Was the Biblical Canon Directed by God?

by Chris Tann 57 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  DATA-DOG

  You have your own biased view. You assume that Tartarus is a false/pagan teaching, and that 2 Peter has an error that must be "set aside". How do YOU know that Tartarus does not exist? If it does, then 2 Peter is accurate and OTHER parts of the scriptures must be "set aside".

  Again, what is inspired and what is not? How can YOU know? Where does one start and stop setting "inspired" scriptures aside?? If it's all about moral lessons, then Aesop's fables should suffice for humanity. I have never seen anyone beheaded or excommunicated for apostasy for a disagreement about the "Sour Grapes" fable.

  DD
• 

  Comatose

  It's simple really DD. You just choose which books you personally like. You discard whole books or verses that do not reconcile. Plus, listen closely and pray to Jesus and he will talk to you. It's easy.
• 

  SonoftheTrinity

  The Biblical Canon was directed by God IN ETHIOPIA.

  When James Bruce returned to Scotland from Ethiopia with a copy of the complete Book of Enoch, it was the biggest news for Churchmen in ages! but it didn't change the Presbyterian Canon. A change in Canon necessarily involves an admission of not having had the whole truth. The biggest challenge for any Organized Religion is for it to admit it was wrong about anything. Who wants to pay their tithes to a Sorry Chirch?
• 

  jehovahsheep

  Paul delibratly rips Jewish scriptures out of context to support his false teachings.
• 

  Phizzy

  Please read the items you have been directed to Chris, you are looking at things through the wrong end of the Telescope. When you have read them, tell us where they are wrong.
• 

  jws

  I don't see any evidence of ANY of it being divinely inspired. At least not in the way the JWs teach - that the writers were merely secretaries.

  There are too many inconsistencies and WTF type things. This couldn't have been designed by an intelligent being.

  Leaving the only choice left, it was written purely by men. I like to think of it as fan-lit. Inspired in the way a sunset might inspire a painter to paint. It's not the sunset guiding his brush.

  So, a bunch of fan-boys write their own stories about God and such. Which ones are right? Which ones are wrong? Does it make a difference? It comes down to what you want to believe and what agrees with it.

  If God was behind it all, is this the best he could come up with? Why so many references to ancient customs people in the future would not get? That's like watching a movie from 80 years ago and them referencing some popular actor of the day. Most people today won't get it. But a book from God should be for all time. And why not leak something ancient people didn't know?

  And there's other things. Like the story of Lot's daughters seducing him. What is that for? If you were God, wouldn't you just leave that part out? Is it beneficial for teaching? What does it teach you? If you don't have any other men around, get your father drunk and seduce him? Beneficial for reproving? There's no indication anybody got in trouble for it. Why is this story here? Because men wrote it. Not God.
• 

  HowTheBibleWasCreated

  I need to comment. The orginal post assumes that the 27 books were widely accepted in the second century. BIG FALSEHOOD!

  Most of the 27 books were not even known!

  The earliest gospel (out of the four) we have evidence for is a piece of John and it is around 125 or so. (could be earlier but not much)

  The earliest NT canon did contain a gospel. 'The Gospel of the Lord'. It was a proto-Luke... meaning is predated Luke... when was this? 140....

  Also in that concon were 10 so called letters of Paul (Ephesians originally was called ''To the Laodacians' and all of the 'Pauline letters' are proto-letters. Very gnostic. (The Pastorials we have no evidence for until tha very late second century.)

  The have no evidence for Matthew Mark or Luke until the mid second century. (Later for Luke) and the referances in Mark 13, Matthew 24, Luke 21 all refer not to 70ce but to the Jewsish revolt in 136ce.

  The Didache was originally dated to the early second century and if so that text plus the Gospel to the Hebrews made up some of the material unique to Matthew (As well as oral traditions)

  The only exception I could make to this is Revelation. Parts of it are clearly first century but this is one of the most edited books in the NT.
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  Yes, wasn't the Bible Canon determined by Apostate Christendom?

  How can it be trusted?

  Doc
• 

  cantleave

  I would worry about anyone who states the writings of Paul (the homophobic, misogynist, self important bigot)are basis for his or her morality.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Thanks, Comatose!! That makes perfect sense! I was over-thinking as usual. I'll start praying now.

  DD