Biblical Canon Fodder

[William]

I don't believe there are 73 inspired books in the bible canon.

How can you expect a complete picture of the Bible while cutting out and discarding a tenth of its content? You're literally decimating the Bible!

DECIMATE
1.
kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of.

What evidence do you have that accepting the original 66 books of the bible canon amounts to "cutting out", "discarding" or figuratively "decimating" the bible?

Biblical Canon
2 Esdras 14:38-48

38 And the next day, behold, a voice called me, saying, Esdras, open thy mouth, and drink that I give thee to drink. 39 Then opened I my mouth, and, behold, he reached me a full cup, which was full as it were with water, but the colour of it was like fire. 40 And I took it, and drank: and when I had drunk of it, my heart uttered understanding, and wisdom grew in my breast, for my spirit strengthened my memory: 41 And my mouth was opened, and shut no more. 42 The Highest gave understanding unto the five men, and they wrote the wonderful visions of the night that were told, which they knew not: and they sat forty days, and they wrote in the day, and at night they ate bread. 43 As for me. I spake in the day, and I held not my tongue by night. 44 In forty days they wrote two hundred and four books. 45 And it came to pass, when the forty days were filled, that the Highest spake, saying, The first that thou hast written publish openly, that the worthy and unworthy may read it: 46 But keep the seventy last, that thou mayest deliver them only to such as be wise among the people: 47 For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge. 48 And I did so.

Are the various Christian denominations which accept or reject other Christian denominations canon, doing so for any other reason than it suits the particular belief systems [bias] of said individuals who sort themselves into the various denominations?

If so, can truth be found in any of these denominations belief systems worthy of trusting?

[Difflugia]

A genuine God-Breathed book must meet certain criteria.

The short answer to the book of Maccabees is, no.

What are those criteria that the books of Maccabees don't meet, but are met by the books you like?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #9]

It appears to be another way of saying "God-inspired" as far as I can tell

So much more than that. Being God-breathed or God-Inspired is what separates what is inferior from what is superior. If one doesn't know what it means for a book to be God-Breathed then there will be confusion. A genuine God-Breathed book must meet certain criteria. This is why the word 'canon' is used. Canon means 'as a rule' or 'measuring device'. One needs to know what those measurements and rules are in order to understand if something is to be added to the canon of the Bible. Meaning, was the writer under the spirit of God when writing the account? The short answer to the book of Maccabees is, no. What is in the 66 books of the Bible must meet a standard measure and it is not left up to the individual to determine what is what. The book being God-breathed is one of the measurements. And if you don't want to talk about what it means for a book to be God-Breathed, then I will understand why.

I guess the only question left to ask you is if you believe that Jesus was "God-breathed." If not, then I will understand why, but if you do, then perhaps you can address the points I made regarding that - as to why most of what Jesus taught, was NOT recorded in the Bible.

[2timothy316]

A genuine God-Breathed book must meet certain criteria.

The short answer to the book of Maccabees is, no.

What are those criteria that the books of Maccabees don't meet, but are met by the books you like?

The criteria was not made by me. The 'measurement' or canon was established thousands of years before I was born. It has nothing to do with 'what I like'. I has to do if the writing is considered God-Breathed. This will be shown in the books historical accuracy and prophetic accuracy. Both books of Maccabees are missing both.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to William in post #9]

It appears to be another way of saying "God-inspired" as far as I can tell

So much more than that. Being God-breathed or God-Inspired is what separates what is inferior from what is superior. If one doesn't know what it means for a book to be God-Breathed then there will be confusion. A genuine God-Breathed book must meet certain criteria. This is why the word 'canon' is used. Canon means 'as a rule' or 'measuring device'. One needs to know what those measurements and rules are in order to understand if something is to be added to the canon of the Bible. Meaning, was the writer under the spirit of God when writing the account? The short answer to the book of Maccabees is, no. What is in the 66 books of the Bible must meet a standard measure and it is not left up to the individual to determine what is what. The book being God-breathed is one of the measurements. And if you don't want to talk about what it means for a book to be God-Breathed, then I will understand why.

I guess the only question left to ask you is if you believe that Jesus was "God-breathed."

Do you know what that even means?

[Difflugia]

The criteria was not made by me. The 'measurement' or canon was established thousands of years before I was born. It has nothing to do with 'what I like'. I has to do if the writing is considered God-Breathed. This will be shown in the books historical accuracy and prophetic accuracy. Both books of Maccabees are missing both.

If a book's presence in the canon is its own proof of historical and prophetic accuracy, how are those criteria not circular? Can you come up with an example out of the books of Maccabees of something that is ahistorical, but couldn't be harmonized with an appropriate level of apologetic effort? Luke's census, for example, is objectively ahistorical for several reasons, but apologists still find ways to claim that it's historical. What specific detail of Maccabees would fail a test that every book in the Protestant canon would pass?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #9]

It appears to be another way of saying "God-inspired" as far as I can tell

So much more than that. Being God-breathed or God-Inspired is what separates what is inferior from what is superior. If one doesn't know what it means for a book to be God-Breathed then there will be confusion. A genuine God-Breathed book must meet certain criteria. This is why the word 'canon' is used. Canon means 'as a rule' or 'measuring device'. One needs to know what those measurements and rules are in order to understand if something is to be added to the canon of the Bible. Meaning, was the writer under the spirit of God when writing the account? The short answer to the book of Maccabees is, no. What is in the 66 books of the Bible must meet a standard measure and it is not left up to the individual to determine what is what. The book being God-breathed is one of the measurements. And if you don't want to talk about what it means for a book to be God-Breathed, then I will understand why.

