History is uninspired and therefore subject to error. It is incomplete and therefore can never be final. It is limited to personal bias, knowledge of men.
And here your problems begin and how your false delemma is problematic. Let me explain. With regard to a discussion about God a man (singular) may be in error especially if they are not inspired by the Holy Spirit. And this becomes a valid point when discussing a meaning of a text of Scripture. That is not what we are discussing. We are discussing what may be assertained from eyewitness to events that happened long ago. For instance neither you nor I were alive during the sinking of the Titanic. And I think all the people who survived are now passed away. However, irrelevant to what they believe about God a consensus of eyewitness to the event of the sinking of the Titanic which were recorded in writing can give us a reliable understanding of the event. The fact that archeologist are able to verify the eyewitness accounts to the sinking of that ship by sending robotic submarines to that ship only supports the accounts. In the same way we can assertain certian things about the compilation of scripture from ancient eyewitness and their documentation.
Isaiah 8:16-18 is not subject to historical inquiry as it is accepted as scripture on all sides. It speaks directly to the issue of completing the Biblical canon and quoted by New Testament writers and most importantly by the final writer and the final book of the New Testament canon. I will take Isaiah's word over yours or over your uninspired scholars.
This expresses how incongruent your approach is. Obviously this is prophetic statement but how it can be applied can be diverse. For instance to which time period is Isaiah referring. It seems the prophesy is more closely related to the imminent invasion of the Assyrians and the condemnation of the Northern Kingdom. And the specific verse you mention follows a principle of trusting in the lord and follow his law (Torah). Also, One could take the passage to mean "Let some faithful witnesses keep this prophecy, that when it is verified, all may be convinced." Using the King James version it says "seal the law" which specifically means Torah. This is cannot therefore be taken as a statement regarding the whole of Canon. It certianly cannot be used to distinguish which books are considered canon.
Not so, especially when they contradict those who did write by inspiration.
two points. First of all who do you consider "inspired" in 100-400 AD? Secondly, Another false delemma in that by "contradict" you mean hold to your view of how you interpret scripture. Which you are colored by the era and culture you currently exist rather than any experience of that actual time. So in fact they may not be "contradicting" but rather expressing what they consider to be entirely congruent with scriptures.
As I have told you before on several occassions, I can quote your own sources to contradict your own sources since you will not accept the scriptures.
Another false delemma. I accept the scriptures. What I reject is your personal interpretation as can be seen by the many Christian denominations interpretation of scriptures is as diverse as are the people who offer their opinions about them. The fact that you can quote one person you fail to offer the consensus of that persons time period among all the writing available. "Given" that a person may be falible when you have a majority of witnesses to a particular event the more often repreated account has more reliability. And that is where your argument goes off.
However, it is obvious, or should be, that all the New Testament was completed in the life time of the Apostles and thus the canon was complete regardless how uninspired "heretics" viewed it or not.
And where you problem lies is that though all the documentes were writen what was considered inspired wasn't settled until much later. And the fact that there was no consensus for this during the early church is evidence of it.
God never gave the OT canon to be settled by post-first coming saints but he gave it to Israel (Rom. 3:1-2; 9:5) as the guardians of the OT Canon and they did not accept the apocrypha as scripture.
Not true. They may not have later considered apocrypha scripture after the progression of Christianity but certainly the fact that the only recorded even of Hannukah is recorded in Macc. certainly when quoting the OT Non palestinian Jews and Christians quoted from the LXX which contained these books.
Jesus did not accept it as scripture as Jesus identified the first prophet to be Abel and the last to be Zechariah when he spoke about Israel rejecting ALL the prophets.
False argument in that non of the apocryphal personalities are considered prophets.
As in the case of Old Testament prophets the oral was replaced by the written record and the oral traditions were never regarded as inspired by Jesus
It seems you need to read Matthew 23 again
The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do
Place of Oral teaching. Also how about Matthew 2:23
that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.
The written word no where says that therefore it must be Oral teaching.
