Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: boatbums

“Yes, I believe that what is considered the “Protestant” canon is the correct one”

So why argue for a canon that you believe is incorrect? Makes no sense to me.

Even if that canon were the correct one (and I can see a solid argument behind it), it doesn’t advance your thesis that the protestant church is correct in this.

“This viewpoint was hardly a novel or Reformation devised view, but was one that had ALWAYS been held by the Jewish people”

The first Jewish document which supports this argument is the Leningrad Codex dated to the 11th century. Earlier documents argue otherwise that the Ketuvim included these books.

“If the Jewish religious leaders had NEVER accepted the Apocryphal books as inspired by God on par with the others (the Laws of Moses, The Prophets and the Psalms) and which has been abundantly proven here, then why would we change that?”

Evidence abounds from the period in question that they did consider the ketuvim contained these books. The septuagint contained them. Arguing that the second century BC Septuagint should take a back seat to the 11th century Masoretic text is no different than arguing that the 4th century Vulgate should take a back seat to the 16th century Erasmus bible.

In history - the earliest document is considered to be the more reliable source.


1,181 posted on 05/21/2013 3:02:09 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1178 | View Replies ]


To: JCBreckenridge
So why argue for a canon that you believe is incorrect? Makes no sense to me. Even if that canon were the correct one (and I can see a solid argument behind it), it doesn’t advance your thesis that the protestant church is correct in this.

Did you actually read what you wrote before you hit Post? Do you read what others actually write before you respond? The "argument" I put forward, once again, was to disprove your assertion concerning the current RCC canon and what the Vulgate did or did not contain in the fourth century. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is telling that there is an ever-so-slight adjustment in your view. At least now you are willing to look at the "what ifs". That's progress. Prayers work!

1,194 posted on 05/21/2013 6:54:40 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1181 | View Replies ]

To: JCBreckenridge
So why argue for a canon that you believe is incorrect? Makes no sense to me. Even if that canon were the correct one (and I can see a solid argument behind it), it doesn’t advance your thesis that the protestant church is correct in this.

Did you actually read what you wrote before you hit Post? Do you read what others actually write before you respond? The "argument" I put forward, once again, was to disprove your assertion concerning the current RCC canon and what the Vulgate did or did not contain in the fourth century. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is telling that there is an ever-so-slight adjustment in your view. At least now you are willing to look at the "what ifs". That's progress. Prayers work!

1,195 posted on 05/21/2013 6:55:46 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1181 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson