Yes, that does help. I can bookmark them and check them when the rains come. I did look into all that long ago, so maybe some new data was added. I am still suspicious of their techniques or Postulates.
*/*/*/*
While I was thinking of it, somewhere you were complaining that I was not doing a solo research project, but totally using the techniques and perspectives in PFAL.
I just realized YOU ARE RIGHT !
The techniques and perspectives from PFAL constitute a major part of my Postulates.So, of course you are right there.
That shows me that you didn't quite understand that my Postulates are my fundamental assumptions, and that, of course, my assumptions are that the PFAL techniques and perspectives are true and from God.
But what I DID mean by this canon project being my solo effort is this:
I never heard VPW teach on the canon topic.
Sure, I used the PFAL the techniques and perspectives I was taught to find results that were new.
VPW only helped me a minimum, by telling me personally he never teaches on the canon, except for the invariant order of the church epistles. He also told me he tried to fit the Apocrypha in, but could not make it fit.
Walter helped me greatly with encouragement, and confirmation of what I had found on my own. He read my papers, and gave me discussion time, and tips for the next paper. He also said I was on thin ice for an item or two.
The reason I’m suspicious of your theory is because it appears uninformed…and it seems like your grabbing at straws since your other arguments didn’t work.
No, I'm grabbing at verses.
Or, I was grabbing at them, and collecting them, for 10 years.
You have not seen 10% of my verses, so you are not in a position to rate my theory, and how well it is based on scripture.
Be patient.
I am scanning and doing the OCR editing on lots of old papers for posting soon.
The earliest known complete list of the 27 books is found in a letter written by Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, dated to 367 AD.The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first. These councils also provided the canon of the Old Testament, which included the deuterocanonical books.
There is no scholarly consensus on the date of composition of the latest New Testament texts. John A. T. Robinson, Dan Wallace, and William F. Albright dated all the books of the New Testament before 70 AD. Many other scholars, such as Bart D. Ehrman and Stephen L. Harris, date some New Testament texts much later than this; Richard Pervo dated Luke–Acts to c. AD 115, and David Trobisch places Acts in the mid-to-late second century, contemporaneous with the publication of the first New Testament canon. The New Oxford Annotated Bible states, "Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus's life and teaching."
Ok, nothing much has changed in 50 years there.
There may be pieces of that I picked up along the way.
But ALL of it I am familiar with.
It is exactly what I said it was: a looking back in history and confirming the search with artifacts and other physical evidence. It is the scientific-historical approach. Been there, done that.
I am taking an entirely different approach. I am limiting myself to the Biblical record, JUST TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
Actuality, I did that long ago, but now it can be your turn.
BOTH methods have a soundness, and each has its limitations.
I'm telling you GOD left some hints for us moderns in His revelations to the ancients about the canon process that are very comforting and supportive for believing in the scriptures.
*/*/*
And I am telling you, that Llamsa anomaly DOES bear on the canon, and in a surprising way.
I will highlight the anomaly, and you can see if you are able to explain it
Here is the verse, with no PFAL anomaly, no problems, we got taught it right.
Matthew 27:46 KJV
“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say,
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
And now here is the same verse with the anomaly in bold fonts:
Matthew 27:46 Llamsa
“And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice
and said, Eli, Eli, lamna shabachthani! Which means,
My God, My God, for this I was kept?”
It took me over 20 years to answer this anomaly, and it ties in with the canon, FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE.That is, it says a lot about the oldest Aramaic manuscripts, and it is actually discouraging.I was surprised, and it downgraded my wondering about how much effort should I put in Aramaic materials.
But first you got to understand why those words are an anomaly, and then the Starbucks answer I got will be the end of this.
Did you never take the Basic Keys To Research class?
I took an early one taught by Donna Randall. I think they beefed it up in the 1980s, but I missed that. Was the Harmony of the Gospels tape set a part of that? I have them, but not listened to them.
I pretty much felt satisfied with what I had seen in the canon verses by the early 80s, and so I did not seek any teaching on it when that class was beefed up.
That is, it says a lot about the oldest Aramaic manuscripts, and it is actually discouraging.I was surprised, and it downgraded my wondering about how much effort should I put in Aramaic materials.
The statement in bold is spurious. Perhaps you were in a hurry and didn't say what you meant.
Surely, you know that Llamsa's Bible is a translation of the Peshi--a . You do know what the Peshi--a is, don't you?
I'm happy to discuss the science and art of translation and interpretation and the nuance and complexity of language. But this is a thread about the canon, not about translation. Would you like to start a new topic? Want me to start one for you?
Edited by Nathan_Jr A forum about The Way International and the Syriac Bible Llamsa translated is CENSORED! Wow. Just. Wow.
The statement in bold is spurious. Perhaps you were in a hurry and didn't say what you ...
I'm happy to discuss the science and art of translation and interpretation and the nuance and complexity of language. But this is a thread about the canon, not about translation. Would you like to start a new topic? Want me to start one for you?
I said that would end it, the Starbucks answer I got.
Meanwhile, have you had a chance to see your earlier question answered? The question on what's the canon connection for that ababababab structure in the Timothy text I posted in two installments, so far.
Did you see how that scripture party Paul was calling for at the end of 2 Timmoty had a building context?
I said that would end it, the Starbucks answer I got.
Meanwhile, have you had a chance to see your earlier question answered? The question on what's the canon connection for that ababababab structure in the Timothy text I posted in two installments, so far.
Did you see how that scripture party Paul was calling for at the end of 2 Timmoty had a building context?
I said that would end it, the Starbucks answer I got.
Meanwhile, have you had a chance to see your earlier question answered? The question on what's the canon connection for that ababababab structure in the Timothy text I posted in two installments, so far.
Did you see how that scripture party Paul was calling for at the end of 2 Timmoty had a building context?
I have a question: why didn't you answer Nate's question.
As far as your anomaly question goes, as anyone who's taken the class knows, it's because they want to sell bibles in the west.
Yawn! There's nothing more boring than somebody telling you what you already know. If we get lost we'll ask. So, cut to the chase already.
Ok, nothing much has changed in 50 years there.
There may be pieces of that I picked up along the way.
But ALL of it I am familiar with.
It is exactly what I said it was: a looking back in history and confirming the search with artifacts and other physical evidence. It is the scientific-historical approach. Been there, done that.
I am taking an entirely different approach. I am limiting myself to the Biblical record, JUST TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
Actuality, I did that long ago, but now it can be your turn.
BOTH methods have a soundness, and each has its limitations.
I'm telling you GOD left some hints for us moderns in His revelations to the ancients about the canon process that are very comforting and supportive for believing in the scriptures.
*/*/*
And I am telling you, that Llamsa anomaly DOES bear on the canon, and in a surprising way.
I will highlight the anomaly, and you can see if you are able to explain it
Here is the verse, with no PFAL anomaly, no problems, we got taught it right.
Matthew 27:46 KJV
“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say,
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
And now here is the same verse with the anomaly in bold fonts:
Matthew 27:46 Llamsa
“And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice
and said, Eli, Eli, lamna shabachthani! Which means,
My God, My God, for this I was kept?”
It took me over 20 years to answer this anomaly, and it ties in with the canon, FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE.That is, it says a lot about the oldest Aramaic manuscripts, and it is actually discouraging.I was surprised, and it downgraded my wondering about how much effort should I put in Aramaic materials.
But first you got to understand why those words are an anomaly, and then the Starbucks answer I got will be the end of this.
"Which means" is NOT an anomaly. Many different Bible versions render it this way.
I don't know. I've told you that I have not invested time or enthusiasm in this type of research. If you are looking for academic info from me, forget it. That is not my approach to this topic.
If you are keen on the languages, then why is your curiosity not up for those bold fonted words in that Llamsa verse on Eli, Eli. They just should not be there, yet they are there.
Do you remember from PFAL why those same basic words are UNDERSTANDABLE in the Greek, but why are they there in the Aramaic?
