and other 'scriptures' of his age and understanding. He was NOT talking about the reformed canon. To understand the context you have to go back into the understanding of Second Temple Jewish and Greek literature. I has very little to do with our modern and sometimes edited or doctored texts. The cannon was determined long before the reformation... it was decided by the early church in the circulation of letters at that time ... 2 Peter 3:16 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. KJV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Adams Posted August 31, 2020 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 25 Topic Count: 61 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 9,606 Content Per Day: 3.94 Reputation: 7,798 Days Won: 21 Joined: 09/11/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted August 31, 2020 3 minutes ago, enoob57 said: The cannon was determined long before the reformation... it was decided by the early church in the circulation of letters at that time ... Oh. The fourth century was 'early church' was it. Read a bit of history and see. The reformation did little to help the already RCC established nonsense. And when you quote from the KJV, which one exactly are you in reference to. There are many. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted August 31, 2020 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,390 Content Per Day: 8.00 Reputation: 21,566 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted August 31, 2020 3 minutes ago, Justin Adams said: Oh. The fourth century was 'early church' was it. Read a bit of history and see. The reformation did little to help the already RCC established nonsense. And when you quote from the KJV, which one exactly are you in reference to. There are many. What I quoted in Scripture was early church ... and it is clear what followed was recognition of that circulation Peter spoke of... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Adams Posted August 31, 2020 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 25 Topic Count: 61 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 9,606 Content Per Day: 3.94 Reputation: 7,798 Days Won: 21 Joined: 09/11/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted August 31, 2020 (edited) 47 minutes ago, enoob57 said: What I quoted in Scripture was early church ... and it is clear what followed was recognition of that circulation Peter spoke of... And when they chose the books and concocted the Nicene creed... how many Israelis were present? The forming of the canon(s) took centuries. "The Early Church primarily used the Greek Septuagint (or LXX) as its source for the Old Testament. Among Aramaic speakers, the Targum was also widely used. All of the major Christian traditions accept the books of the Hebrew protocanon in its entirety as divinely inspired and authoritative, in various ways and degrees. Another set of books, largely written during the intertestamental period, are called the biblical apocrypha ("hidden things") by Protestants, the deuterocanon ("second canon") by Catholics, and the deuterocanon or anagignoskomena ("worthy of reading") by Orthodox. These are works recognized by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches as being part of scripture (and thus deuterocanonical rather than apocryphal), but Protestants do not recognize them as divinely inspired. Orthodox differentiate scriptural books by omitting these (and others) from corporate worship and from use as a sole basis for doctrine.[citation needed] Some Protestant Bibles—especially the English King James Bible and the Lutheran Bible—include an "Apocrypha" section. Many denominations recognize deuterocanonical books as good, but not on the level of the other books of the Bible. Anglicanism considers the apocrypha worthy of being "read for example of life" but not to be used "to establish any doctrine."[85] Luther made a parallel statement in calling them: "not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but...useful and good to read." "The difference in canons derives from the difference in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. Books found in both the Hebrew and the Greek are accepted by all denominations, and by Jews, these are the protocanonical books. Catholics and Orthodox also accept those books present in manuscripts of the Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament with great currency among the Jews of the ancient world, with the coda that Catholics consider 3 Esdras and 3 Maccabees apocryphal.[citation needed] Most quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament, differing by varying degrees from the Masoretic Text, are taken from the Septuagint. Daniel was written several hundred years after the time of Ezra, and since that time several books of the Septuagint have been found in the original Hebrew, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Cairo Geniza, and at Masada, including a Hebrew text of Sirach (Qumran, Masada) and an Aramaic text of Tobit (Qumran); the additions to Esther and Daniel are also in their respective Semitic languages." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Canons_of_various_Christian_traditions This quote is from Wiki which I do not normally use. However, the facts speak for themselves and many use Wiki for their knowledge base. As stated before, study well and carefully. It is NEVER as simple as the modern doctrines and preachers make out that it is. God did NOT drop the canon in our laps, but intended us to search out the various scriptures. The KJV came very late into the game and is quite good but lacking in some areas due to the limited sources at the time of translation. Since Qumran, we have more exact and better renditions of many texts. Edited August 31, 2020 by Justin Adams 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted August 31, 2020 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,390 Content Per Day: 8.00 Reputation: 21,566 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted August 31, 