Christianity and how the bible was put together

[Darron Steele]

...Off course I dispute something that I find questionable or not consistent don't you? ....

Nope.

If I did that, all I would ever do is argue with people. Every time I visited a congregation, I would get into an argument.

There would be no end to the arguments. There would be no end to the disruptions of congregation affairs or fellowship.

The Bible has warnings about people who have a deep enjoyment of arguments. Proverbs 18:2 says “The fool does not desire understanding, But only to air his thoughts” (JPS 1985); the "fool" here wants to "air his thoughts" and s/he does not care how informed s/he is nor whether prudence suggests keeping the mouth shut. 1 Timothy 6:4 has a poignant warning against people who like arguments when it warns against
-- "obsessed with disputes" (NKJV), or
-- "a morbid interest in controversial questions" (NASB), or
-- "an unhealthy craving for controversy" (ESV).
I learned to take that warning very seriously.

So no, I do not always dispute when "I find something questionable or not consistent." I will usually just silently think about my doubts. I try to be judicious about when to actually raise a dispute -- and about when to persist in any such dispute.

...But here is his point that I found to be the most acceptable off all the arguments here that Josephus admits to only 22 books in his against Aphion and specifies his argument against the Greek view of the OT. That is good evidence ...

Josephus was a first century Palestinian Jew. His 22 books is based upon a system which does not separate books we separate and which combines books we leave separate.

If you read his Against Apion 1:8/1:38-41, you will find that Josephus describes the books “which contain the records of all the past times which are justly believed to be divine,” limits them to “till the reign of Artexerxes, king of Persia,” and specifies “our history hath been written since Artexerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of like authority”* after that.

Josephus was a first century Palestinian Jew -- just like Jesus Christ and His apostles. If they did not accept a book that existed then to be "Scripture" then I do not see it as my place to accept it as such.

To you, this seems to be a matter of history. You seem to be approaching it as `What was the usual practice of the church in the first several centuries?' Your assertions favoring an expanded Old Testament canon are based on that.

To me, it is a matter of authority: if the Lord Jesus Christ did not accept it as Scripture, then I do not see it as right for me to accept it as so. For me, that settled it.

___
*Whiston, The Works of Josephus, page 776.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Nope.

If I did that, all I would ever do is argue with people. Every time I visited a congregation, I would get into an argument.

There would be no end to the arguments. There would be no end to the disruptions of congregation affairs or fellowship.

The Bible has warnings about people who have a deep enjoyment of arguments. Proverbs 18:2 says “The fool does not desire understanding, But only to air his thoughts” (JPS 1985); the "fool" here wants to "air his thoughts" and s/he does not care how informed s/he is nor whether prudence suggests keeping the mouth shut. 1 Timothy 6:4 has a poignant warning against people who like arguments when it warns against
-- "obsessed with disputes" (NKJV), or
-- "a morbid interest in controversial questions" (NASB), or
-- "an unhealthy craving for controversy" (ESV).
I learned to take that warning very seriously.

So no, I do not always dispute when "I find something questionable or not consistent." I try to be judicious about when to do such things -- and about when to persist in such things.

Josephus was a first century Palestinian Jew. If you read his Against Apion 1:8/1:38-41, you will find that Josephus describes the books “which contain the records of all the past times which are justly believed to be divine,” limits them to “till the reign of Artexerxes, king of Persia,” and specifies “our history hath been written since Artexerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of like authority”* after that.

Josephus was a first century Palestinian Jew -- just like Jesus Christ and His apostles. If they did not accept a book that existed then to be "Scripture" then I do not see it as my place to accept it as such.

To you, this seems to be a matter of history. You seem to be approaching it as `What was the usual practice of the church in the first several centuries?' You seem to be ready to base your final decision on what answers you pick up.

To me, it is a matter of authority: if the Lord Jesus Christ did not accept it as Scripture, then I do not see it as right for me to accept it as so. For me, that settled it.

___
*Whiston, The Works of Josephus, page 776.

I did say that Josephus was the best argument on that side of the debate. And yes I am looking at it from a historical perspective. Why not? I think if you have a good understanding from the historical perspective you have a better understanding of the context of the text. Makes sence. Many things have been misconstured by looking at a verse only from a modern context. like the woman touched the hem of his garment. When more likely she touched his tassle as he was a rabbi and the Jews were commanded to wear four tassles to remind them of the law.

The problem is that you don't know what the Lord Jesus Christ accept or did not accept as books from the Old Testiment. You weren't there. So the only way to determine it is by looking at the evidence of the time. And like I said the best evidence for your thought is that 1 Jesus did not quote directly from the DC and 2 Josephus indicates that there were only 22 books accepted as authoritative. Now I could say that Josephus wrote these events after they happened and may have sided with the new Jewish convention with Jamnia since he was Jewish and a Zealot but I won't because there is no evidense linking them but I could speculate it.

I already believe the bible and there is no contest over the 39 books what I'm questioning is the DC. So yes I look at history to see their use in early christianity. So the faith issue for me is not really an issue. So then I want to look at things scientifically. Why not? Do you think God is afraid that I might find he is wrong? Of course not!!! I think God wants us to look into these matters with all our faculties. The angels do.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I do like debate by the way and I don't argue at church. That is what this forum is for. I'm actually a peacable guy. But I believe you should question things that don't add up. Otherwise you may be lead astray.

 

[Darron Steele]

I do like debate by the way and I don't argue at church. That is what this forum is for. I'm actually a peacable guy. But I believe you should question things that don't add up. Otherwise you may be lead astray.

I am all for "question things that don't add up." If you do not agree with it, then reject it in the privacy of your own thoughts. That is adequate for you to not "be lead astray."

I do not think doubting someone's view, or rejecting someone's view, necessarily means that you have to argue about it. In fact, I know that is the case because most of us choose not to argue disagreements everyday.

"I do like debate" -- I did too. Granted, I never argued for a position I doubted just for sport, but I still liked to find a controversy and people to argue with about it.

The Bible has warnings about people who have a deep enjoyment of arguments. Proverbs 18:2 says “The fool does not desire understanding, But only to air his thoughts” (JPS 1985); the "fool" here wants to "air his thoughts" and s/he does not care how informed s/he is nor whether prudence suggests keeping the mouth shut. 1 Timothy 6:4 has a poignant warning against people who like arguments when it warns against
-- "obsessed with disputes" (NKJV), or
-- "a morbid interest in controversial questions" (NASB), or
-- "an unhealthy craving for controversy" (ESV).
I learned to take that warning very seriously.

Before I learned, I had an uneasy feeling about 1 Timothy 6:4. I learned the hard way that I should have taken that warning at face value.

The Lord got me to lose my love for seeking controversies and debate. I did not usually enjoy the process either. After it was over, I had a whole new appreciation for warnings at 1 Timothy 6:4 and related passages.

...

The problem is that you don't know what the Lord Jesus Christ accept or did not accept as books from the Old Testiment. You weren't there. ...

You are right. I was not there. You were not either.

Therefore, I heeded the explicit statement of someone who was. Josephus expressly said that no addition to the canon had occurred since Persian emperor Xerxes several centuries prior.

This would have described the Jewish society that Jesus Christ and His disciples were in. If the Old Testament canon of that time had not been added to since the time of Xerxes several centuries prior, then the canon of Jesus Christ and His disciples would not have been added to since the time of Xerxes several centuries prior.

Josephus was there. Still, you do not want to take what he expressly said. You want to second guess it, cast doubt on it, do admitted conjectures. You "enjoy debate" and you are very creative in keeping this one going.

I am not going to be that careless. As I said before, "To me, it is a matter of authority: if the Lord Jesus Christ did not accept it as Scripture, then I do not see it as right for me to accept it as so. For me, that settled it."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am all for "question things that don't add up." If you do not agree with it, then reject it in the privacy of your own thoughts. That is adequate for you to not "be lead astray."

I do not think doubting someone's view, or rejecting someone's view, necessarily means that you have to argue about it. In fact, I know that is the case because most of us choose not to argue disagreements everyday.

"I do like debate" -- I did too. Before I learned, I had an uneasy feeling about 1 Timothy 6:4. I learned the hard way that I should have taken that warning at face value.

I was not there. Therefore, I heeded the explicit statement of someone who was. Josephus expressly said that no addition to the canon had occurred since Persian rule several centuries prior.

Sorry, there is a difference between substantive arguments and those over geneologies. Keeping stuff to yourself is like saying "shut up and pay your taxes" or "recant or burn" or "tow the party line" there is nothing wrong with substantive arguments. I will not say as others have on this board "don't confuse me with the facts" I already agreed that Josephus is the best argument for the exclusion. I didn't say its an invalid point. See I'm reasonable in a debate. How about you?

 

[Darron Steele]

Sorry, there is a difference between substantive arguments and those over geneologies. ...

Consider the warning at 1 Timothy 6:4 against
-- "obsessed with disputes" (NKJV), or
-- "a morbid interest in controversial questions" (NASB), or
-- "an unhealthy craving for controversy" (ESV)
in the context of 1 Timothy 1:3-7

"As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions" (NASB).​

The Law = the first five books of Scripture.

These disapproved "strange doctrines" and "mere speculation" were from attention to Scripture. The disputes were over something as important as Scripture itself -- yet they were disapproved. They were "fruitless discussion" because they were too far from "love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith."

I remember the excuses and rationalizations I made back when I loved debates and gave them a central role in my Christian life. I could make anything seem worth arguing about.

Those creative excuses and rationalizations did not spare me the correction of the Lord. By the time He was finished, I did not even want to get in an argument with any Christian. I still do not normally enjoy it when I decide to get in a dispute.

I can tell you that a lot of the correction process was miserable. Think about whether you want to risk something like that happening to you.

I am not saying `I am better than you.' I made the same mistakes you are making by indulging in debates for enjoyment. I did it too. I would probably still be doing it.

I see a lot of myself 10 years ago in you, and I fear you will do as I would have done. I too would have refused to accept that there was anything wrong with my enjoyment of arguments. I mean, 1 Timothy 6:4 only made me uneasy despite being in the written Word of God Himself!

I got corrected in a good experience that seemed deeply miserable. You like to think; think about whether or not you want to spare yourself the same correction. Believe me, it is much easier on us to decide `I really should stop doing this' than it is to reflect `I should have stopped doing that when I knew better.'

...Keeping stuff to yourself is like saying "shut up and pay your taxes" or "recant or burn" or "tow the party line" ...

Nope.

Proverbs 18:2 says “The fool does not desire understanding, But only to air his thoughts” (JPS 1985). The "fool" is someone who has an urge to make "his thoughts" known to everyone s/he can. The Bible itself shows that always wanting to make what you think known is a bad thing.

A person who loves "understanding" wants to have an informed opinion. S/he also wants to learn to be prudent as to when it is fitting to express a thought, and when it is fitting to keep silent.

...I will not say as others have on this board "don't confuse me with the facts" ... See I'm reasonable in a debate. How about you

You and others have been over the facts over and over again.

I am not saying to you `Just shut up and agree with us' as you are insinuating I am. My original post to you on this is presented here, with emphasis added:

...
Ultimately, I do not know why you are bothering with this. Very few people here are going to be convinced to add the so-called "deuterocanonical" books to the Scriptures and treat them as such. The same is true of the Orthodox material.

I am not convinced that 3 Maccabees was in what Jesus and His apostles called "Scripture." The same is true of Tobit. The same is true of all apocryphal material adopted by the Catholic Council of Trent or by the Orthodox. Since it was not Scripture to Jesus Christ and His apostles, it is not Scripture to me. I do not care one iota about conjectures or about who after them was using what.

If you are convinced you should adopt any of this apocryphal material as Scripture, then do so, but I do not understand why you feel the need to debate that with others. Are you not comfortable enough with your decision, and would feel more comfortable if you convinced someone else too? You will only frustrate yourself needlessly.

Countless Christians have accepted and do accept some of these materials as Scripture; their reasons for doing so are mistaken, but it is obviously not `wacko' to do so. You are not likely to convince most of us to adopt any of these materials as Scripture -- and you do not need to in order to legitimize your decision.

I admit that I gave you what I think -- but even so, this does not look like `Just Shut up and agree with us.'

Rather, it is an invitation to you to simply adopt the decision you have made, reconsider the merits to arguing with people here about it. Your insinuation that it was more than that is bogus.

I would suggest thinking about why you made it. Did you resent it being suggested that you not indulge your love of arguments so much? It sounded like the retort `You just don't want me to have any fun.'

You have answered my statement

"If you are convinced you should adopt any of this apocryphal material as Scripture, then do so, but I do not understand why you feel the need to debate that with others."​

You said "I do like debate" and your subsequent post clarify the matter: you are doing this because you enjoy it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Consider the warning at 1 Timothy 6:4 against
-- "obsessed with disputes" (NKJV), or
-- "a morbid interest in controversial questions" (NASB), or
-- "an unhealthy craving for controversy" (ESV)
in the context of 1 Timothy 1:3-7

"As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions" (NASB).​

The Law = the first five books of Scripture.

These disapproved "strange doctrines" and "mere speculation" were from attention to Scripture. The disputes were over something as important as Scripture itself -- yet they were disapproved. They were "fruitless discussion" because they were too far from "love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith."

I remember the excuses and rationalizations I made back when I loved debates and gave them a central role in my Christian life. I could make anything seem worth arguing about.

Those creative excuses and rationalizations did not spare me the correction of the Lord. By the time He was finished, I did not even want to get in an argument with any Christian.

I can tell you that a lot of the correction process was miserable. Think about whether you want to risk something like that happening to you.

I am not saying `I am better than you.' I made the same mistakes you are making by indulging in debates for enjoyment. I did it too. I would probably still be doing it.

I see a lot of myself 10 years ago in you, and I fear you will do as I would have done. I too would have refused to accept that there was anything wrong with my enjoyment of arguments. I mean, 1 Timothy 6:4 only made me uneasy despite being in the written Word of God Himself!

I got corrected in a good experience that seemed deeply miserable. You like to think; think about whether or not you want to spare yourself the same correction. Believe me, it is much easier on us to decide `I really should stop doing this' than it is to reflect `I should have stopped doing that when I knew better.'
Nope.

Proverbs 18:2 says “The fool does not desire understanding, But only to air his thoughts” (JPS 1985). The "fool" is someone who has an urge to make "his thoughts" known to everyone s/he can. The Bible itself shows that always wanting to make what you think known is a bad thing.

A person who loves "understanding" wants to have an informed opinion. S/he also wants to learn to be prudent as to when it is fitting to express a thought, and when it is fitting to keep silent.

You and others have been over the facts over and over again.

I am not saying to you `Just shut up and agree with us' as you are insinuating I am. My original challenge to you was:I admit that I gave you what I think -- but even so, this does not look like `Just Shut up and agree with us.'

Rather, it is an invitation to you to simply adopt the decision you have made, reconsider the merits to arguing with people here about it. Your insinuation that it was more than that is bogus.

I would suggest thinking about why you made it. Did you resent it being suggested that you not indulge your love of arguments so much? It sounded like the retort `You just don't want me to have any fun.'

You have answered my statement

"If you are convinced you should adopt any of this apocryphal material as Scripture, then do so, but I do not understand why you feel the need to debate that with others."​

You are doing it for your own enjoyment.

To be fair to you. I'm actually not trying to convince anybody of anything. I want more information and some times to tweak it I bring up all my contradictions and arguments to get a better responce. I'm not doing it for anyone here. I just didn't accept their arguments as being good ones because of such and such. I did bring out one good point that I'm currently studing and that is Josephus. If I misunderstood you sorry it sounded that way to me. I guess with others pontificating rather than giving evidence I felt a little on the defensive.
I don't know what you went through or how you were corrected but be assured I don't argue at church or with Family like I do on this board. So I live a peacable life. But I want to know the truth of certain things and will seek it out. I brought up this thread because of my research and questions I had and wanted to sort through it with other opinions. But mostly I got pontification Joseph Smith, Matt Black, Angus Dei, and yourself seem to come at this reasonably and made points for me to think about which is the point. However, it was through the blanket statements that a really good point came out from DHK about Josephus. So even that had merit.

 

[Darron Steele]

Consider the warning at 1 Timothy 6:4 against
-- "obsessed with disputes" (NKJV), or
-- "a morbid interest in controversial questions" (NASB), or
-- "an unhealthy craving for controversy" (ESV)
in the context of 1 Timothy 1:3-7

"As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions" (NASB).

The Law = the first five books of Scripture.

These disapproved "strange doctrines" and "mere speculation" were from attention to Scripture. The disputes were over something as important as Scripture itself -- yet they were disapproved. They were "fruitless discussion" because they were too far from "love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith."

I remember the excuses and rationalizations I made back when I loved debates and gave them a central role in my Christian life. I could make anything seem worth arguing about.

