Confused, did the early christians accept the non-canonized books?

If I need an education, apparently you're not the one to give it to me. I've cited famous scholars about what languages were spoken in Palestine. I've cited exhaustive collations of NT quotations of the LXX that differ from the Masoretic text. I've educated you that the LXX you own is Brenton's collation and translation, and how to look it up. I proved to you that the 22 book canon doesn't mean the protestant canon. You've demonstrated you don't understand Greek. You've demonstated you either havn't read, or havn't read carefully the deutero-canon, since you thought the Prologue to Sirach was written by Sirach.

What have you come up with? What facts have you documented? Not a thing as far as I can see. All you do is come here making wild and vast claims, none of which you can document. Tell us why you come here and waste everybody's time.

 

Excellent !


I understand that Apocrypha have been rejected by the True Believers due to the following reasons.

1) None of the writers claimed that they received the divine commandment from God that they should write such writings and that they should be read as Bible.
This is the most important criteria. For example, Isaiah or Jeremiah mentioned the Jehovah said, or God showed up, and so on.
But none of the Apocrypha writers mentioned such divine order.

2) They were not written in the language of then God's people, Hebrew.
Mostly they were written in Greek which was spoken by Pork meat eating, Idol worshipping people, full of myths and paganism.

3) None of them were quoted by Jesus ( Someone claimed that Lord's Prayer in Matt 6:9 is from Sirach, which is nonsense)

4) None of them were quoted by Disciples

5) Apocrypha teach immoral things like suicide, assassination, prayer to the dead ( so that they can pray to the dead saints and dead woman Mary)

6) They are not consistant between the Apocrypha, i.e. the place of the death of Antiocus is mentioned in 3 different places.

When Josephus mentioned about the Bible, he didn't count these Apocrypha.

Jesus read Hebrew Bible ( Mt 24:35, 5:18, Luke 24:44), Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew ( Acts 26:14) Paul spoke to Jewish Crowd in Hebrew (Acts 21:40- 22:2)

All the quotations in NT are different from LXX at least in one or two words in the quotations even though they may look similar to Septuagint.
This issue was dealt with on the other thread- Bible Translations and Versions. I can agree that there could exist a certain Hebrew Vorlage which would have been the basis for LXX. The people who pushes Apocrypha often rely on the LXX, which is not authentic.

 

What is a True Believer? Someone who disbelieves part of the bible? How strange.

Most books of the bible make no such claim. By that criteria you only have a few books left.

Firstly, you have no proof of this. Secondly, whether it was written in Greek or not, it still remains a work of the Jews. No scholar would dispute it. Thirdly, not even all the protestant OT canon is written in classical Hebrew. Some is written in Aramaic.

Really. Why won't somebody tell me who is referred to in Heb 11:35 "But others were tortured, not accepting release, to obtain resurrection to a better life."

It's a very clear reference to the events of 2 Macabees 7. There is no other event in Jewish history that fits.

2 Maccabees 7:13-14 After he too had died, they maltreated and tortured the fourth in the same way. When he was near death, he said, "One cannot but choose to die at the hands of mortals and to cherish the hope God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!"

The protestant canon teaches genocide.

There were 4 kings who took the name Antiochus. Antiohus I (280-261 BC), Antiohus II (261-246 BC), Antiohus III (222-187 BC), Antiohus IV (175-164 BC).

It's amazing how protestants will grab cheap shots of random web sites to win an argument, but won't do their own investigations to defend the Word of God instead of attacking it.

Firstly, Josephus never says what books are in the bible. Secondly, he is a Jew writing well after the time of Christ who rejects the entire NT canon. Who cares what he says?

Not classical Hebrew which I have already documented in this thread. Classical Hebrew was a dead language well before Christ. This was the more modern Hebrew tongue otherwise known as Aramaic.

And who cares if Paul occasionally spoke a Hebrew tongue? Talk about an irrelevant distraction to the real issue.

Pffft. So what if they were? (which BTW you havn't documented). The point is, the quotes often agree with the LXX in meaning, and disagree with the MT.

 

DHK, Orthodox, Inquiring Mind.

I no longer think facts are the issue of this thread. It looks like a lot of this:
http://www.baptistboard.com/graemlins/newgraemlins/tonofbricks.gif
:tonofbricks:

Five percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls had a Hebrew text of the form that would underlie the Septuagint, and sixty percent was proto-Masoretic (Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, page 172). We also have surviving fragments of the Septuagint itself from the last two centuries B.C.E. (same book, pages 212-3).

Sometimes the New Testament authors did quote the Septuagint, and sometimes they did their own translation of the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text, and sometimes they may have done their own translation of the Septuagint source Hebrew text. It would have been their choice, and their choice may have been for a specific point, or for convenience. I have dozens of Bible translations in multiple languages; sometimes I will use one to make a specific point, but sometimes I will just grab whichever one is easiest to grab at the moment or that I just felt like using. If the standards of Bible citation were as low now as they were in ancient times, I would also do straight translations from Spanish and Portuguese translations -- which I do today by quoting the original Spanish or Portuguese and then translating.

Further, whatever canon the New Testament period Palestinian Jews had, it was shorter than the Orthodox/Catholic Old Testament. This means that the Bible of Jesus Christ was shorter than the Orthodox/Catholic Old Testament -- and since Jesus Christ is God, this was God's Old Testament. It would also have been the Old Testament of James, as well as of Peter and the rest of the 12 main disciples during Jesus' earthly ministry -- and the initial 11 apostles afterward, and the first churches because they started in Palestine.

The New Testament authors' citations of the Septuagint do NOT mean that they accepted the additional books. I have a 1611 KJV on my bookshelf, but in quoting it, it does not at all mean that I accept those additional books: it means that I find the 1611 KJV translated text of the Bible helpful. Ditto for when I use the Douay-Rheims Version translation of the Latin Vulgate translation: I do not accept the interspersed additional books, but I sometimes find the biblical text useful. Likewise, use of the Septuagint for Bible text quotations does NOT mean endorsement of the added material.

In Palestine, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic were all regular languages (Open Bible). There were times when Jesus apparently spoke Greek because of the word plays used that are recorded in the Gospels that could only possibly be done in Greek. It is possible to know more than one language, and I have known multi-lingual people who switch languages in mid-conversation when they have decided thoughts are better expressed in their other language.

In Orthodoxy, what the Orthodox believe about certain things is dictated. There is a lot less freedom for independent thought. The Orthodox here are NOT going to reject the church's position on the added pre-New Testamant books because they are convinced that the church has the authority to tell them what to believe. To them the church has more authority than the Bible, and many Orthodox apologists are willing to get non-Orthodox Bible-believers to question Bible authority in order to advance church authority. Because of that, the Orthodox are not going to be swayed on the issue of the added books. The church tells them what to think on some things, and they research and reflect on the best reasons to do so. To question the church is seen as an act of insolence. It would actually be easier to sway a Baptist on the issue of the added books because s/he has more room for independent thought on individual issues -- and that is not happening on this one, is it?

I participate on another discussion board. The expectation there is that once it is apparent that one is not going to convince the other, it is time for each party to just drop it. If at least one of us does not, the moderator puts an end to it. I have seen anti-Semitic comments, and I have seen personal insults of education. Would you really want an unbeliever considering Christianity to view what this argument has turned into? Would you want that unbeliever to suspect that Christians normally talk to each other this way? Why not just drop it, or announce that you are leaving the conversation.

 

I am well aware of the languages spoken there. I don't think that was any bone of contention anyway. I have basically ignored your so-called scholars. I don't take away from their scholarship, but only from their point of view as scholars. You choose those scholars which are liberal, which have a propensity for discrediting the Bible and the supernatural. Why should I trust in them?

And so you have. The LXX isn't what it used to be. It has been corrupted over the ages, and it wasn't a good translation to begin with. Besides that it was only a translation. But all of that doesn't matter. Why are you hung up on a translation. What if they did? What difference what it make? Paul quoted from a Cretian philosopher and a Greek poet. God chose what portions of what books (whatever they may have been) and when they were written in the New Testament under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit they became inspired, not before that time.

You came to the conclusion that the LXX that I have is the same as yours. That makes no difference to me. You did not show me how to look up Roman Numerals . I don't know your age, but there is a good chance that I knew how to do that before you were born. I simply made an honest mistake.
You still seem to be uninformed or uneducated about the Hebrew Canon. The western divisions of having 39 books in the Old Testament came much later in history. I posted how there were only 22 books in the OT. Why don't you believe me. I stated what they were and what their divisions were. If you want Scriptural back up look what Jesus Himself says:

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms (writings or poetical books), concerning me.
--These are the three divisions of the OT, not the five divisions that the Western Church has inserted in for their own convenience. You Bible history is surely lacking.

I never said anything about the authorship of the prologue of Sirach. I don't bother to try and refute everything that you say. I ignore most of it. The fact that the prologue states that Book of Sirach is not at the level of the LXX holds a lot of weight, that you don't accept. But you shut your eyes to the evidence given. How have you demonstrated I don't understand Greek. Again, I ignored your post.

How presumptuous can a person be. You are Orthodox, not Baptist. This is a Baptist Board of which I am a moderator, and have been a member since the year 2,000. Now tell me: Who is the guest? The question is: Why do you come here and waste everybody's time on a BAPTIST board??[ A bit arrogant aren't you?
DHK

 

There is a lot sin there in that comment. I see arrogance. I see pride.

 

The Hebrew Canon was determined in 90 AD nearly 60 years after the death of Christ at a JEWISH COUNCIL in Jamnia not a CHRISTIAN COUNCIL

This same council that made theses decrees:

1. Jesus is not the promised Messiah.
2. Christians are no longer allowed in the synogogues.
3. The declaration of distinction between Jews and Christians (Jews are God's people and Christians are Heretics )
4. They set up 4 criteria that all books had to meet in order to be included as the Inspired Word of God.
----- 1. The books had to conform to the Pentateuch (the first 5 books).
----- 2. The books had to be written in Hebrew.
----- 3. The books had to be written in Palestine.
----- 4. The books had to be written before 400 B.C

IN LAYMAN'S TERMS: THE NEW TESTAMENT CONTAINS NOT ONE INSPIRED BOOK.

5. They added to their daily blessings which all Jews are required to read everyday this curse of Christians:

Officially called the "Birkat ha-minim"

"For the Apostates let there be no hope and the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our days, Let the Nazarenes(Christians)and the minim(Heretics) be destroyed in a moment. Let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not inscribled together with the Righteous. Blessed art thou oh Lord, who humblest the Proud."

I reject the 90 AD Council of Jamnia and all of it's decrees.

 

My KJV has 5 divisions:

The Law
The Histories
The Poetics
The Major Prophets
The Minor Prophets

assuming?

 

Yes, you are absolutely right! All of our English Bibles do. But the Apostle Paul did not use the KJV. He used the MT, a Hebrew OT, which has only 22 books divided into three divisions--the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Psalms), as Christ himself delineates. (Luke 24:44)
DHK

 

They were Jews. The Jews gave us the Old Testament Scripture.
The Jews gave us Christ. He was a Jew. Do you also reject Him?

There were some other criteria that they went by. But basically that is correct. The council didn't determine anything; it only reaffirmed what was already known among the Jews and Bible believing Christians everywhere up until that time. Heretics trying to destroy the Bible believed differently.
DHK

 

Does the truth hurt IQ?
The same applies to you.
The BB, out of grace, opened a section of their private board to members of other religions. They did not have to do this. There have been some that have misused this privilege and have been banned as a result. There are some that cannot post here because of extreme heretical beliefs. Posting here is a privilege not a right. Your denomination is Congregational holiness according to your profile. This is a Baptist Board. We expect you to keep the rules of which you agreed to when you registered. You, as well as Orthodox, are relatively new here. You are guests at a Baptist board. Please remember that.

