Is the Bible inerrant and Complete

[bytor2112]

Bible Inerrant and Complete?

After being subjected to the same old recycled Anti-smears posted by someone in the Uncomfortable doctrine thread.....I though perhaps a respectful conversation around the issue of Biblical translation might be useful and interesting. I would like to begin by saying I love the Bible and read the NT daily and believe it is the word of God. Being a former Baptist, I understand how non-members view the Bible and also understand why they think the material found on Mormon Out Reach sites support their views and also seem to prove that we are not a Christian church.

I posted a short article from Fairlds and look forward to any Biblical comments and or testimonies of the Bible.

[Snow]

Please specify what you mean by your question is the Bible inerrant.

Define inerrant.

Do you mean inerrant in its present form or inerrant in the form of the original autograph texts?

Please specify what you mean by complete.

The Bible canonization was a centuries long unstructured process of trial and refinement, inclusion and exclusion, promotion and revision.

Do you mean did the canonizers get all the books they wanted to into the canon or do you mean does God agree with one the multiple and different modern canonical lists or do you mean does one of the varied and different Bibles contain all the truth that God has to reveal?

[a-train]

Attempts to use the "as far as it is translated correctly" line to show irreverance toward the Bible in Mormons are futile. As a missionary in North Carolina, I heard repeatedly that new converts were attracted to the Church not because of its' difference from the Bible, but because of its' adherance to it. It was not uncommon to hear people say that the missionaries were the first preachers who actually lived and taught what they read in the Bible.

I also believe in Mormonism not because it is different from Biblical teaching, but because it IS Biblical teaching, and find many non-Biblical teachings throughout Christendom.

-a-train

Edited September 8, 2008 by a-train

[bytor2112]

Please specify what you mean by your question is the Bible inerrant.

Define inerrant.

Inerrant as defined by the Evangelical movement......

Do you mean inerrant in its present form or inerrant in the form of the original autograph texts?

Again.....I am mostly referring to the common refrain by Evangelicals that the "Bible is the inerrant word of God..."

Please specify what you mean by complete.

Complete....el finito...done. God has spoken and we need no more.

The Bible canonization was a centuries long unstructured process of trial and refinement, inclusion and exclusion, promotion and revision.

Do you mean did the canonizers get all the books they wanted to into the canon or do you mean does God agree with one the multiple and different modern canonical lists or do you mean does one of the varied and different Bibles contain all the truth that God has to reveal?

Yes... all of the above and anything else we know or think we know...and even perhaps tying into why the BOM was so necessary as a result.

[Snow]

Attempts to use the "as far as it is translated correctly" line to show irreverance toward the Bible in Mormons are futile. As a missionary in North Carolina, I heard repeatedly that new converts were attracted to the Church not because of its' difference from the Bible, but because of its' adherance to it. It was not uncommon to hear people say that the missionaries were the first preachers who actually lived and taught what they read in the Bible.

I also believe in Mormonism not because it is different from Biblical teaching, but because it IS Biblical teaching, and find many non-Biblical teachings throughout Christendom.

-a-train

What happens is that posters, like the one earlier today confuse 2000 years of mainline Christian doctrinal interpretation and innovation with Biblical scripture. They don't realize that what they think the Bible says is actually what Christian philosophers say, not what the Bible itself says. A prime example is the Trinity. True or not, it's not in the Bible, either by name or by concept.

Such people are, apparently, completely uninformed on the process of Greek philosophical Helenization that occurred with the early Church Fathers and apologists... unaware that their beliefs conflict with teachings of the ancient Church and unaware when their outside-the-bible beliefs were first introduced... beliefs such as the trinity, original sin. that God is not anthropomorphic, creation ex nihilo, etc, not in the Bible but introduced much later.

[Snow]

Please specify what you mean by your question is the Bible inerrant.

Inerrant as defined by the Evangelical movement......

I've not run across many Evangelicals who properly understand the concept. They confuse biblical inerrancy with limited inerrancy or infallibility, etc and seem mostly unaware of the officlal promulgations on the subject - of course since Evangelicalism is a diverse and unstructured body of believers, with many beliefs and structures that contradict other beliefs and structures, that is to be expected.

A definition is in order. How about this:

In it's original autograph manuscripts the Bible is totally free of error or contradiction in all matters, religious, scientific or historical.

The problem is that the Bible as we have it today has numerous contradictions and errors of all sorts, including forgery and deliberate interpolations. Since we do not have access to the original autograph manuscripts, it is impossible to prove whether they had the same problems.

[bytor2112]

Great definition Snow...makes me think about the painstaking method of preserving the Nephite record and how important it was.........

So many people only accept the Bible in it's present form regardless of the translation. Living Bibles with modern language, KJV, NIV, etc. and they cling to "creeds" as opposed to the actual Biblical text. I think many professed Christians don't or are unable to differentiate between a creed and true Biblical undertanding......particularly understanding as imparted by the Holy Spirit.

[Still_Small_Voice]

I will repeat some of what I said in the other thread on this subject. There is very little wrong with the New Testament. It is the Old Testament that has mainly been tampered with and had many plain prophecies of Jesus Christ removed from it (though there are still many witnesses of Jesus Christ in it).

Much of what has been lost from the Old Testament has been restored in the Pearl of Great Price.

[Still_Small_Voice]

So many people only accept the Bible in it's present form regardless of the translation. Living Bibles with modern language, King James Version, New International Version, etc. and they cling to "creeds" as opposed to the actual Biblical text. I think many professed Christians don't or are unable to differentiate between a creed and true Biblical undertanding......particularly understanding as imparted by the Holy Spirit.

This is very bothersome to me as well. I don't understand why much of the Christian community clings to the creeds which define the Godhead rather than read the Bible to gain an understanding of the nature of God.

The creeds we refer to were formed by men debating in councils what the Godhead was without any inspiration from the Almighty.

[bytor2112]

I will repeat some of what I said in the other thread on this subject. There is very little wrong with the New Testament. It is the Old Testament that has mainly been tampered with and had many plain prophecies of Jesus Christ removed from it (though there are still many witnesses of Jesus Christ in it).

Much of what has been lost from the Old Testament has been restored in the Pearl of Great Price.

And not so much wrong as incomplete or not clarified.......and thank goodness for restored doctrine. I often think that the problem "some" have with LDS doctrine has more to do with an unwillingness to conform to the Lord's laws and submit to Priesthood authority. It is so much "easier" to just be "saved" than to allow the Spirit to teach you the details of the Glorious Plan of Salvation.

[bytor2112]

From Prayer Foundation:

Despite many variations, Evangelicals generally adhere to Four Characteristics, and Four Core Beliefs:

Four Characteristics:

Emphasis on the conversion experience, also called being saved, or new birth or born again after John 3:3 ("Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Truly, truly, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot not see the kingdom of God.' "). Thus evangelicals often refer to themselves as born-again Christians. This experience is said to be received by "faith alone" and to be given by God as the result of "grace alone" (Ephesians 2:8,9 1).

The Bible as the primary, ultimate and final, or only, source of religious authority, as God's revelation to humanity. Thus, the doctrine of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) is often affirmed and emphasized (II Timothy 3:16 2, John 17:17 3).

Encouragement of evangelism (the act of sharing one's beliefs) -- in organized missionary work or by personal encounters and relationships with others (Matthew 28:19 4).

A central focus on Christ's redeeming work on the cross as the only means for salvation and the forgiveness of sins (I Corinthians 15:3,4 5).

Four Core Beliefs:

Biblical inerrancy. (II Timothy 3:16 2, John 17:17 3)

Salvation comes only through faith in Jesus Christ and not as a result of one's good works (in particular belief in atonement for sins at the cross and the resurrection of Christ). (Ephesians 2:8,9 1; I Corinthians 15:3,4 5)

Individuals (above an age of accountability) must personally trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. (John 3:6,7 6)

All Christians are commissioned to evangelize and should be publicly baptized as a confession of faith. (Matthew 28:19 4)

Edited September 8, 2008 by bytor2112

[prisonchaplain]

A prime example is the Trinity. True or not, it's not in the Bible, either by name or by concept.

Without devling into deep and scholarly historical writings, there certainly were discussions in the days of the early church about what it meant that Jesus was "one with the Father," that he was the only begotten Son of God, that Jesus "being a mere man, make yourself God." There is little doubt that the doctrine is nowhere explicitly laid out to the detail offered by the Nicene Creed. On the other hand, Jesus' messianic claims, and his efforts to divert Jewish expectations from an earthly resurrection of a Davidic kingdom, to a spiritual kingdom that would include Gentiles led to much consternation...not the least of it surrounding just who Jesus thought he was.

Such people are, apparently, completely uninformed on the process of Greek philosophical Helenization that occurred with the early Church Fathers and apologists... unaware that their beliefs conflict with teachings of the ancient Church and unaware when their outside-the-bible beliefs were first introduced... beliefs such as the trinity, original sin. that God is not anthropomorphic, creation ex nihilo, etc, not in the Bible but introduced much later.

I'm a bit skeptical of the wholesale condemnation of "Greek philosophy" and alleged Hellenizing corruption of Christian teaching. After all, the Bible of Jesus' day was not the Hebrew Tanach, but the LXX--a Greek translation.

[Snow]

I will repeat some of what I said in the other thread on this subject. There is very little wrong with the New Testament. It is the Old Testament that has mainly been tampered with and had many plain prophecies of Jesus Christ removed from it (though there are still many witnesses of Jesus Christ in it).

Much of what has been lost from the Old Testament has been restored in the Pearl of Great Price.

Can you name three specific things that were removed from the Old Testament?

[Snow]

Without devling into deep and scholarly historical writings, there certainly were discussions in the days of the early church about what it meant that Jesus was "one with the Father," that he was the only begotten Son of God, that Jesus "being a mere man, make yourself God." There is little doubt that the doctrine is nowhere explicitly laid out to the detail offered by the Nicene Creed. On the other hand, Jesus' messianic claims, and his efforts to divert Jewish expectations from an earthly resurrection of a Davidic kingdom, to a spiritual kingdom that would include Gentiles led to much consternation...not the least of it surrounding just who Jesus thought he was.

The point remains that the Trinity as defined by the 4th and 5th century councils is not found in the Bible. Concepts not found in the Bible are required to support the complete doctrine... concepts that came along after the NT era.

I'm a bit skeptical of the wholesale condemnation of "Greek philosophy" and alleged Hellenizing corruption of Christian teaching. After all, the Bible of Jesus' day was not the Hebrew Tanach, but the LXX--a Greek translation.

Then please don't take what I said here as a wholesale condemnation. Personally I find some truth in Greek philosophy. That does not mean, however, that Greek philosophy was not also a corrupting influence. Creation ex Nihilo is an example.

[prisonchaplain]

The point remains that the Trinity as defined by the 4th and 5th century councils is not found in the Bible. Concepts not found in the Bible are required to support the complete doctrine... concepts that came along after the NT era.

The purpose of the Nicene Creed's detailed description of the Holy Trinity was to provide doctrinal response to varying heresies that had arisen, largely from the second century onward. So, yes, it includes some discussion that the Bible did not need to address. I guess Catholics would consider the creed "continuing revelation."

Then please don't take what I said here as a wholesale condemnation. Personally I find some truth in Greek philosophy. That does not mean, however, that Greek philosophy was not also a corrupting influence. Creation ex Nihilo is an example.

Fair enough. Apparently there's plenty of Greek philosophy to go around on both sides of this discussion. Creation out of nothing - Theopedia

[Snow]

The purpose of the Nicene Creed's detailed description of the Holy Trinity was to provide doctrinal response to varying heresies that had arisen, largely from the second century onward. So, yes, it includes some discussion that the Bible did not need to address. I guess Catholics would consider the creed "continuing revelation."

Well, you'd have to consider it "continuing revelation" since it contains concepts not found in the Bible but the problem is that people argue that it is biblical, though they can't ever find such references in the Bible but then they claim that the Bible is the basis of all doctrine and exclude from Christianity those who don't accept the non-Biblical doctrine of the Trinity.

[Still_Small_Voice]

Can you name three specific things that were removed from the Old Testament?

I can name one right off the top of my head. Read the Book of Moses chapters 6 and 7 found in the Pearl of Great Price. The Book of Enoch was somehow lost and restored by a revelation of the Almighty to Joseph Smith Junior. It is a powerful witness and prophecy of Jesus Christ.

Moses 6

Moses 7

[Moksha]

A definition is in order. How about this:

In it's original autograph manuscripts the Bible is totally free of error or contradiction in all matters, religious, scientific or historical.

What about the tall tales like the flood?

[prisonchaplain]

Well, you'd have to consider it "continuing revelation" since it contains concepts not found in the Bible but the problem is that people argue that it is biblical, though they can't ever find such references in the Bible but then they claim that the Bible is the basis of all doctrine and exclude from Christianity those who don't accept the non-Biblical doctrine of the Trinity.

The light keeps getting brighter . . . In all seriousness, I do believe that Catholics would have no problem with your statement, since the church is authoritative, and historical teachings carry weight as much as Bible verses do.

Aye...but I'm not Catholic. Nevertheless, you're well aware that despite the many branches of Christian churches, must of our teachings do come out of that trunk known as the Roman Catholic Church. They either defended heresy through the explication of the Trinity (much of which can be suggested by various Scripture), or, as Joseph Smith said, they got caught up defending tradition and scurried us all into apostasy.

[richlittell]

The light keeps getting brighter . . . In all seriousness, I do believe that Catholics would have no problem with your statement, since the church is authoritative, and historical teachings carry weight as much as Bible verses do.

Aye...but I'm not Catholic. Nevertheless, you're well aware that despite the many branches of Christian churches, must of our teachings do come out of that trunk known as the Roman Catholic Church. They either defended heresy through the explication of the Trinity (much of which can be suggested by various Scripture), or, as Joseph Smith said, they got caught up defending tradition and scurried us all into apostasy.

PC I enjoy sooooo much having someone like you around to enter into these discussions. Why? Because I know that you are generally well read and sincere in your beliefs and effort. I really enjoy having discussions with well-read Christians even though we may not agree on things. Unfortunately, I haven't met many well read Christians, and that is not a slam on protestant/catholics (my whole family on every side is protestant), I think it's more a reflection of our society of computer and videos and just overall busy-ness that keeps people from really studying their scripture (and I know some Mormons who love to talk-it-up who themselves haven't done much reading). Anyway, Thanks for your contributions.

[WANDERER]

I believe the phrase I have come to agree with is that the Bible is the *inspired word of God*.

There's probably room for a bit of historical understanding underlying what has happened to the various texts etc and things in context and so on. But the real value of the Bible is not in reading words but in revelation and understanding how we can apply God's principles to our lives. I don't think there's anyone who follows things word by word right down to the Levitical way of life and there's probably areas where faith and belief and interpretations differ over accounts. So I think being a Bible fundamentalist may mean different things to different people.

[Snow]

The light keeps getting brighter . . . In all seriousness, I do believe that Catholics would have no problem with your statement, since the church is authoritative, and historical teachings carry weight as much as Bible verses do.

Aye...but I'm not Catholic. Nevertheless, you're well aware that despite the many branches of Christian churches, must of our teachings do come out of that trunk known as the Roman Catholic Church. They either defended heresy through the explication of the Trinity (much of which can be suggested by various Scripture), or, as Joseph Smith said, they got caught up defending tradition and scurried us all into apostasy.

So how does a Protestant who believe "sola scriptura" accept the Bible canon as definitive is it is something outside the Bible that determines it.

[prisonchaplain]

So how does a Protestant who believe "sola scriptura" accept the Bible canon as definitive is it is something outside the Bible that determines it.

The difference is subtle, but signficant: A Catholic ultimately relies on the authority of the church to discern meanings and applications for Scripture. Tradition carries equal weight with the canon itself. For Protestants, the canon outweighs tradition and interpretation. So, you ordinarily cannot convince a Catholic the his/her church's understanding of Scripture is in error--unless they would then reject the church's authority. On the other hand, a Protestant can, though with some difficulty, come to believe that a particular traditional understanding of doctrine is wrong, by appealing to Scripture. This, of course, is one reason there are so many denominations.

[Snow]

The difference is subtle, but signficant: A Catholic ultimately relies on the authority of the church to discern meanings and applications for Scripture. Tradition carries equal weight with the canon itself. For Protestants, the canon outweighs tradition and interpretation. So, you ordinarily cannot convince a Catholic the his/her church's understanding of Scripture is in error--unless they would then reject the church's authority. On the other hand, a Protestant can, though with some difficulty, come to believe that a particular traditional understanding of doctrine is wrong, by appealing to Scripture. This, of course, is one reason there are so many denominations.

Thank you, but that's not what I am asking. If one does not accept Catholic authority, or if one adheres to sola scriptura, how to you reconcile or validate that the Bible is complete or correctly compiled since the canon list is a product of forces outside the scriptures or, if not Catholic or LDS, then outside of other revelation.

[Yekcidmij]

Inerrant as defined by the Evangelical movement......

I think someone already said it. The "evanvelical movement" is just that, a movement. You will find evangelicals who beleive different things and are at different understandings. One may believe that the KJV is the inerrant, infalliable, perfect word of God in every sense. Another may accept the deuterocanon.

This is very bothersome to me as well. I don't understand why much of the Christian community clings to the creeds which define the Godhead rather than read the Bible to gain an

understanding of the nature of God.

The creeds we refer to were formed by men debating in councils what the Godhead was without any inspiration from

the Almighty.

Really? Tell me what you disagree with here:

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

Which part of that creed do you reject? Maybe you take issue with the word "catholic" which simply means "universal" and doesn't necessarily mean the Roman version.

What happens is that posters, like the one earlier today confuse 2000 years of mainline Christian doctrinal interpretation and innovation with Biblical scripture. They don't realize that what they think the Bible says is actually what Christian philosophers say, not what the Bible itself says. A prime example is the Trinity. True or not, it's not in the Bible, either by name or by concept.

Actually I think it is in the bible.

Such people are, apparently, completely uninformed on the process of Greek philosophical Helenization that occurred with the early Church Fathers and apologists... unaware that their beliefs conflict with teachings of the ancient Church and unaware when their outside-the-bible beliefs were first introduced...

In that case, I will use only non hellenized bibles: the MT, SP, DSS, Targumim, and a gospel of your choosing and I still arrive at the conclusions. Though, if I were you, I would be a little slower in rejecting the LXX and the Greek NT.

beliefs such as the trinity,

Sure it's in there. It's never defined as "John 54:14, And there is a Trinity". The Trinity, if defined correctly and not simply as "3 in one, one in three", stems out of Jewish ways of speaking about God. Oh, but

that means it's not a RCC idea of the 4th century.

that God is not anthropomorphic.

Of course God is anthropomorphic in some sense. He comes in embodied form all the time in the OT.

Thank you, but that's not what I am asking. If one does not accept Catholic authority, or if one adheres to sola scriptura, how to you reconcile or validate that the Bible is complete or correctly compiled since the canon list is a product of forces outside the scriptures or, if not Catholic or LDS, then outside of other revelation.

I begin with Jesus. I know it sounds a like a little churchy-sunday-schooly response, but that's where I begin. I have about 9 (plus or minus a couple) ancient sources that attest to Him and His teachings. All of them attest to His being the Jewish Messiah. But something doesn't add up when they do that. Why is Yeshua the Messiah? Why not Bar-Kochba (135 AD)? Bar-Kochba seems like a much more likely candidate at first glance. He actually did more that was expected of the messiah that Yeshua did. Bar-Kochba led a rebellion against Rome, and actually had some early victories. He minted his own coins, captured Jerusalem, and possibly even laid a foundation for the Temple. Bar-Kochba was actually thought by the great Rabbi Akiba to be the Jewish messiah. Heck, his name means "son of the star". Why don't people follow Bar-Kochba and his teachings? He fits the bill except for one major problem, he's dead. He ultimately failed. Look to either side of Jesus in history you find messianic claimants all over the place, but like Bar-Kochba, they too quit having followers after they died at the hands of the Romans. Their messianic movements failed. Yeshua, however, not only managed to have followers after his death, but He has billions (millions?) of followers to this day. Why was he different from these other messianic movements? He died at the hands of the Romans just like the whole lot of them. He never, seemingly, did anything to the temple in Jerusalem. He never beat the Romans in battle. What made His movement different? His followers claimed that He had been raised from the dead.

So, I start looking at what Jesus claimed about Himself and His messianic movement. I compare the sources we have. Skipping around a little bit, I look at what kind of view he had of the Jewish scriptures. First of all, what would Jesus and his immediate rag-tag band of followers view as scripture? Well, I know from their writings they quote from the LXX. That's a starting point. What is included in the LXX? Well, there is Genesis-Malachi plus the Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, Prayer of Manasseh, an extra Psalm (151), and a little more to Daniel and Esther. What else would the culture of Jesus have read in their synagogue services? Well, according to other Jewish sources, they were to read the Targum also (that's the Aramaic version) and had probably been reading from the Targum since the exile in Babylon. So now I have the same collection of books in two different languages (Greek and Aramaic) that were used by the culture at the time. I'm going to ignore the Samaritian Penteteuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls for now since I think I've made my point. Now, does Yeshua Himself, since His followers were pretty adamant about His messianic and living status, adhere to any of these writings? Well, yes, He does.

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. 5:19 So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

There, Yeshua affirms the validity of the "Law and Prophets", so now I'm on ground with some of Jesus' teachings. He's at least affirming Genesis-Deuteronomy and the Prophets (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Isaiah, etc..) and is affirming their validity until "everything takes place". I could also go through and look where Jesus cites from the Torah and the Prophets, and he does it plenty of times. Jesus cites from the Psalms on several occasions, most importantly at His trial when he uses a Psalm and Daniel to explain Himself. Jesus also explains Himself in terms of being 'Wisdom', though that one is a little more cryptic and less obvious, so I'm on firm grounds with Proverbs (see Prov 8-9). I'm also on more firm grounds with Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and Baruch because of that. There may be some allusions to Job there too.

I also take a look at how his followers wrote about him and what his followers thought. I would naturally think that a Rabbinical type of teacher, and Jesus was refered to as such in 4 gospels, would teach his followers his ways. James cites Job on one occasion. Hebrews cites extensively from the OT as does Paul. Heck, Paul's theology is centered smack in the middle of the Torah. Peter cites from the OT as do John and Jude. Paul calls Jesus "wisdom" in 1 Cor 1, so there's another point for Proverbs and possibly Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, Sirach, and Job.

So far the only ones I think I haven't touched on or covered are the Chronicles, the Kings, the Samuels, the Maccabees, Judges (well, Hebrews 11 quotes from Judges), Ezra, Esther, and Song of Solomon. Yeshua alludes to David, Solomon, and Temple plenty of times which we find information about in the Chronicles, Kings, and Samuels. There are going to be allusions to the Chronicles, Kings, and Samuels inherent in any messianic movement (cf: 2 Sam 7:14). I can even bounce those three off of each other to corroborate things. I can use those 1 Chr to find a little information about Ezra. I can bounce the historical books of Ezra and Nehemiah off of each other for corroboration too since those are historical in nature. I can also appeal to the New Testament to get the validity of Ezra. The Pharisees in the New Testament probably spawned from the teachings of Ezra who was seen as restoring Judaism after the exile. Maccabees is a little tougher probably because it was much more contemporary too the NT writers. There are Maccabean allusions in the NT, particularly Jesus riding into the Temple with palm branches waving, a move that was almost just like Judas Macabbeus except Judas M. cleansed the temple then the people waved the palm branches because of his victory whereas Jesus rode in with palm brahnces waving, then rode into the temple. One thing about the historical types of books is that they aren't used as authoritatively as the Torah or Prophets. They are used mostly when alluding to promises to David, things about David's son (be it Solomon or messiah), the Temple, and thematic elements like exile/return, messiahship, and YHWH defeating His enemies. The historical books are just what they suppose to be - historical. They may be used in Midrash techniques in the NT, I'm not sure off the top of my head if they are.

So, that's one way that I as a protestant start approaching the question of what to consider canonical. Basically, I've given a really quick reconstruction. It all centers on Jesus, as it should if that's who you claim to follow. Not everyone has the kind of time to go look into this stuff though, which is one reason Jesus commissioned a bunch of followers to carry on His work and why we have teachers and, heaven help us - tradition. Formulaic expressions, such as creeds and songs, along with traditional elements are really really tough to dislodge, which can be good or bad. It's good if it's right/true since it becomes almost impossible to move. Take for example the name "Jesus Christ". That is assumed to be a proper name by lots of people, however, "Christ" is a title to first century Jews and not a proper name. But already by the time of Paul it has become a formulaic expression ('Jesus Christ', "Lord Jesus Christ", 'Jesus Christ our Lord') and hasn't been moved from Christianity ever since. Jesus and Messiah have been tightly bound togther for a really long time.

A good example of a creed is found in 1 Cor 15:

1 Cor 15:1-7

Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you – unless you believed in vain. For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received –

that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures,

and that he was buried,

and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures,

and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

That is a very early christian creedal formula, and it's found in Paul's writings. Kinda scary if you don't like creeds.

An example of a good tradition is the Lord's Supper which carries really heavy symbolic connotations along with it as does baptism (you may think there's more to those than symbolism, but they do at least carry heavy symbolism, which is my point, don't get sidetracked).

Don't cozy up to me too close though you RCC's that hang aound here :) I'm probably a little a-typical for a protestant.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Yekcidmij