Those creative excuses and rationalizations did not spare me the correction of the Lord. By the time He was finished, I did not even want to get in an argument with any Christian. I still do not normally enjoy it when I decide to get in a dispute.

I can tell you that a lot of the correction process was miserable. Think about whether you want to risk something like that happening to you.

I am not saying `I am better than you.' I made the same mistakes you are making by indulging in debates for enjoyment. I did it too. I would probably still be doing it.

I see a lot of myself 10 years ago in you, and I fear you will do as I would have done. I too would have refused to accept that there was anything wrong with my enjoyment of arguments. I mean, 1 Timothy 6:4 only made me uneasy despite being in the written Word of God Himself!

I got corrected in a good experience that seemed deeply miserable. You like to think; think about whether or not you want to spare yourself the same correction. Believe me, it is much easier on us to decide `I really should stop doing this' than it is to reflect `I should have stopped doing that when I knew better.'

...
I don't know what you went through or how you were corrected but be assured I don't argue at church or with Family like I do on this board. ....

Again, it does not matter where.

A drunkard may not get drunk at church or in the church building or around family -- but s/he is still getting drunk.

A fornicator may not be fornicating at church or in the church building or around family -- but s/he is still fornicating.

An adulterer may not be committing adultery at church or in the church building or around family -- but s/he is still committing adultery.

A person "obsessed with disputes" (NKJV) or with "a morbid interest in controversial questions" (NASB) or with "an unhealthy craving for controversy" (ESV) may not be indulging at church or in the church building or around family -- but s/he is still indulging in that sin.

When I was 20, 21, and 22 the latter described me. I might not argue during a church discussion. I might debate with someone in the building outside regular hours. I might have found someone at college interested in `playing' and we would have this sort of debate for sport. It would have been the same in virtually any situation that could gratify my lust for debate. Had a place similar to this existed and been known to me then, my G.P.A. probably would have taken quite a hit.

Where we do what God disapproves of does not matter. We are still doing what God disapproves of.

Again, please think very seriously about learning from my mistake within the privacy of your own thoughts. I am no better than you. I just have the benefit of having been corrected on this particular mistake.

If I misunderstood you sorry it sounded that way to me. ...Joseph Smith, Matt Black, Angus Dei, and yourself seem to come at this reasonably and made points for me to think about which is the point. ....

Thank you.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I guess you're not reading me. Thats ok. I had good questions there was good discussion I got some good material to review for my furthering studies of Christianity and the bible. I'm cool with it. And I think the point of the verses that you quoted is that our christian faith is one that needs to be enacted if the debating is getting in the way of charity etc... then it is profitless. We need to be about the business of healing the sick, feeding the poor, lifting up the distraught. I think that was the point of the verse. You quoted. My wife made a good point once. She quoted an author who said to you chose to have a walk or a stance?

 

[Darron Steele]

I guess you're not reading me. ...

No, I really am reading you. I am not answering your posts without reading them first.

...And I think the point of the verses that you quoted is that our christian faith is one that needs to be enacted if the debating is getting in the way of charity etc... then it is profitless. ...

I think the passage means what it says at face value. As I said, after several years trying to convince myself differently, I learned this the hard way -- by the Lord's correction.

...My wife made a good point once. She quoted an author who said to you chose to have a walk or a stance?

I like that. Amen.

Excellent point: it is more important that we have a walk than a stance. Jesus Christ's refrain resounds through all of time since His earthly ministry: "Follow me."

 

[DHK]

You showed me catagories Christ referred to not specific books. Not a good argument.

Matthew 23:34-36 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Abel was the first prophet in the Hebrew Bible; in the book of Genesis.
Zacharias was the last prophet in the Hebrew Bible; in the book of 2 Chronicles which is at the end of the Hebrew Canon. He is the last prophet to be mentioned in the OT. Therefore, from the first prophet to the last prophet, that is all of the OT, Jesus included all of them, in every book. All were included.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
--Jesus mentions three parts of the Bible, which is exactly how the Jews divided their Scriptures, just as we divide the OT into five parts; they divide it into three parts.
1. The law of Moses--the first five books of the OT, the Torah.
2. The Prophets--The major prophets, the minor prophets, and many of the historical books as well.
3. The Psalms--another word for "The Writings" or the Poetical Books.

