. I was referring to compilers and people controlling the manuscripts.
how did you know they were unbelievers? . It is safe to assume the adversary had his agents in there, due to the high stakes.
how is the integrity of the Bible undermined? .The body of knowledge built up in a human mind can get undermined in the TRUST area when information from the wrong sources is considered too deeply. We see the integrity of the Word undermined step by step as she processes info from the devil. You know, it's the PFAL model, the PFAL Postulate.
How does the literary structure of 2 Tim and 2 Pet relate to NT canon?
how can 2 Tim & 2 Pet that were written before Gospels and other books signify the canonicity of books not yet written?
What it shows is the great interest the First Century writers had in keeping track of what they had written. They knew it was revelation (1 Thess 2:13)
The writers did NOT leave the official collection of writings (later to become the canon) for others to decide. That is what we see in their writings. We even see early compilations taking place in 2 Timothy, and the finished produce mentioned at the end of 2 Peter.
What are the names of the mentors you think I trust?
what specific points of these “mentors” aim at unbelief? And what does that mean? Are they targeting unbelief? Wiping out unbelief is a good thing - right?
since it’s not clear what is the aim of the unnamed mentors - it is not clear what you’re saying about the aim of my posts.
Please clarify
No thanks. It is not necessary for the topic. It was just my overall impression. I could be wrong there.
what if it is just you reading your bias into the Bible?
At that time I did not have a bias on the canon, other than that I was believing what I was taught in PFAL, just like I do now. I knew it was confusing and discouraging to take the Top-Down approach, which I did for a couple months.
does canon only address whether or not a book is accepted as being inspired of God and has an apostolic source?
The Top-Down approach addresses BOTH of those issues.
The Bottom-Up approach does NOT address those issues. It addresses the attitudes and practices of the writers, and how they valued having the revelation God gave them and wanted it to be preserved and promoted to others beyond the writers' deaths.
.My slang "healthy dose" of the spirit, was referring to Jesus' cousin, John the Baptist, having spirit upon him while in the womb. Here a "healthy dose" means a lot. No numerical implications, and no ratio, are in the slang.
Ok cool. Now this kind of talk is good. Honestly Mike I don’t mean to give you a hard time about everything - but I start having lots of questions and doubts when I sense someone is spouting off what they think are definitive answers but I can tell they don’t know any more than I do. For instance - what does “spirit upon “ mean? That’s not explained in the Bible.
What was in the collection that they had already begun making?
Again, you seek specificity where it is not.
What you can see in the Bottom-Up approach are the attitudes the writers and helpers had, and how they acted responsibly to form God's Canon, a list or collection of His written Word. They were hustling at the end to make sure they did assembly of writings that was done by revelation, just like the words we written by revelation. God guided the writers to collect their writings together, and not leave them to history in a disorganized state.
The Top-Down approach addresses BOTH of those issues.
The Bottom-Up approach does NOT address those issues. It addresses the attitudes and practices of the writers, and how they valued having the revelation God gave them and wanted it to be preserved and promoted to others beyond the writers' deaths.
I can see that. That’s what I was addressing earlier about internal evidence- those who developed the canon believed the manuscripts were God-inspired and also checked to see if there was doctrinal coherency across the manuscripts, besides verifying apostolic source - that it came from an apostle
Ok cool. Now this kind of talk is good. Honestly Mike I don’t mean to give you a hard time about everything - but I start having lots of questions and doubts when I sense someone is spouting off what they think are definitive answers but I can tell they don’t know any more than I do. For instance - what does “spirit upon “ mean? That’s not explained in the Bible.
spirit upon could be lost, and is described like it can be measured out.
spirit seed within is permanent, and described as being the full dose.
*/*/*/*
The attitude of confidence I have in my Bottom-Up theory is the large amount of scriptural background that is involved and the scope I have had on it for decades.
I understand the attitude of suspicion you have, and I can't blame you. You have not seen this large trove of scriptures, and you have not had decades to serenely ponder them, like I had.
It will take time for me to get all my trove of scriptures posted.
What I meant by that was "unaided by academic research from the the Top-Down mode."
Ok - so just good old Bible study and no technical references like lexicons and interlinears nothing wrong with that. That simple approach comprises the bulk of my study efforts. I use Bible resources to drill down deep for certain pet projects
I can see that. That’s what I was addressing earlier about internal evidence- those who developed the canon believed the manuscripts were God-inspired and also checked to see if there was doctrinal coherency across the manuscripts, besides verifying apostolic source - that it came from an apostle
Yes, and I am not against that sort of inquiry. I am just not excited about that approach, due to the uncertainties involved. Science is great when you have data and artifacts to observe, but there is precious little they have to go on for what happened between 67 AD and about 120 AD.
It is those early years that the responsibly minded Biblical writers had to do their Authoritative collection and pass it on to responsible people for preservation.
...and also checked to see if there was doctrinal coherency across the manuscripts, besides verifying apostolic source - that it came from an apostle
I doubt if that was what they did. My hunch is that they asked God, the same God that gave them the revelations to write was very keen on answering them when they asked which writings to include.
A collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine
the works of a particular author or artist that are recognized as genuine.
the list of works considered to be permanently established as being of the highest quality
CanonCambridge Dictionary
noun
The writings or other works that are generally agreed to be good, important, and worth studying.
CanonMerriam-Webster Dictionary
noun
a: an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture
b: the authentic works of a writer
c: a sanctioned oraccepted group or body of related works
My eyes are learning to rest when I see these large fonts.
Is that your intention? If so, thanks. I need the rest.
Is there anything in them great big fonts that is still not responded to?
My eyes are learning to rest when I see these large fonts.
Is that your intention? If so, thanks. I need the rest.
Is there anything in them great big fonts that is still not responded to?
Nope. Arbitrary. It's how it's copied and pasted. Could be any size. Doesn't mean anything at all. No secrets. No codes. A coin flip.
Just accurate, relevant definitions of CANON that everyone should understand when posting on this topic.
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
Good questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
You can always start a new topic and make it your own.
BUT, one thing is certain: the will of God is definitely NOT the word of God. That's been established.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
What it shows is the great interest the First Century writers had in keeping track of what they had written. They knew it was revelation (1 Thess 2:13)
The writers did NOT leave the official collection of writings (later to become the canon) for others to decide. That is what we see in their writings. We even see early compilations taking place in 2 Timothy, and the finished produce mentioned at the end of 2 Peter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
They did not initiate the modern study of the canon, obviously.
They INDICATE that the writers had already begun MAKING THE COLLECTION that would late be called the canon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No thanks. It is not necessary for the topic. It was just my overall impression. I could be wrong there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
At that time I did not have a bias on the canon, other than that I was believing what I was taught in PFAL, just like I do now. I knew it was confusing and discouraging to take the Top-Down approach, which I did for a couple months.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
What was in the collection that they had already begun making?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
What I meant by that was "unaided by academic research from the the Top-Down mode."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Like the Tyndale Bible? That's pretty raw, but he was still kinda academic about it all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The Top-Down approach addresses BOTH of those issues.
The Bottom-Up approach does NOT address those issues. It addresses the attitudes and practices of the writers, and how they valued having the revelation God gave them and wanted it to be preserved and promoted to others beyond the writers' deaths.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It all goes back to Tydale, anyway. Except Llamsa. He goes back to an Aramaic translation of the Greek.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Ok cool. Now this kind of talk is good. Honestly Mike I don’t mean to give you a hard time about everything - but I start having lots of questions and doubts when I sense someone is spouting off what they think are definitive answers but I can tell they don’t know any more than I do. For instance - what does “spirit upon “ mean? That’s not explained in the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Again, you seek specificity where it is not.
What you can see in the Bottom-Up approach are the attitudes the writers and helpers had, and how they acted responsibly to form God's Canon, a list or collection of His written Word. They were hustling at the end to make sure they did assembly of writings that was done by revelation, just like the words we written by revelation. God guided the writers to collect their writings together, and not leave them to history in a disorganized state.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I can see that. That’s what I was addressing earlier about internal evidence- those who developed the canon believed the manuscripts were God-inspired and also checked to see if there was doctrinal coherency across the manuscripts, besides verifying apostolic source - that it came from an apostle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
spirit upon could be lost, and is described like it can be measured out.
spirit seed within is permanent, and described as being the full dose.
*/*/*/*
The attitude of confidence I have in my Bottom-Up theory is the large amount of scriptural background that is involved and the scope I have had on it for decades.
I understand the attitude of suspicion you have, and I can't blame you. You have not seen this large trove of scriptures, and you have not had decades to serenely ponder them, like I had.
It will take time for me to get all my trove of scriptures posted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
For those wanting to know more about bottom-up and top-down processing.
https://www.verywellmind.com/bottom-up-processing-and-perception-4584296
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Ok - so just good old Bible study and no technical references like lexicons and interlinears nothing wrong with that. That simple approach comprises the bulk of my study efforts. I use Bible resources to drill down deep for certain pet projects
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Canon New Oxford American Dictionary
noun
A collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine
Canon Cambridge Dictionary
noun
The writings or other works that are generally agreed to be good, important, and worth studying.
Canon Merriam-Webster Dictionary
noun
a: an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture
b: the authentic works of a writer
c: a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes, and I am not against that sort of inquiry. I am just not excited about that approach, due to the uncertainties involved. Science is great when you have data and artifacts to observe, but there is precious little they have to go on for what happened between 67 AD and about 120 AD.
It is those early years that the responsibly minded Biblical writers had to do their Authoritative collection and pass it on to responsible people for preservation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I doubt if that was what they did. My hunch is that they asked God, the same God that gave them the revelations to write was very keen on answering them when they asked which writings to include.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
LoL
I think it was from that field that I got the terms bottom-up and top-down.
I'm all for better terms, where time is horizontal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
My eyes are learning to rest when I see these large fonts.
Is that your intention? If so, thanks. I need the rest.
Is there anything in them great big fonts that is still not responded to?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Leave it to you to snag me back in time. Brother can you spare some Postum ? That was some weird coffee substitute- not even a challenging counterfeit
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Nope. Arbitrary. It's how it's copied and pasted. Could be any size. Doesn't mean anything at all. No secrets. No codes. A coin flip.
Just accurate, relevant definitions of CANON that everyone should understand when posting on this topic.
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.