Replies

Ofcourse they are, but you (the scholars) are going to tell us which are and which aren't based on....nothing Live in delusions if you so choose. Would a humble Moses call himself the humblest man on earth? If your theory is right, then he did in Num 12:3 — otherwise someone else wrote verse 3!

Why wouldn't Moses call himself that if God told him to write it!

He wrote about his own murdering a man, didn't he?

You think that those moved by the Holy Spirit got to pick out what they wanted to write?

Also, we can tell from the context what sections may not have been written by Moses, but would have been written by another inspired author such as Joshua.

You just pick and choose what you like in scripture and then reject what you don't-ye shall be gods Really? Then why don't you explain to me why does the Book of Jude, verses 14-15, (NT) quote from the Book of Enoch, I Enoch 1:9, (OT Apocrypha only in the Ethiopian Church) as if it were Scripture?

And once again, what proof do you have that it is a quote from the Book of Enoch?

Or perhaps in Jude 9 a refreence to the non-canonical Assumption of Moses?

No, in Jude 9 God told the Apostle Jude what to write, it is not a quotation from any work.

Once again, an assumption on your part.

Or, perhaps, why Hebrews 11:37 quotes from the non-canonical The Martyrdom of Isaih?

No, God the Holy Spirit told the Apostle Paul what to write.

Does it say it is referring to the martyrdom of Isaiah?

Again, that is an assumption on your part.

How can uninspired books be quoted as inspired? Oh, wait, of course you wouldn't know that since your Bible doesn't contain cross references the writers of the NT used from now noncanonical books! It was good enough for the inspired writer of Jude but it's not good enough for the Christian Bible!

Non-canonical books are quoted in the NT and we know what they are because they are stated to be quotes like Paul quoting a heathen poet in Acts 17:28.

God doesn't want us to be confused on what He has given as His pure words and those words of mere men.

I don't want to waste my time giving you all the hints and answers. I think you need to do your own homework.

I think you need to do some homework since you are just repeating the same old excuses for not believing the Bible.

Since you cannot figure out how God did something, He must have done it the way you think He did it.

Based on evidence?

No, mere conjecture.

So, what you have shown on these posts is that you have no evidence against the TR and no evidence for the LXX.

Moreover, we have seen that your own theologians had a much higher view of scripture then you clearly do as did at least one Greek Church Father, Chrysostom.

As I said, you are your own 'god' under no authority but that of your own opinions.

Why wouldn't Moses call himself that if God told him to write it!

Because obviously you don't know what humility is.

No, God the Holy Spirit told the Apostle Paul what to write

"God told me so" is the universal 'escape clause' that ends all discussions, isn't it? Since this is an priori acceptance on your part, nothing else has to be 'proven.' End of discussion.

If you believed in unicorns it would just as 'valid.'

Once again, an assumption on your part.

Pot calling kettle black. A priori acceptance of anything is a major assumption.

I think you need to do some homework since you are just repeating the same old excuses for not believing the Bible

I think I have done my homework above and beyond, without any agenda. I don't place blind trust in what human hands wrote on pieces of parchment or papyrus containing a dozen or so words, the oldest of which is dated more than one century after Christ, the rest at least 250 years after Him; the majority dated from seven to twelve centuries later.

TR is flawed. It, as the rest of the NT, contains additions, deletions and questionable verses. Every elementary reader of Bible history knows that. KJV is equally flawed because it is based on TR.

In order for one to believe that anything in the NT as well as the OT is genuine one must begin and end with an assumption. To me an assumption is not a proof; to you it seems it's all that's needed for a 'proof.'

I think we have reached the end of our discussion. If I know Protestant mindset, the 'last word' will be forthcoming. I don't care. When someone uses "God told me/him/her/them so" as an 'argument' the discussion is over. For good.