Within these three groups Jesus included all 22 books of the Hebrew Old Testament which is the same as our 39 books.

These two Scriptures are very important in determining the canon, among many others.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Matthew 23:34-36 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Abel was the first prophet in the Hebrew Bible; in the book of Genesis.
Zacharias was the last prophet in the Hebrew Bible; in the book of 2 Chronicles which is at the end of the Hebrew Canon. He is the last prophet to be mentioned in the OT. Therefore, from the first prophet to the last prophet, that is all of the OT, Jesus included all of them, in every book. All were included.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
--Jesus mentions three parts of the Bible, which is exactly how the Jews divided their Scriptures, just as we divide the OT into five parts; they divide it into three parts.
1. The law of Moses--the first five books of the OT, the Torah.
2. The Prophets--The major prophets, the minor prophets, and many of the historical books as well.
3. The Psalms--another word for "The Writings" or the Poetical Books.

Within these three groups Jesus included all 22 books of the Hebrew Old Testament which is the same as our 39 books.

These two Scriptures are very important in determining the canon, among many others.

Well you're still missing Malachi even in the Tanakh. So lets take out the book of Malachi. then well have 38 books in the OT. I like how you throw Historical books with prophets but its not a major issue. Your best point was Josephus. However, we can say that Josephus wrote after christianity began and Judaism was stuggling for survival with Josephus contact with Aggripa II he may have join in with the Jews working hard against Christianity and the Messianic Prophesy. Though admitadly I'm speculating at why Josphus mentions the 22 books in against apion. However, note in your same quote he mentions that there is a dispute between the Greek translation and the 22 Hebrew books. So it is an indicator that maybe it was still up for debate.

 

[DHK]

Well you're still missing Malachi even in the Tanakh. So lets take out the book of Malachi. then well have 38 books in the OT. I like how you throw Historical books with prophets but its not a major issue. Your best point was Josephus. However, we can say that Josephus wrote after christianity began and Judaism was stuggling for survival with Josephus contact with Aggripa II he may have join in with the Jews working hard against Christianity and the Messianic Prophesy. Though admitadly I'm speculating at why Josphus mentions the 22 books in against apion. However, note in your same quote he mentions that there is a dispute between the Greek translation and the 22 Hebrew books. So it is an indicator that maybe it was still up for debate.

How am I missing Malachi? Chronicles was placed as the last book of the Hebrew Canon! Malachi came before that. In fact all the Minor Prophets were lumped into one book called "The Twelve." That is one reason why they only had 22 books. Their book arrangement was different than ours. Jeremiah and Lamentations were often put together as one book. Other books were combined. The total was 22, but all the same books were there as we have today in our 39 book OT. Do you understand yet?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How am I missing Malachi? Chronicles was placed as the last book of the Hebrew Canon! Malachi came before that. In fact all the Minor Prophets were lumped into one book called "The Twelve." That is one reason why they only had 22 books. Their book arrangement was different than ours. Jeremiah and Lamentations were often put together as one book. Other books were combined. The total was 22, but all the same books were there as we have today in our 39 book OT. Do you understand yet?

Ok this is what I mean. In the Jewish bible (Tanakh) we have the books of the bible listed like this:

Bereshit - Genesis
Shemot - Exodus
Vayikra - Leviticus
Bamidbar - Numbers
Devarim - Deuteronomy
Neviim - Prophets
Ketuvim - writings

So if you look at the order of the prophets from Neviim under the Treisar (or minor prophets) you find it ends with Malachi after Zachariah which is also chronologically after Zachariah

If you look at Ketuvim or writings under the Megilot you find Chronicals and the last prophet mentioned there is Jeremiah. So your argument doesn't quite pan out. 2 Chronicals 36:22-23

Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of HaShem by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, HaShem stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying:

23 `Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia: All the kingdoms of the earth hath HaShem, the G-d of heaven, given me; and He hath charged me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whosoever there is among you of all His people--the HaShem his G-d be with him--let him go up

 

[DHK]

Ok this is what I mean. In the Jewish bible (Tanakh) we have the books of the bible listed like this:

Bereshit - Genesis
Shemot - Exodus
Vayikra - Leviticus
Bamidbar - Numbers
Devarim - Deuteronomy
Neviim - Prophets
Ketuvim - writings

