[ToryHeartland]

The bible and the biblical texts are not necessarily co extant. As usual, you get into problems due to an apparent incapacity to distinguish between similarities and equivalences.

This is a genuine query; I have read and then re-scanned this thread trying to find the difference between "the Bible" and "biblican texts," but remain confused.

The 'Bible' I have read repeatedly, and continue to read at intervals. By the 'Bible' I mean the books of the Old and New Testaments as regarded as canonical in the KJV, and additionally the Apocrypha.

What is included in 'biblical texts' in addition to these? Are you talking about various 'gnostic' gospels, such as Nag Hammadi, or others that I have overlooked or do not know.

I would genuinely like to understand what you mean by 'biblical texts' above and beyond the books of the KJV Bible; lacking that understanding, your argument is not coherent.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Because there is no unanimity in what constitutes the canonical texts I prefer to use the words "biblical texts" rather than the word "bible." Those portions of sacred writ known as homologoumena absolutely qualify as canonical. Most, if not all, bibles include other texts that are subject to question.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I have read and then re-scanned this thread trying to find the difference between "the Bible" and "biblical texts," but remain confused."

There is none, and he knows it. He's playing games. The texts that did not make it to the Bible are by definition not Biblical. It's all part of his attempts to redefine words to mean what he wants them to mean, because his arguments are so weak. I hope he doesn't think he is fooling anybody.