(ffbruce;62923)
Right. It's kind of like using Bible verses to witness to an atheist who simply refuses to believe that the Bible is anything but a fairy tale. There have to be evidences outside the Bible (which there are).Like I said in an earlier post, the Canon of the Bible was well established long before the Roman Catholic Church became the organized entity it has been for the last 1700 years.
or it might be like someone trying to say that the KJV is THE only version of the Bible, and therefore THE only source for truth in matters of faith and practice... but then not realizing that since the KJV bible does not ITSELF make this claim, they would have to go outside the KJV to support this claim, which would then undermine the very point that they are trying to make, .... thus, to say "the KJV is the only true bible" is itself an extrabiblical statement, and is therefore based on one's opinions and interpretations on a number of issues, but is not and cannot necessarily be proven by appealing to the KJV itself, though admittedly some try to do so.in regard to the canon issue.... as you well know and have agreed in substance to.... the table of contents in our bibles are not inspired, nowhere does the bible itself say (for my KJV only friends
) "thus and verily, lo, and behold, there shalt be 66 books and 66 books only in the Christian canon." Since the Bible nowhere makes this claim, we are forced to go outside of the Scriptures themselves to investigate what books actually belong in the Bible. So to say
The Bible says that prove (test) all things, hold fast that which is good. Test this writing with the Bible and hold fast to the good and reject that which is not Biblical.
might miss the point that the very words one is appealing to as an authoritative source is exactly what is up for discussion. And secondly, all that is written at the site is from historical documentation, and not from the Scriptures in the first place, so there is no "testing" this writing with the Bible in the sense that we need to determine whether or not this writing is itself "biblical", because it is not biblical, it is history. The Bible itself does not say anything at all about the canonization process.Although perhaps I should also say that on the whole, I agree with the overall point that is being made in the OP..... The RC did not determine our canon, they merely recognized it.....blessings,Ken
Right. It's kind of like using Bible verses to witness to an atheist who simply refuses to believe that the Bible is anything but a fairy tale. There have to be evidences outside the Bible (which there are).Like I said in an earlier post, the Canon of the Bible was well established long before the Roman Catholic Church became the organized entity it has been for the last 1700 years.
or it might be like someone trying to say that the KJV is THE only version of the Bible, and therefore THE only source for truth in matters of faith and practice... but then not realizing that since the KJV bible does not ITSELF make this claim, they would have to go outside the KJV to support this claim, which would then undermine the very point that they are trying to make, .... thus, to say "the KJV is the only true bible" is itself an extrabiblical statement, and is therefore based on one's opinions and interpretations on a number of issues, but is not and cannot necessarily be proven by appealing to the KJV itself, though admittedly some try to do so.in regard to the canon issue.... as you well know and have agreed in substance to.... the table of contents in our bibles are not inspired, nowhere does the bible itself say (for my KJV only friends
The Bible says that prove (test) all things, hold fast that which is good. Test this writing with the Bible and hold fast to the good and reject that which is not Biblical.
might miss the point that the very words one is appealing to as an authoritative source is exactly what is up for discussion. And secondly, all that is written at the site is from historical documentation, and not from the Scriptures in the first place, so there is no "testing" this writing with the Bible in the sense that we need to determine whether or not this writing is itself "biblical", because it is not biblical, it is history. The Bible itself does not say anything at all about the canonization process.Although perhaps I should also say that on the whole, I agree with the overall point that is being made in the OP..... The RC did not determine our canon, they merely recognized it.....blessings,Ken