"Which means" is NOT an anomaly. Many different Bible versions render it this way.
I give up.
The Starbucks reason those words are in Llamsa's Aramaic
is because Llamsa's verse was translated from an earlier Greek text,
which was translated from an earlier Aramaic text.
That means it went Aramaic to Greek to Aramaic.
To me that said manuscript analysis for canon history is way too uncertain for me.
I was willing to bet in 1972 that God put hints in His revelations to teach us how He guided the canon process. I won that bet.
I don't know. I've told you that I have not invested time or enthusiasm in this type of research. If you are looking for academic info from me, forget it. That is not my approach to this topic.
If you are keen on the languages, then why is your curiosity not up for those bold fonted words in that Llamsa verse on Eli, Eli. They just should not be there, yet they are there.
Do you remember from PFAL why those same basic words are UNDERSTANDABLE in the Greek, but why are they there in the Aramaic?
The Pesh I t t a is the Syriac version of the Bible used in Syriac and Eastern churches. The NT of the Pesh I t t a may have been written as early as the 5th century. It is a translation from the GREEK. The Syriac-Aramaic Bible that Llamsa translated into English used the GREEK NT as its source text.
The words "which means" are NOT anomalous. But I don't mind conceding your claim. So what if "which means" is an anomalous rendering? It would be like the thousands of other variants, of no real consequence.
am taking an entirely different approach. I am limiting myself to the Biblical record, JUST TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
You’re never going to figure out much on the compiling of the NT docs or the development of the NT canon from internal evidence. Because there is NO internal running log of “updates” .
I don’t understand what your concern is - and why you don’t feel confident to consult outside resources. Maybe have a little more faith in God’s guidance and start developing better cognitive skills. They can work hand in hand.
Trust is earned. And if you would like others to trust your research you’ll have to show some trust of others . Solid institutions of learning and legitimate scholars are a great resource. Nobody has all the answers. You have the freedom to pick and choose what makes sense to you. Standards in education and peer review is a good thing. Otherwise some people will try to pull a fast one on you.
You really should reflect on how much of an authoritarian wierwille was and how that may have impacted your life , cognitive skills and even might have fostered a little paranoia and distrust of anyone or group or resource outside his sphere of influence….ultimately that is counterproductive to anyone truly interested in learning and research.
Reflect on what is meant by holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Even in PFAL wierwille says it doesn’t mean they were shoved about - they used their vocabulary …their style…and if you think about even their worldview.
If you look at the Bible as a coauthored book (divine/human) you might get a bead on how God works…intervenes…interferes…orchestrates in the real world. It gets messy - because people are the sloppy ones in this “odd couple”.
Maybe put a little faith in the way God works with people. Do you think God was in the middle of things when leaders got together to develop the NT canon? If you review some of those links I gave you’ll find they believed in the Godly inspiration of the documents . They set high standards for doctrinal coherency. You’ll have to trust people to some degree.
The Starbucks reason those words are in Llamsa's Aramaic
is because Llamsa's verse was translated from an earlier Greek text,
which was translated from an earlier Aramaic text.
That means it went Aramaic to Greek to Aramaic.
To me that said manuscript analysis for canon history is way too uncertain for me.
I was willing to bet in 1972 that God put hints in His revelations to teach us how He guided the canon process. I won that bet.
The NT was originally written in Greek, not Aramaic. It was fashionable in the early '70s to assert the opinionated claim that the NT was originally written in Aramaic. This fashion went out of style because truth won out.
As far as your anomaly question goes, as anyone who's taken the class knows, it's because they want to sell bibles in the west.
As you know, this claim is pure, steamy bull$hit.
The greatest secrets in the world today are that most people will believe most anything they hear and one can get away with the most egregious crimes against man and God, if one can only get himself called reverend.
I took an early one taught by Donna Randall. I think they beefed it up in the 1980s, but I missed that. Was the Harmony of the Gospels tape set a part of that? I have them, but not listened to them.