BTW, in the future it may be good for a poster to remember that reprimanding a moderator, in the way the Orthodox did is against the rules that he agreed to. If he has come here to debate, then let him debate. Insults are not tolerated.
DHK

 

Proof?

That's true in theory, but when there are dozens if not hundreds of allusions, you have to start being reasonable about your assumptions.

Really. I'd like to see what happens if someone started attending your church and disputing the validity of some of the books of the bible. Then we'd see whether there is really any difference between us with authority and freedom.

 

You could have fooled me.

Which is it? Either there is no contention, or else you don't trust them on this issue. You can't have it both ways.

And if you don't like the scholars I quote, then quote your own. You don't quote your own because no scholar of any persuasion agrees with you. And if you don't like any scholars, cite primary source material. As it is, you don't cite anything but your opinion, that is the problem.

So has the Masoretic text. Your point is?

I am hung up on a translation:

a) Because it is the only complete surviving witness to a form of the text that no longer exists.

b) It is the form of the text used by the apostles most of the time.

c) It can on many occasions correct the Masoretic text, as you will see in any modern translation's footnotes.

The problem is not the honest mistake, the problem is your forging on with the mistake in the face of overwhelming evidence. If I looked up a translation differing significantly from other translations, my first assumption would be that I got it wrong and investigate. If I still missed my error and somebody else told me I was wrong too, I'd pretty much know I was the one in the wrong and go find out where. The fact you weren't even open to investigating your own mistake in the face of such overwhelming evidence says a lot about your attitude to the whole situation.

The issue is not the 22 books, the issue is what is contained in the 22 books, because as I have already documented, and which you havn't responded to, many proponents of the 22 books explicitely INCLUDED the apocrpypha.

More insults and ad hominem, and yet we havn't even discussed major divisions, so how I can be lacking I don't know.

The issue is not the divisions in the bible, the issue is what is contained in those divisions. You can say there is 3 or 5 or 22 but it still won't say if the apocrypha is included or not.

Yes you did, and I'll quote you below from message #76 where you say Sirach wrote it:

It would be nice if you owned up to your errors straight away rather than having to go though a long process of getting you to admit them.

You don't bother to refute any of it.

But it doesn't say that! All it says is that the Greek translator expresses his humility in the difficulties in translating into Greek. And again, it carries no weight anyway because it is just the translator's note, about as significant as the translator's preface to the KJV as being authoritative.

I shut my eyes to nothing because you havn't even bothered citing the prologue and giving your analysis. At the moment we are still at the stage of trying to get you to admit you erred as to the authorship of the prologue.

I'm not forcing you to interact with Christians of other denominations. But if you choose to dispute with us, no matter what the venue, whether you are moderator or not, you ought to have the respect to be able to back up what you say, otherwise why waste your time and ours?

 

RE: Ad hom

I thought this was a forum open to all Christians, not just Baptists. There are others on this site that are closed to non-Baptists, unfortunately, such as the one on Bible Translation/Versions. But isn't this the Other Christian Denominations board?

 

Roman Catholic, the Idol Worshippers and Goddess worshippers were not the true believers and the people who refused such idolatry, living faithful to the commandments of God were the true believers. They refused the Apocrypha.

It is not difficult to identify the claim of the authors for most of the books in Bible.
For example, Pentateuch won't have any problem even if we check them with such criteria, as Moses wrote them according to the commandments from God.
Do you doubt about Samuel ? about Isaiah ? about 12 prophets?
Doesn't Job include the oracle from God ?
There could some argument against Esther or Ruth etc, but Ruth can easily be understood as the teaching on messianic genealogy.
If you study and check further, only books which can be argued may be Esther and Song of Solomon where there have been arguments on their verasity or authenticity.

If anyone expects God would tell him or her any commandments in the language which cannot be understood by the listeners, he or she may be insane.
Pagan gods may be doing so, as Roman Catholic contains lots of paganism.