I guess the only question left to ask you is if you believe that Jesus was "God-breathed." If not, then I will understand why, but if you do, then perhaps you can address the points I made regarding that - as to why most of what Jesus taught, was NOT recorded in the Bible.

Do you know what that even means?

Just answer the question put to you.

[2timothy316]

The criteria was not made by me. The 'measurement' or canon was established thousands of years before I was born. It has nothing to do with 'what I like'. I has to do if the writing is considered God-Breathed. This will be shown in the books historical accuracy and prophetic accuracy. Both books of Maccabees are missing both.

If a book's presence in the canon is its own proof of historical and prophetic accuracy, how are those criteria not circular? Can you come up with an example out of the books of Maccabees of something that is ahistorical, but couldn't be harmonized with an appropriate level of apologetic effort? Luke's census, for example, is objectively ahistorical for several reasons, but apologists still find ways to claim that it's historical. What specific detail of Maccabees would fail a test that every book in the Protestant canon would pass?

I don't know of any prophecies in the book of Maccabees.

I do know of teachings that are not in harmony with the other books of the Bible. Second Machabees 12:39-46, where Judas Machabeus is reported to have sent silver to Jerusalem “for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection.” The report concludes: “It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.” However, Ecc 9:5 6 says, “As for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all . . . Also their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished.” Romans 6:23 says, "for he who has died has been acquitted from his sin.”

One writer implies they were not inspired and probably not accurate. See 2 Maccabees 15:38-40. "So these things being done with relation to Nicanor, and from that time the city being possessed by the Hebrews, I also will here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me."

Big contracts to other books like Revelation that starts, "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John." Rev 1:1,2

[2timothy316]

[Replying to William in post #9]

It appears to be another way of saying "God-inspired" as far as I can tell

So much more than that. Being God-breathed or God-Inspired is what separates what is inferior from what is superior. If one doesn't know what it means for a book to be God-Breathed then there will be confusion. A genuine God-Breathed book must meet certain criteria. This is why the word 'canon' is used. Canon means 'as a rule' or 'measuring device'. One needs to know what those measurements and rules are in order to understand if something is to be added to the canon of the Bible. Meaning, was the writer under the spirit of God when writing the account? The short answer to the book of Maccabees is, no. What is in the 66 books of the Bible must meet a standard measure and it is not left up to the individual to determine what is what. The book being God-breathed is one of the measurements. And if you don't want to talk about what it means for a book to be God-Breathed, then I will understand why.

I guess the only question left to ask you is if you believe that Jesus was "God-breathed." If not, then I will understand why, but if you do, then perhaps you can address the points I made regarding that - as to why most of what Jesus taught, was NOT recorded in the Bible.

Do you know what that even means?

Just answer the question put to you.

I ask because that is not how the term is used.

[Difflugia]

I do know of teachings that are not in harmony with the other books of the Bible. Second Machabees 12:39-46, where Judas Machabeus is reported to have sent silver to Jerusalem “for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection.” The report concludes: “It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.” However, Ecc 9:5 6 says, “As for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all . . . Also their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished.” Romans 6:23 says, "for he who has died has been acquitted from his sin.”

Although the article you quoted is arguing for the exclusion of the books of Maccabees, the exact same reasoning and logic would apply to the episode of Saul and the Witch of Endor summoning the spirit of Samuel and that makes my original point. The same verses in Ecclesiastes conflict, at least by Watchtower standards, with 1 Samuel. 1 Samuel is still considered canonical, however, and rather than excluding it, the NWT actually added scare quotes around Samuel's name (28:12, for example) as an odd sort of harmonization. If that's all it takes to square such disparate theological points of view, then surely a simple reference to praying for the dead can't be the reason it was excluded, can it?

One writer implies they were not inspired and probably not accurate. See 2 Maccabees 15:38-40. "So these things being done with relation to Nicanor, and from that time the city being possessed by the Hebrews, I also will here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me."

In what way is that different than Paul's admonition that he attributes to himself in 1 Corinthians 7:12? If Paul knew that he was inspired to write the epistle, then he surely wouldn't attribute the sentiment to himself, would he? If, like Paul, the author of 2 Maccabees didn't know that he or she was inspired, they might expect that some human mistakes could make it into the text and write that disclaimer. Imagine the surprise when it was found instead to be perfect!

Big contracts to other books like Revelation that starts, "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John." Rev 1:1,2

I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

[2timothy316]

I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

This is exactly why I was trying to get you to nail down what you think things mean.