I pretty much felt satisfied with what I had seen in the canon verses by the early 80s, and so I did not seek any teaching on it when that class was beefed up.
The class syllabus from the 1970s lists Wierwille as the author. I'm surprised a devotee of all things Wierwille would be this disinterested in scrutinizing its contents.
I am plodding along 19 hours behind all the latest posting. Thanks for the links again.
I skim read the links, just for old time's sake, and came up with this opening paragraph [w my bold fonts] to fully read. It's from the last link, The Formation of the New Testament Canon.
"The term 'canon' used with reference to the Bible means the collection of books which are received as divinely inspired and therefore authoritative for faith and life. The recognition of the canon of the New Testament is one of the most important developments in the thought and practice of the early church; yet history is silent as to how, when, and by whom it was brought about. It is possible, however, to reconstruct some of the influences that must have contributed to the emergence of the New Testament canon."
I find that when this route it taken, in very short order, the divine inspiration part gets thrown under the bus, and it starts looking like lots of other inspirations mar the original attitude of meekness to the Author. It’s like watch sausage being made at the factory, and very uninspiring of trust in the scriptures.
History is silent on the canon formation. This I found out very fast in 1972.No one took notes while it was happening. There was persecution, and with every passing year, believers were mixing their believing in Paul’s writings with other influences. The church was reprobate, and being persecuted, so the history of the Apostles’ Canon (according to my theory) went unrecorded. But it survived.
The Top-Down approach, as I call it, looks for evidence of the forming canon.They find some evidence, but most is lost… efficiently destroyed by the devil. This approach is scientific and relies on what evidence is still findable, spared by the devil. It is at best a partial understanding of how and when the canon formed.It relies on logic, postulates, and lucky evidence finds.
Meanwhile, I am taking the “Bottom Up” approach. If the scriptures in the canon we have now were divinely inspired, then God tracked with the, having a special interest in preserving them. In His foreknowledge, He would see ahead at our difficulties in re-constructing the originals from fragments and wondering which books belong in His divine canon.He could leave hints for us in the scriptures for us, to encourage us that He watched over and guided the whole process.He could encourage us that the LACK of a historical record need not deter our trust in the canon that survived to today.He could encourage us with scriptural deposits that we could cash in on to see a BIGGER picture of the canon formation and protection than what partial knowing the Top-Down scientific/historical can supply.
I am asking you to think outside the theological box that the Top-Down approach has become. The Bottom-Up approach, from within the scriptures, is a new way to look at this canon problem. I think you or someone said that Bible verses are a part of the traditional approaches to the canon.I would like to see them.Are any of the links you supplied above going to bring me to a trove of Bible verses?If not, do you have any links like that?
I have a question: why didn't you answer Nate's question.
As far as your anomaly question goes, as anyone who's taken the class knows, it's because they want to sell bibles in the west.
Yawn! There's nothing more boring than somebody telling you what you already know. If we get lost we'll ask. So, cut to the chase already.
Nathan asks a lot of questions; not sure if we are talking about the same one.
He asked a couple of times about how "ababababab" contributes to understanding the canon, and I said I had answered that in the detailed text I posted of my old paper on 2 Timothy details. Of course that text was in 2 installments, both buried now, and the 3rd and 4th installments have not been edited from their raw OCR processing yet.
Did you see those two installments of text on Timothy?
Here they are on page 8:
1stinstallment – page 8 @ 30% mark, 23 hours ago,
Sat 10-15-22 ~ 9:00 am Pacific Time
2nd installment – page 8 @ 55% mark, 22 hours ago,
Sat 10-15-22 ~ 10 am Pacific Time
*/*/*/*/*
Those installments explain what theababababababa thing was all about.
The explanation is in the two long lists of verses in 2 Timothy.
It would be easier for readers if I could post all 4 installments in one post.
I wonder how big a post the software can handle?
| wonder how bit a post the management can handle?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
199
126
90
153
Popular Days
Oct 17
109
Oct 11
87
Oct 15
69
Oct 10
54
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 199 posts
T-Bone 126 posts
OldSkool 90 posts
Nathan_Jr 153 posts
Popular Days
Oct 17 2022
109 posts
Oct 11 2022
87 posts
Oct 15 2022
69 posts
Oct 10 2022
54 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
I haven't been following this thread but had a peek. This whole thread is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the canon of scripture. But I did note the following, originally posted by our
waysider
Ahhh, those were the days.
waysider
Bake 'em away, toys.
Posted Images
Mike
Yes, that does help. I can bookmark them and check them when the rains come. I did look into all that long ago, so maybe some new data was added. I am still suspicious of their techniques or Postulates.
*/*/*/*
While I was thinking of it, somewhere you were complaining that I was not doing a solo research project, but totally using the techniques and perspectives in PFAL.
I just realized YOU ARE RIGHT !
The techniques and perspectives from PFAL constitute a major part of my Postulates. So, of course you are right there.
That shows me that you didn't quite understand that my Postulates are my fundamental assumptions, and that, of course, my assumptions are that the PFAL techniques and perspectives are true and from God.
But what I DID mean by this canon project being my solo effort is this:
I never heard VPW teach on the canon topic.
Sure, I used the PFAL the techniques and perspectives I was taught to find results that were new.
VPW only helped me a minimum, by telling me personally he never teaches on the canon, except for the invariant order of the church epistles. He also told me he tried to fit the Apocrypha in, but could not make it fit.
Walter helped me greatly with encouragement, and confirmation of what I had found on my own. He read my papers, and gave me discussion time, and tips for the next paper. He also said I was on thin ice for an item or two.
I’ll be finished posting my 2 Timothy paper soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
is that what's called sole food?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
That's exactly what it's called.
Now, put your gloves back on! Nobody walks around here with naked hands.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No, I'm grabbing at verses.
Or, I was grabbing at them, and collecting them, for 10 years.
You have not seen 10% of my verses, so you are not in a position to rate my theory, and how well it is based on scripture.
Be patient.
I am scanning and doing the OCR editing on lots of old papers for posting soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Did you never take the Basic Keys To Research class?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ok, nothing much has changed in 50 years there.
There may be pieces of that I picked up along the way.
But ALL of it I am familiar with.
It is exactly what I said it was: a looking back in history and confirming the search with artifacts and other physical evidence. It is the scientific-historical approach. Been there, done that.
I am taking an entirely different approach. I am limiting myself to the Biblical record, JUST TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
Actuality, I did that long ago, but now it can be your turn.
BOTH methods have a soundness, and each has its limitations.
I'm telling you GOD left some hints for us moderns in His revelations to the ancients about the canon process that are very comforting and supportive for believing in the scriptures.
*/*/*
And I am telling you, that Llamsa anomaly DOES bear on the canon, and in a surprising way.
I will highlight the anomaly, and you can see if you are able to explain it
Here is the verse, with no PFAL anomaly, no problems, we got taught it right.
Matthew 27:46 KJV
“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say,
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
And now here is the same verse with the anomaly in bold fonts:
Matthew 27:46 Llamsa
“And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice
and said, Eli, Eli, lamna shabachthani! Which means,
My God, My God, for this I was kept?”
It took me over 20 years to answer this anomaly, and it ties in with the canon, FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE. That is, it says a lot about the oldest Aramaic manuscripts, and it is actually discouraging. I was surprised, and it downgraded my wondering about how much effort should I put in Aramaic materials.
But first you got to understand why those words are an anomaly, and then the Starbucks answer I got will be the end of this.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
60% of the time it works every time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I took an early one taught by Donna Randall. I think they beefed it up in the 1980s, but I missed that. Was the Harmony of the Gospels tape set a part of that? I have them, but not listened to them.
I pretty much felt satisfied with what I had seen in the canon verses by the early 80s, and so I did not seek any teaching on it when that class was beefed up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The statement in bold is spurious. Perhaps you were in a hurry and didn't say what you meant.
Surely, you know that Llamsa's Bible is a translation of the Peshi--a . You do know what the Peshi--a is, don't you?
I'm happy to discuss the science and art of translation and interpretation and the nuance and complexity of language. But this is a thread about the canon, not about translation. Would you like to start a new topic? Want me to start one for you?
Edited by Nathan_JrA forum about The Way International and the Syriac Bible Llamsa translated is CENSORED! Wow. Just. Wow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I said that would end it, the Starbucks answer I got.
Meanwhile, have you had a chance to see your earlier question answered? The question on what's the canon connection for that ababababab structure in the Timothy text I posted in two installments, so far.
Did you see how that scripture party Paul was calling for at the end of 2 Timmoty had a building context?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
What is the Pes h I. Tt a?
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I have a question: why didn't you answer Nate's question.
As far as your anomaly question goes, as anyone who's taken the class knows, it's because they want to sell bibles in the west.
Yawn! There's nothing more boring than somebody telling you what you already know. If we get lost we'll ask. So, cut to the chase already.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
"Which means" is NOT an anomaly. Many different Bible versions render it this way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I don't know. I've told you that I have not invested time or enthusiasm in this type of research. If you are looking for academic info from me, forget it. That is not my approach to this topic.
If you are keen on the languages, then why is your curiosity not up for those bold fonted words in that Llamsa verse on Eli, Eli. They just should not be there, yet they are there.
Do you remember from PFAL why those same basic words are UNDERSTANDABLE in the Greek, but why are they there in the Aramaic?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I give up.
The Starbucks reason those words are in Llamsa's Aramaic
is because Llamsa's verse was translated from an earlier Greek text,
which was translated from an earlier Aramaic text.
That means it went Aramaic to Greek to Aramaic.
To me that said manuscript analysis for canon history is way too uncertain for me.
I was willing to bet in 1972 that God put hints in His revelations to teach us how He guided the canon process. I won that bet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The Pesh I t t a is the Syriac version of the Bible used in Syriac and Eastern churches. The NT of the Pesh I t t a may have been written as early as the 5th century. It is a translation from the GREEK. The Syriac-Aramaic Bible that Llamsa translated into English used the GREEK NT as its source text.
The words "which means" are NOT anomalous. But I don't mind conceding your claim. So what if "which means" is an anomalous rendering? It would be like the thousands of other variants, of no real consequence.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
You’re never going to figure out much on the compiling of the NT docs or the development of the NT canon from internal evidence. Because there is NO internal running log of “updates” .
I don’t understand what your concern is - and why you don’t feel confident to consult outside resources. Maybe have a little more faith in God’s guidance and start developing better cognitive skills. They can work hand in hand.
Trust is earned. And if you would like others to trust your research you’ll have to show some trust of others . Solid institutions of learning and legitimate scholars are a great resource. Nobody has all the answers. You have the freedom to pick and choose what makes sense to you. Standards in education and peer review is a good thing. Otherwise some people will try to pull a fast one on you.
You really should reflect on how much of an authoritarian wierwille was and how that may have impacted your life , cognitive skills and even might have fostered a little paranoia and distrust of anyone or group or resource outside his sphere of influence….ultimately that is counterproductive to anyone truly interested in learning and research.
Reflect on what is meant by holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Even in PFAL wierwille says it doesn’t mean they were shoved about - they used their vocabulary …their style…and if you think about even their worldview.
If you look at the Bible as a coauthored book (divine/human) you might get a bead on how God works…intervenes…interferes…orchestrates in the real world. It gets messy - because people are the sloppy ones in this “odd couple”.
Maybe put a little faith in the way God works with people. Do you think God was in the middle of things when leaders got together to develop the NT canon? If you review some of those links I gave you’ll find they believed in the Godly inspiration of the documents . They set high standards for doctrinal coherency. You’ll have to trust people to some degree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The NT was originally written in Greek, not Aramaic. It was fashionable in the early '70s to assert the opinionated claim that the NT was originally written in Aramaic. This fashion went out of style because truth won out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
As you know, this claim is pure, steamy bull$hit.
The greatest secrets in the world today are that most people will believe most anything they hear and one can get away with the most egregious crimes against man and God, if one can only get himself called reverend.
Edited by Nathan_Jr= duck
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The class syllabus from the 1970s lists Wierwille as the author. I'm surprised a devotee of all things Wierwille would be this disinterested in scrutinizing its contents.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I worked the tapes and syllabus in-residence. I havent looked at the material in 20 years but thought it was a decent work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I am plodding along 19 hours behind all the latest posting. Thanks for the links again.
I skim read the links, just for old time's sake, and came up with this opening paragraph [w my bold fonts] to fully read. It's from the last link, The Formation of the New Testament Canon.
"The term 'canon' used with reference to the Bible means the collection of books which are received as divinely inspired and therefore authoritative for faith and life. The recognition of the canon of the New Testament is one of the most important developments in the thought and practice of the early church; yet history is silent as to how, when, and by whom it was brought about. It is possible, however, to reconstruct some of the influences that must have contributed to the emergence of the New Testament canon."
I find that when this route it taken, in very short order, the divine inspiration part gets thrown under the bus, and it starts looking like lots of other inspirations mar the original attitude of meekness to the Author. It’s like watch sausage being made at the factory, and very uninspiring of trust in the scriptures.
History is silent on the canon formation. This I found out very fast in 1972. No one took notes while it was happening. There was persecution, and with every passing year, believers were mixing their believing in Paul’s writings with other influences. The church was reprobate, and being persecuted, so the history of the Apostles’ Canon (according to my theory) went unrecorded. But it survived.
The Top-Down approach, as I call it, looks for evidence of the forming canon. They find some evidence, but most is lost… efficiently destroyed by the devil. This approach is scientific and relies on what evidence is still findable, spared by the devil. It is at best a partial understanding of how and when the canon formed. It relies on logic, postulates, and lucky evidence finds.
Meanwhile, I am taking the “Bottom Up” approach. If the scriptures in the canon we have now were divinely inspired, then God tracked with the, having a special interest in preserving them. In His foreknowledge, He would see ahead at our difficulties in re-constructing the originals from fragments and wondering which books belong in His divine canon. He could leave hints for us in the scriptures for us, to encourage us that He watched over and guided the whole process. He could encourage us that the LACK of a historical record need not deter our trust in the canon that survived to today. He could encourage us with scriptural deposits that we could cash in on to see a BIGGER picture of the canon formation and protection than what partial knowing the Top-Down scientific/historical can supply.
I am asking you to think outside the theological box that the Top-Down approach has become. The Bottom-Up approach, from within the scriptures, is a new way to look at this canon problem. I think you or someone said that Bible verses are a part of the traditional approaches to the canon. I would like to see them. Are any of the links you supplied above going to bring me to a trove of Bible verses? If not, do you have any links like that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Mike
Your approach seems to me to be like a kid trying to look for reasons to believe that Santa Claus is real.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Nathan asks a lot of questions; not sure if we are talking about the same one.
He asked a couple of times about how "ababababab" contributes to understanding the canon, and I said I had answered that in the detailed text I posted of my old paper on 2 Timothy details. Of course that text was in 2 installments, both buried now, and the 3rd and 4th installments have not been edited from their raw OCR processing yet.
Did you see those two installments of text on Timothy?
Here they are on page 8:
https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25333-new-testament-canon/page/8/
1st installment – page 8 @ 30% mark, 23 hours ago,
Sat 10-15-22 ~ 9:00 am Pacific Time
2nd installment – page 8 @ 55% mark, 22 hours ago,
Sat 10-15-22 ~ 10 am Pacific Time
*/*/*/*/*
Those installments explain what the ababababababa thing was all about.
The explanation is in the two long lists of verses in 2 Timothy.
It would be easier for readers if I could post all 4 installments in one post.
I wonder how big a post the software can handle?
| wonder how bit a post the management can handle?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.