Some Parts of Nehemiah/Ezra and Daniel contain Aramaic, but the whole contexts of Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah were written in Hebrew.
Those Aramaic portion was the quotations of what they wrote to the Aramaic King or Chaldean Kings. If Israelites of today wrote a letter to Mr. G Bush, they would have written in English. If anyone record the story about it, they would quote the exact wordings in English.
Likewise only the small portion was quoted in the original language of the letters. Moreover, between Aramaic and Hebrew there are lots of similarity and in the ancient times the most of Israelites could understand Aramaic.
The difference might have been like the one between Hollywood English and Aussie English.
But in case of Septuagint, the Greek language was far different from Hebrew.

Nope! it is not referring to Maccabees, but it was quite common to the martyrs and therefore it is indicating Rev 20:5 ( the rest of the people would not revive, while some chosen people enjoy the better resurrection)
So, such claim that Maccabees were quoted cannot be proven by it.

Nope ! Roman Catholic taught the Genocide !
The Devout Roman Catholic Adolf Hitler, Devout Roman Catholic Himmler, Devout Catholic Goebbels, Mussolini, Franco the dictator of Spain, etc were all Roman catholic.

Read this:

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/NaziLeadership.html

Read this:


http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm


What about the Crusade which killed the Christians in Alps and Jews ?

Does Bible teach Roman Catholic that they should kill the people if they are found heretic ?

Roman Catholic may be eager to find the clues to support such Genocide, from Apocrypha.

it is ridiculous that RC try to find the clues from Apocrypha to pray to the dead woman, dead people. Could you say where was Antiocus Ephipanes dead ?

Josephus mentioned 22 books in the Bible,
5 books of Torah, 13 history books, 4 writings which include Psalm, which indicates all the OT bibles as the Protestants have today.
( Ref : The Dead Sea Scrolls Today by James C. Vanderkam, p 148)

You can find No Apocrypha mentioned in Josephus books.

If Paul delievered the address in Hebrew to the Jews as we read in Acts 21:40 and 22:2, then how much more could we believe that the Israelites at that time used the Hebrew language in their RELIGIOUS life?
Hebrew was not dead ! it was living language as we remember the title on the Cross was written in Hebrew so that the passers-by could read in Hebrew!

Have you ever read Bible in Greek and in Hebrew ?
I have read NT in Greek many times and some good portion of OT in Hebrew. I have much amount of comparison between NT Quote and LXX and confirmed that there are too many differences for the people to believe that the NT writers quoted LXX.
There could be Pre-existing Hebrew OT which was used as the basis for the Septuagint, but such Hebrew OT do not exist today.
Moreover Dead Sea Scrolls showed the accuracy of Masoretic Texts when the scholars compared on Isaiah.

There is no jot and tittle in Greek which was mentioned by Jesus in Mt 5:18, and the order of Septuagint is far different from Masoretic Text as MT 24:35 implies. Jesus mentioned the first martyr of OT (Abel) and the last martyr of OT ( Zechariah) according to the order of Masoretic Texts, not in the order of Septuagint. Luke 24:44 proves Jesus mention the composition of the bible according to MT, not to Septuagint which include Apocrypha.

 

The Prologue of Sirach (in part)

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=3914423

 

The Reason why Roman Catholic vehemently advocate the Apocrypha is because AP can provide the ground for their paganism.
Also, RC defend LXX because LXX comes with Apocrypha.
But the fact is the no one can prove that NT used the Greek Septuagint.

My survey shows the differences between NT and LXX, in almost every verses where NT quoted OT.

1.Hebrews 10:5 - Psalm 40:6
NT
Ευδοκησας (delight in, pleasure Εζητησας (seek, pursue) )
LXX
Εζητησας (seek, pursue)

MT
Chaphatsta(pleased to do, delight in)


We should distinguish 2 problems here:

1) a body thou has prepared for me.
or
Mine ear hast thou opened

Literally, KJV differs between OT and NT.

2) thou didn't require(seek or pursue), or

thou didn't desire

εζητησασ may have the meaning of desire too, but apparently different word, different spelling, and if NT quoted LXX, why didn't NT have the exact spelling of it?

If anyone can be generous about item 2), then he or she should tolerate 1) as well, because Jews interpret this way:

Ears are part of the body organ and the channel for receiving divine instructions and when the Bible said God dug Ears for me, it can be translated as God prepared a body for me too, saying the question " how can we translate dig Ears for me into Greek without causing misunderstanding?"

So, in this aspect, if we apply the same rule, then KJV has no problem without LXX.

Otherwise, if we can imagine that there might be another Hebrew OT texts, it might be easier to resolve the discrepancies as we often hear that there were 3 types of Hebrew OT, Babylonian, Egyptian, Palestinian etc.

Still I take Heb 10:5 as a good example that NT didn't quote LXX as we notice the difference (ευδοκησασ / εζητησασ)




2. Matt 1:23 ( Isaiah 7:14)

NT:
Behold, a virgin..They shall call his name Emmanuel

LXX
His name shall be called

MT
You(femnine you=the virgin) shall call his name
( KJV translated " she shall call) but the accurate wording is thou ( the virgin) shall call his name. This is quite delicate difference.

3. Luke 4:19 ( Isaiah 61:2)

NT
Κηρυξαι ;To preach the acceptable
LXX
Καλεσαι ;(call)
MT
KRA ( proclaim)

In this case, NT and MT used the same wording for both verse 18 preach and verse 19 preach while LXX use different words ( kerusso and kalesai)

4. Acts 8:32-33 Isaiah 53:7-8

NT
Και ως αμνος εναντιον του κειραντος αυτον αφωνος ουτως ουκ ανοιγει το στομα….. αυτου
LXX
Και ως αμνος εμπρσθεν του κειραντος (- )αυτον αφωνος ουτως ουκ ανοιγει το στομα ( -)

Inthisshortsentence, 3 spotsaredifferent. NT is closer to MT.



5 Isaiah 61:1-2 Luke 4:18

DSS agrees with MT




6. Psalm 8:5 in Heb 2:7
Someone claim that MT stated God instead of angels. Hebrew MT states elohim and KJV translated it as angels. There is no discrepancy between NT and MT. In the context, Hebrew MT sound a little more toward to God, but it is not that much.

7. Jeremiah 31:32

But we have to be careful between Hebrew MT and English MT.

NT-LXX
for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord"

MT-
my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD.

1) Here we notice the variance among the texts:
Some text says : ga-al-ti which means desecrated.
Other text says : Bahalti which means I hated
Ben Chayyim text says : ba-al-ti which means " lord over, rule over, be husband to, own, possess.
There is a difference only one spelling between the text.
2) Enlgish translation of MT expanded the difference more as we can see above.

3) However, in this sentence again we can clearly confirm that NT didn't quote LXX !!!! See the difference below:

NT LXX
εποιησα διεθεμην
επιλαβομην επελαβομην
μου omited καγω και εγω λεγει φησι


καγω και εγω
This may be tolerated as identical.

But we can clearly notice, there are at least 4 differences in this short sentence.

If we check more, we can confirm that None of the OT verses in NT was quoted from LXX.

There may be some other Hebrew MT different from Ben Chayyim MT, and there could be some variance.
In this study, the correlation between OT and NT is not so simple.

If we check more closely we can easily confirm that the quotes in NT are different from LXX in almost every verse.

8. From my survey, whenever I check closely between NT and LXX, almost in every verse they differ each other! It takes quite a lot of time to check, but if you spend some time you can easily confirm this point.

9. While I am translating OT, often I notice LXX didn't translate Hebrew into Greek on the basis of Word-to-Word principle, but on the basis of Thought-to-Thought. I am very sure about this.
Even KJV didn't translate fully on Word-to-Word as I showed you above in Matt 1:23. There are some difficulties to apply Word-to-Word principle as I mentioned in Mt 1:23 because the sentence suddenly change the counterpart from ye to imperative to "thou" but feminine " virgin" If we stay with the Word-to-Word principle, there could be another problem with misunderstanding.


If Septuagint is not authentic, Apocrypha is groundless as well.

 

I'd suggest a Jewish source related to the Council of Jamnia and the canonization of the Old Testament. Who would know better?

 

In Post #112 I was asked for "Proof" about my statement that the Palestinian Jewish Old Testament was shorter than the Orthodox/Catholic Old Testament. I have already listed the evidence: Josephus mentioned that the Jews had accepted only 22 books in Against Apion 1:8, and not accepted as Scripture anything after the 400's B.C.E.. I have quoted the passage in prior posts on this thread. While the Protestant 39 comes from splitting up the Jews' 22, there is no system that I know of to get the Orthodox/Catholic 46 out of those 22 -- especially since at least a few of them come from the 100's B.C.E.. There is no "proof" that s/he would possibly accept.

Orthodox, I am not Baptist. However, I am in complete disagreement with you on this. You were not approached by the operators and normal members of this board for debate -- you approached them/us. Baptists do have to notice our posts even if they post nothing in return, so if we post, they cannot avoid us. Further, if I debate Baptists on a Baptist board, which I do not typically do, I consider the burden of proof to be on ME to back up my statements to them; it is their board for them. Further, documentation after documentation has been addressed to you and your comrades on this, all of which has been disregarded.

We non-Baptist Christians are GUESTS. We are are here at their courtesy. They kindly granted us a dignity: if they are going to post against other denominations' beliefs, we have the dignity of a response. I have enjoyed this board because it is a great opportunity to practice building bridges across denominations; I was saved a Baptist, but presently tend toward the Churches of Christ/Independent Christian groups. I do not want to lose the privilege to be here; please have some respect.

Speaking of respect, I would like to publicly apologize to DHK for my impulsive out-of-line comments suggesting his specific course of action as moderator, and I thank him for his graciousness in never confronting me about it. I am sorry DHK, and thank you.

 

I'm not in any of the above categories, so I guess I'm a True Believer. Cool.

If I used you criteria, yes I would doubt the 12 prophets, because they don't conform to your criteria. Either abandon your false criteria, or come up with a new one, but don't live in denial of reality.

Really. And yet the NT is in Greek. I guess that means everybody in Palestine was speaking Greek.

Which is irrelevant.

LOL, look at the context of Hebrews 11. It is nothing to do with the context of Rev 20, it is about very specific situations that were encountered by prophets in the OT. Moses, Abraham etc etc.

Only for those who don't WANT to see it and have a pre-conceived agenda.

Zzzzzzz, take it up with the Roman Catholics. The point is, the OT has passages advocating genoide:

"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2

If people started cutting books out of their bible because they don't like what is taught, there would be no end to it.

And so we see your modus operandi. You decide from your own mind your doctrine, then you pick and choose what books will support it.

Josephus doesn't list the books!! You can't find most books of the bible mentioned in Josephus, because he provides no list!!

I would say you are clutching at straws, but not really, you are clutching at nothing at all.

The Hebrew language mentioned is the one that is otherwise referred to today as Aramaic. Classical Hebrew was dead, not the then-contemporary Hebrew language.

Amazing.

It's no use accurately copying the wrong text.

!!*!*!**!*!!!!!

I thought you just made a big claim that you had read the NT many times in Greek? If so, how could you possibly make such a blunder???

Tell the listening audience what Greek words lie behind the KJV's "jot and tittle".

I hardly think that ordering means anything. The Jews put Chronicles at the end. But where is it in YOUR bible??? Yep, you guessed it, your protestant bible has it in the LXX order with the LXX book titles. Ever wonder why?

But if ordering is important there is another witness from the Lord Jesus Christ concerning the order of the Books which testifies to the traditional structure of the LXX Old Testament (Matthew 11:13f)

"For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias [Elijah], which was for to come."

Here Jesus reveals the prophetic identity of John the Baptist as the "Elijah" prophecied in the last verse of the LXX Old Testament (Malachi 4:5).

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse."

The application of this verse to John the Baptist is confirmed in Luke 1:17:

And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias [Elijah], to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

The LXX Old Testament literally prophecies "until John the Baptist", whose coming is promised in the its very last verse.

For all the back and forth in this thread, there hasn't been a single proof put forward for any reason to reject the apocrypha. All we have is the say so of some 21st century baptists who have no authority for telling anybody what the canon is.