So if you look at the order of the prophets from Neviim under the Treisar (or minor prophets) you find it ends with Malachi after Zachariah which is also chronologically after Zachariah

If you look at Ketuvim or writings under the Megilot you find Chronicals and the last prophet mentioned there is Jeremiah. So your argument doesn't quite pan out. 2 Chronicals 36:22-23

Gleason Archer, well known scholar in the Old Testament says this:

The order of books in the Masoretic Text is as follows: the Torah (or Pentateuch); the prophets (Nebim) in following order: former prophets—Joshua, Judges, (1 and 2) Samuel, and (1 and 2) Kings; latter prophets— major prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and twelve minor prophets in the same order as in the English Bible); the writings Kethubim, Greek, Hagiographa, Holy Writings: poetry and wisdom—Psalms, Proverbs, Job (but Leningrad Codex has Psalms, Job, Proverbs) the Rolls or Megilloth—Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther (but Leningrad: Ruth, Song, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther); historical—Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1 and 2 Chronicles.

The books were 22 in number because they were combined together. The canon ends with 2 Chronicles, as does my copy.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Gleason Archer, well known scholar in the Old Testament says this:

The books were 22 in number because they were combined together. The canon ends with 2 Chronicles, as does my copy.

Your argument is that Jesus mentions the prophets Able as the first and Zachariah as the last. When you look at the Jewish bible the minor prophets ends like you said with Malachi and the last book is 2nd Chronicles and like I listed Jerimiah is the last prophet referred to. So following your argument that the last prophet is Zachariah to indicate Jesus meant the OT was closed then you leave out Malachi both in order of the Tanakh and chronologically. So either you leave out Malachi as canon or as a prophet, or Jesus was not referring to the close of the OT. Which is it?

 

[Darron Steele]

Gleason Archer, well known scholar in the Old Testament says this:

The books were 22 in number because they were combined together. The canon ends with 2 Chronicles, as does my copy.

I have a copy of the 1985 Jewish Publication Society translation. It has the Pre-Christian portion of Scripture with the exact same contents as the Protestant Old Testament.

Exact same books -- no more, no less.

2 Chronicles is last, just the same as in the days of Jesus' earthly ministry.

 

[DHK]

I have a copy of the 1985 Jewish Publication Society translation. It has the Pre-Christian portion of Scripture with the exact same contents as the Protestant Old Testament.

Exact same books -- no more, no less.

2 Chronicles is last, just the same as in the days of Jesus' earthly ministry.

Yes, they have the exact same "number" of books depending on how you count them. The important thing is their OT is the same as ours. The only thing that differs is as you agree with me, that 2Chronicles is the last book in the OT. The last prophet mentioned in 2 Chronicles is Zacharias. This is what Jesus was referring to when he referred to all the prophets, from blood of the prophet Abel to Zacharias. That included all in the OT. From the first to the last and all inbetween. Abel was the first in Genesis. And Zacharias was the last mentioned in 2 Chronicles in the Hebrew Canon, the one used in the time of Christ.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes, they have the exact same "number" of books depending on how you count them. The important thing is their OT is the same as ours. The only thing that differs is as you agree with me, that 2Chronicles is the last book in the OT. The last prophet mentioned in 2 Chronicles is Zacharias. This is what Jesus was referring to when he referred to all the prophets, from blood of the prophet Abel to Zacharias. That included all in the OT. From the first to the last and all inbetween. Abel was the first in Genesis. And Zacharias was the last mentioned in 2 Chronicles in the Hebrew Canon, the one used in the time of Christ.

I'm just going to reiterate what I said in post # 214. The last prophet referred to was Jeremiah. BTW reason for the quote from the Jewish Tanakh.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Originally Posted by Darron Steele
I have a copy of the 1985 Jewish Publication Society translation. It has the Pre-Christian portion of Scripture with the exact same contents as the Protestant Old Testament.

This interest me however. What do you mean that "it has the Pre-Christian portion of Scripture?" Is it a copy or a pre christian text? Or is it the OT that the Jews use and have accepted as scripture? What do they have to show it is the only books allowed to be scripture? I mean all scripture except the NT is prechristian including the DC. But if you have something that is a text which is pre christian that only includes the 22 books I would be interested. details please. I mean I have access to a Tanakh as well. Is this what you're talking about?