2020 11 minutes ago, Justin Adams said: And when they chose the books and concocted the Nicene creed... how many Israelis were present? The forming of the canon(s) took centuries. "The Early Church primarily used the Greek Septuagint (or LXX) as its source for the Old Testament. Among Aramaic speakers, the Targum was also widely used. All of the major Christian traditions accept the books of the Hebrew protocanon in its entirety as divinely inspired and authoritative, in various ways and degrees. Another set of books, largely written during the intertestamental period, are called the biblical apocrypha ("hidden things") by Protestants, the deuterocanon ("second canon") by Catholics, and the deuterocanon or anagignoskomena ("worthy of reading") by Orthodox. These are works recognized by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches as being part of scripture (and thus deuterocanonical rather than apocryphal), but Protestants do not recognize them as divinely inspired. Orthodox differentiate scriptural books by omitting these (and others) from corporate worship and from use as a sole basis for doctrine.[citation needed] Some Protestant Bibles—especially the English King James Bible and the Lutheran Bible—include an "Apocrypha" section. Many denominations recognize deuterocanonical books as good, but not on the level of the other books of the Bible. Anglicanism considers the apocrypha worthy of being "read for example of life" but not to be used "to establish any doctrine."[85] Luther made a parallel statement in calling them: "not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but...useful and good to read." "The difference in canons derives from the difference in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. Books found in both the Hebrew and the Greek are accepted by all denominations, and by Jews, these are the protocanonical books. Catholics and Orthodox also accept those books present in manuscripts of the Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament with great currency among the Jews of the ancient world, with the coda that Catholics consider 3 Esdras and 3 Maccabees apocryphal.[citation needed] Most quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament, differing by varying degrees from the Masoretic Text, are taken from the Septuagint. Daniel was written several hundred years after the time of Ezra, and since that time several books of the Septuagint have been found in the original Hebrew, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Cairo Geniza, and at Masada, including a Hebrew text of Sirach (Qumran, Masada) and an Aramaic text of Tobit (Qumran); the additions to Esther and Daniel are also in their respective Semitic languages." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Canons_of_various_Christian_traditions This quote is from Wiki which I do not normally use. However, the facts speak for themselves and many use Wiki for their knowledge base. As stated before, study well and carefully. It is NEVER as simple as the modern doctrines and preachers make out that it is. God did NOT drop the canon in our laps, but intended us to search out the various scriptures. The KJV came very late into the game and is quite good but lacking in some areas due to the limited sources at the time of translation. Since Qumran, we have more exact and better renditions of many texts. The faith and study of this board does not agree with your assessment nor do the Jewish people themselves in History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted August 31, 2020 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,390 Content Per Day: 8.00 Reputation: 21,566 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted August 31, 2020 1 hour ago, enoob57 said: The cannon was determined long before the reformation... it was decided by the early church in the circulation of letters at that time ... 2 Peter 3:16 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. KJV @Saved.One.by.Grace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Adams Posted August 31, 2020 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 25 Topic Count: 61 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 9,606 Content Per Day: 3.94 Reputation: 7,798 Days Won: 21 Joined: 09/11/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted August 31, 2020 (edited) 42 minutes ago, enoob57 said: The faith and study of this board does not agree with your assessment nor do the Jewish people themselves in History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon The Masoretic rewrite was in order to disavow the former Jewish 'two powers in heaven' doctrine since the early Christians refereed to it. The Hebrew text that was used by the LXX translators is no longer available but the scraps from Qumran indicate that 2nd Temple literature and Rabbinic literature did NOT negate the earlier Hebrew study or the LXX. The Hebrew canon was rewritten by the Masorites when the Rabbis decided to disavow the LXX. For the main reasons stated above. We need to do some relevant and serious study. If you study history you will see the omissions. There were also quite a number of variations in this text. Edited August 31, 2020 by Justin Adams 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 5 hours ago, enoob57 said: @Saved.One.by.Grace Straw Man logical error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted August 31, 2020 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,390 Content Per Day: 8.00 Reputation: 21,566 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted August 31, 2020 2 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said: Straw Man logical error. It's Scripture and it's evidence of the circulated letters at that time being seen as Scripture... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 30 minutes ago, enoob57 said: It's Scripture and it's evidence of the circulated letters at that time being seen as Scripture... Your argument is specious, to put it kindly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts