Evolution vs. The Bible

[gluadys]

Personally, I don't have a clue really how most of the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures came to write what they wrote, I just know that it leads one to Jesus and the salvation for men that is afforded through his shed blood. Whether some of the writing was given as some sort of dictation process or visionary process or just God's Spirit prodding the mind of the one who was writing, I don't have a clue.

I agree. I don't have a clue on the process of inspiration, and it was probably different for different writers. So I think that is the way we should leave it rather than insisting, in imitation of Muslims, that every word of scripture is direct from the mouth of God.

I rather envision that Moses spent 40 days and nights with the Lord on Mt. Horeb and in all of that time God spoke to him the things that he was to write down. Then, after Moses descended the mountain, the Holy Spirit prompted him to remember the things that God had told him. This is also found in the new covenant writings when Jesus spoke to the disciples and told them not to worry when they were called before kings and rulers. He encouraged then that the Holy Spirit would 'give them the words to speak'. Now, one can look at that as a type of dictation. As one of them was standing before such a man, the Holy Spirit was, in some manner telling the spirit of that man, "Say this to him..."

No problem with that. Quite likely the person might not even be aware of the Holy Spirit--the words just seem to pop spontaneously into his mind--and it is only later he might realize they were prompted by the Holy Spirit. I think it would be stretching it to call it dictation though.

So, ultimately I don't know how the Scriptures came to be given to the minds of men. Did they literally hear a voice speaking to them in some instances? And did they then write the things that they heard the voice saying to them?

We can only speculate. My feeling is no, they usually did not. I think they heard God much as we do.

You see, I believe what Paul wrote. In the days before Jesus God spoke to men through His prophets. We don't have that happening today,

Oh, Paul would disagree with you. One of the gifts of the Spirit to the churches is prophecy and several post-resurrection prophets are named in the NT. I think prophecy continues until Christ returns. I think we have prophets among us today and, indeed, in every generation.

I believe that God dealt differently with the ones that He called to be His prophets in the days of the old covenant. He did literally speak to them in a voice that they heard. There are hundreds of places in the old covenant writings where someone writes, "And God spoke to....". I don't think this 'speaking' is the same as what we experience today as a conscience, for lack of a better word, or prodding of the Spirit. I believe that God literally spoke to Adam and to Noah, Abraham and to Moses, Elijah and to David.

We will have to agree to disagree on that. I don't believe in thinking of the prophets (or the saints) as exceptional people. They were people like us with many of the same faults and foibles. Insofar as they were chosen by God for a special task, well, we are all given a vocation if we choose to be open to it. When we put people of ancient times on a pedestal, it too often becomes an excuse for not trying to imitate them. We turn them into superheroes with superpowers. And, of course, we are not superheroes. But God doesn't want or need us to be superheroes; only open to his calling and relying on his power, not ours.

I think in many cases inspiration is not so much the verbal content of a message, but the compulsion to speak up when it is unpopular or even dangerous to do so, yet right to do so. I doubt, for example that God dictated Nathan's parable of the lamb which he told to David; but he did make it clear that Nathan must speak God's judgment to David and gave him the courage to take his life in his hands and do it. Elijah is a case where both processes seem to be at work. The text says he heard a still small voice. But the voice did not tell him what to say. Rather it gave him a message of strength and comfort to continue with his preaching. His preaching was in his own words, but inspired by the Spirit.

I agree with that and I have repeatedly agreed that it certainly seems also to me that only parts of the Hebrew Scriptures seem to have been handed down as some sort of dictation process.

Then we are not so far apart.

Since Islam is a newer religion than Christianity, I would counter that Islam, as Satan is gleeful to do, has tried to get those writings to conform to the true Scriptures by making them 'appear' to be the same style and type of writings. He has encouraged the practitioners of Islam to make that similar claim because that brings into question in the minds of the weak, confusion. As it does seem to be doing even in this discussion.

I don't know if you have read the Qur'an. I have, at least I have read an English translation of it. It is very different in style from the NT. In some respects it is like the OT, but there are many differences too. IMO it is much more scary and threatening. I would like to know more about how Muslims themselves use their book. I wonder if they screen out a lot of the negative stuff and focus on the passages that speak of God's mercy and forgiving nature. But that is by the by. The main thing is that the function of the Qur'an in Islam is much different than the function of the Bible in Christianity. So when we start making arguments for the bible that mirror those made by Muslims for the Qur'an, I think we are doing our own scriptures and our own religion a disservice.

The Hebrew Scriptures are the true words of God. How they came to be written by men, beyond just understanding that the Holy Spirit did it, is outside of my realm of understanding.

"words of God" is a phrase I would prefer not to use of the bible, as it suggests an equivalence between the Bible and the Qur'an. To Muslims, the Qur'an is the Word of God because its words are the words of God, dictated by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad.


But in Christianity, the Bible is a book (actually a collection of writings) whose words open us to the Word of God who was revealed to us in the person of Jesus Christ. And whether the words of the Bible in any place are the actual words of God or the words of the inspired author is actually irrelevant. What is important is that we recognize these writings as authoritative, as useful (Tim. 3:16) and as containing the sufficiency of what anyone needs to know to come to believe in Christ (John 20:31)

In fact, there are several places in the Scriptures where God literally says, "Write these things down..." Just as an employer might call in his secretary and have her sit with a pad on her knee and tell her, "Write these things down..."

Yes, I am not disputing that. I am just saying we cannot extrapolate that to all, or even most, of scripture.

Let me also say that there is a group of christians who believe that we just aren't telling the story right, or there's a better way to say things. Friend, Jesus was the Son of the living God. According to him everything he said was given to him be the Father to say. If God, hasn't been able to figure out how to tell of Himself to men that right way, then I don't hold out much hope that you or I or anyone else will. I think it is fairly apparent that Jesus walked throughout Israel for some three years preaching the truth, using the very words of God, but in the end, few believed him. So, the question must be asked, "Did Jesus not tell the story well or rightly? Or is man's heart overly willing to cast such truths aside no matter who or what someone says to them?" Personally, I believe the latter. I don't think it's really an issue as to 'how' we tell the story, but rather that no matter what one says, if it is the truth of God, man's heart is wicked and desires utmost to not want to believe that there is sin and righteousness in the world.

Agreed. And again this says to me that to focus on whether the words of scripture are the very words of God is a mistaken focus. It turns attention away from Christ to the vehicle by which many of us come to know Christ. It is enough that we have here a record from the apostles and evangelists who knew Christ personally, or at least knew those who did, so even if not a single word of the NT was dictated, it constitutes a reliable eye-witness testimony to Jesus, his life, death and resurrection. When Church authorities began to set out list of reliable writings to be used in churches, one of the chief criteria they used to sort the wheat from the chaff was a close connection to the apostles.

 

[Tellastory]

The evolution theory is false when going beyond His words in Genesis.

Jesus validated the scripture:

John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Jesus validated the first marriage as well as the first creation couple.

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Jesus validated the global flood.

Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Peter did too in warning believer of a coming judgment.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

So while fallible men with their fallible devices in science continue to modify their "facts" which proves those "facts" are only guesswork, I believe Jesus words and the words of His disciples as they know what they are talking about then evolutionists do.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

The evolution theory IS a science so falsely called. Take heed of that warning and believe God's words over men's.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

 

[Papias]

achillies wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Do you not understand what the sky would look like if the earth started rotating on a different axis? Do you not understand that just as many stars would appear to the rising as setting?

You're correct: but John has only described one aspect of what it would look like if the earth fell off of its axis. Indeed it would look like the stars were falling to the ground (horizon).

So that means that your interpretation doesn't fit. Plus, as pointed out before, it doesn't say it would "look like", but that they would fall to the ground. So saying that it would just look like that is again deviating from a literal reading.

Cal wisely pointed out that we should not retroactively apply our understanding of space back onto the text. That's not how things were seen back then.

Originally Posted by Papias

An object made of another substance is still that object. For instance, when my child picks up his matchbox car, it's still a type of car. Thus, Moses did literally make cherubim - they were small golden cherubim.

​

The point is that one can do silly things with an overly literal interpretation of the text - the type you were applying in your posts.

Of course you can do silly things with a literal reading of the text - as you've been showing us this entire thread.

Originally Posted by Papias

Achilles, a "Literal description" is saying what it actually is. That's why it says "literal description" instead of "describing the appearance of. Hence, the waters would have to be blood, not just look like blood, and Jesus would have to have risen from the dead,not just "looked like" he rose from the dead.

No, Papias, a "literal description" can be what something actually is or what something actually looks like. We're just going to have to disagree on this one.

Well, I gave the dictionary defintion, so you can agree to disagree with the dictionary. I guess you are back to saying that the Gospels could be describing how it just "looked like" Jesus rose from the dead.

Originally Posted by Papias

It sounds like you have switched "allegory" and "literal" in your mind, since you are describing allegories as being literal depictions,

​

The point is simple: allegories have to match reality (like Revelation 13, for example) or they're just dishonest. Please show me where Genesis allegorizes evolution.

​

Sure - Genesis 1:11-29.

And Rev. 13 certainly doesn't match reality - dragons and beasts like that don't exist. That's the whole point of an allegory - it doesn't match reality.

Originally Posted by Papias

Did you avoid reading your own posts? The point was that others have pointed out the lying, (and you asked for examples). I gave them. Whether or not they are correct is irrelevant, since you objected to my statement that others had claimed he lied. You don't understand this goalposts thing, do you?

I'm sorry, I didn't find any examples of AiG lying in the posts you cited, as I pointed out before. I found some examples of them (and their detractors) stating opinions, but no deliberate distortions of fact.

I said that others said that AIG lied. You asked for a source showing someone saying that AOG lied. I gave more than one. You haven't refuted that those people (creationists, to boot) said that AIG lied.

After that, we can get into AIG's lies - but there are lots of threads on that anyway, and the fact that others have said that AIG lied is still something you are denying.

Originally Posted by Papias

Of course there are different types of poety - again, irrelevant. The upshot is that your reference (which talked about poetry in Job-Psalms) did nothing to support your point that Genesis wasn't poetry.

If it is poetry, it's certainly not the same type as described in Job/Psalms, and it's also nothing that could really be differentiated from other parts of Scripture, since many parts of Scripture contain chiasm, parallelism, puns, alliteration, and other highly polished literary devices.

Who cares if it's the same type as in Job? I never stated that.

Sure there are other examples of all of those things in other parts of Scripture. Again, no one disputed that.

It sounds like you making up strawmen to attack.

Originally Posted by Papias

The idea that animals before the fall were herbivores is unbiblical, nonsensical, and insults God by claiming God would make a non-functional world. If you want a good example of an idea made up by men by reading their own ideas into scripture, the idea that there were no carnivores before the fall is a great example.

OK, so show me how I'm making things up here:

"29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the [an]surface of all the earth, and every tree [ao]which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the [ap]sky and to every thing that [aq]moves on the earth [ar]which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so." Gen. 1:29-30 (NASB)

God permits every animal to eat vegetation and also permits Adam/Eve to eat vegetation.

God never says that they can't eat meat. By your logic, they would have all died of thirst within a few days, since God didn't tell them they could drink water. Or, show me the verse were God says they can drink water?

You will notice he only allows carnivory for man here:

Simply and completely false. God never said -anywhere- that they couldn't eat meat. In fact, the only food he prohibited was a plant. You again are going by a man- made interpretation.

"3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant." Gen. 9:3 (NASB)

This passage indicates that carnivory was not a part of God's original plan for mankind (since he is only permitting it after the Flood). Hence, it also indicates that the statement about the animals' food (Gen. 1:30) is the exact same: carnivory is not a part of the original plan.

Um, Gen 1:26 already mentions livestock. Aside from all the other reasons why this man-made interpretation is wrong (like the water thing, etc.).

Obviously after the fall alot of things changed in the animal kingdom. Originally, it could all function with animals as strictly herbivores. The fall caused animals to change drastically.

Again, that's a non-functional world for many reasons. One is the reproductive rates of the animals far outstrip their resouces without predators (Just look up the "mantisplosion", or if you like, I can supply it). Similarly we know well today that an area without predators is rapidly overgrazed to the harm of the plants. And so on.

Worse, you are attributing massive creative power to the devil. God's holy creation is filled with all kinds of well-made innovations for predation, from a spider web to a anglerfisher's glowing lure to an archerfish, and so on. To attribute all that creative ability to the devil, and not to God, is the result of your "no predation before the fall" idea.

In Jesus-

Papias

PS. You also asserted that no books other than the 27 NT books we have now were ever considered. That's simply false. In fact, many of our oldest Bibles have other books, such as the Epistle of Barnabas, 3rd Corinthians, the Gospel of Peter, and so. It worked the other way, too, where many of those 27 were question and sometimes omitted. Even Martin Luther took three of them (Jude, Rev, and James) and took them out of his regular canon.

 

[Achilles6129]

Cal wisely pointed out that we should not retroactively apply our understanding of space back onto the text. That's not how things were seen back then.

Again, if the Bible is written by the Creator of the cosmos then we have every reason to suppose that he would know things that weren't known at that point in time.

Sure - Genesis 1:11-29.

What about Genesis 1:1-10? And the order is all wrong for evolution in Gen. 1:11-29 - so explain how that is an accurate allegory?

And Rev. 13 certainly doesn't match reality - dragons and beasts like that don't exist. That's the whole point of an allegory - it doesn't match reality.

An allegory depicts reality in allegorical terms. It has to correspond to reality - that's the point. So yes, Revelation 13 does match reality, because the allegorical figures introduced therein correspond to reality. Genesis 1, however, does not correspond to any sort of evolutionary reality; therefore, if you wish to use it to depict evolution, you are using a false allegory.

I said that others said that AIG lied.

As I recall, you said that "they (AIG) have been known to lie repeatedly."

After that, we can get into AIG's lies - but there are lots of threads on that anyway, and the fact that others have said that AIG lied is still something you are denying.

I'm not denying that people have said that they lied, only asking where they have been proven to lie. The source you cited is nothing but opinion and in no way shows any sort of lie coming from AiG.

God never says that they can't eat meat. By your logic, they would have all died of thirst within a few days, since God didn't tell them they could drink water. Or, show me the verse were God says they can drink water?

You are correct, God does not say that they specifically can't eat meat, but he does tell them what their food is, and meat is not included. That very strongly implies that they are all herbivores, as does the fact that only after the Flood does God allow human beings to eat meat with a reference back to Genesis 1. You would have to be very, very biased to not accept the strong implication that all animals/man are herbivores at the beginning.

Um, Gen 1:26 already mentions livestock.

And...? That doesn't mean they ate meat.

Again, that's a non-functional world for many reasons. One is the reproductive rates of the animals far outstrip their resouces without predators (Just look up the "mantisplosion", or if you like, I can supply it). Similarly we know well today that an area without predators is rapidly overgrazed to the harm of the plants. And so on.

You're missing the point that things were vastly different prior to the fall.

Worse, you are attributing massive creative power to the devil.

No I'm not. God built the possibility of the fall into the creation. The things that happened to the animal kingdom after the fall were put there by God, not by Satan.

PS. You also asserted that no books other than the 27 NT books we have now were ever considered.

No, there were never any books prior to the 27 that we now have that were ever seriously considered for canonization. That is a correct statement. The other "books" you're referring to were ones that may have been popular here and there in various sects but never attained the approval of the church at large. None but those 27 ever obtained widespread acceptance. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

 

[gluadys]

Again, if the Bible is written by the Creator of the cosmos then we have every reason to suppose that he would know things that weren't known at that point in time.

The words of the bible were penned, if not composed, by human authors. So it is irrelevant what the Creator knew. The point is what the human author knew.

At no time did the Creator reveal all knowledge to a human being. (What human could bear that anyway?) Anything the author and the immediate audience did not need to know was probably not revealed to the author. Consider the prophecies of the Messiah to come. None fully revealed who the Messiah would be or when he could be expected or what his work would be. Certainly no one, not even the disciples, expected a Messiah who would be crucified.

An allegory depicts reality in allegorical terms. It has to correspond to reality - that's the point. So yes, Revelation 13 does match reality, because the allegorical figures introduced therein correspond to reality. Genesis 1, however, does not correspond to any sort of evolutionary reality; therefore, if you wish to use it to depict evolution, you are using a false allegory.

Well, that is a matter of opinion and interpretation isn't it? It is interesting that in Genesis 1:11, for the first time, God does not simply say "Let there be..." but uses an indirect form of command "Let the earth produce..." and that this form is used again in the two other instances where living things are brought into existence. Why could one not take that as an allegory of the earth naturally producing life in an evolutionary way?

As for Revelation 13--yes the realities of which these beasts are symbols are real--but that is the point. The beasts themselves are not literally real. That is why they are interpreted to be allegorical symbols. Almost all commentators, even the most conservative, interpret the symbols to be some sort of political reality, not actual beasts.

You're missing the point that things were vastly different prior to the fall.

Actually, I don't find a scriptural basis for this assertion. On what appears to be the very day Noah and family left the ark, God makes a covenant with him and all creatures of the earth which includes the words "as long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall not cease." This would seem to be a restoration of the same natural conditions which existed prior to the fall. So in what way were things "vastly different" --with scriptural citation please?

No, there were never any books prior to the 27 that we now have that were ever seriously considered for canonization. That is a correct statement. The other "books" you're referring to were ones that may have been popular here and there in various sects but never attained the approval of the church at large. None but those 27 ever obtained widespread acceptance. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Canonization was "the approval of the church at large" but canonization was preceded by a time when many writings received approval in some regions, and were even recommended by some bishops. Canonization was the process of harmonizing the various lists of approved sources used in various bishoprics. So it is certainly true that books other than the 27 we now have were seriously considered; further that there was also controversy about some of the 27 we now have as some were opposed to including them.

You seem to be confusing the result (the current NT canon) with the process of getting to the result. As for the OT, there is still no consensus on what the canon is. All agree on the minimal canon of 39 books used by Protestants, but various other denominations recognize more books as canonical.

 

[Achilles6129]

At no time did the Creator reveal all knowledge to a human being. (What human could bear that anyway?) Anything the author and the immediate audience did not need to know was probably not revealed to the author.

The book of Revelation alone proves what you're saying is false, as does, for example, Christ's Olivet Discourse.

Actually, I don't find a scriptural basis for this assertion. On what appears to be the very day Noah and family left the ark, God makes a covenant with him and all creatures of the earth which includes the words "as long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall not cease." This would seem to be a restoration of the same natural conditions which existed prior to the fall.

The passage in no way indicates that it's talking about conditions prior to the fall at all. It's simply a passage affirming that everything will run naturally until the time comes when the planet is no more.

So in what way were things "vastly different" --with scriptural citation please?

Well, there was obviously no death, as the man was warned he would die if he ate of the tree and God says the tree of life makes you live forever (which the man obviously had access to prior to the fall). There are also other passages in Scripture indicating some sort of restoration, such as:

"The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling[a] together;
and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
9 They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea." Isa. 11:6-9 (NIV)

Etc., etc.

So it is certainly true that books other than the 27 we now have were seriously considered; further that there was also controversy about some of the 27 we now have as some were opposed to including them.

The 27 we now have gained widespread acceptance for obvious reasons. There was never any other book that even came close to being canonized other than the 27 we now have, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

As for the OT, there is still no consensus on what the canon is. All agree on the minimal canon of 39 books used by Protestants, but various other denominations recognize more books as canonical.

The Protestant canon is the exact same as the Jewish canon. There is no confusion whatsoever: the Jewish canon goes all the way back to the time of Antiochus IV which is how he could have copies of their sacred Scriptures destroyed (since obviously they were canonized). The Protestant canon simply follows the Jewish canon.

 

[gluadys]

The book of Revelation alone proves what you're saying is false, as does, for example, Christ's Olivet Discourse.

No, neither one does as neither deals with scientific or technological discoveries/inventions of the future. Both fit comfortably into the framework of a three-tier cosmos familiar to the authors and their audience.

Certainly both speak of a time to come, and reveal to the human author a message for those he is speaking/writing to, but neither shows any inclination to distract their hearers from that message by revealing information about the shape of the earth, the motion of the earth, the age of the earth, or its history, much less information on bacteria, radio waves, atoms or DNA. Those were things they did not need to know to understand the main message.

The passage in no way indicates that it's talking about conditions prior to the fall at all. It's simply a passage affirming that everything will run naturally until the time comes when the planet is no more.

The alternation of day and night is expressly mentioned as part of creation in Genesis 1. So are seasons, since sun, moon and stars were created to keep track of them. How then is this not saying that the natural order of creation, as it existed before the fall was to continue, even after the flood?

Well, there was obviously no death, as the man was warned he would die if he ate of the tree and God says the tree of life makes you live forever (which the man obviously had access to prior to the fall). There are also other passages in Scripture indicating some sort of restoration, such as:

"The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling[a] together;
and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
9 They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea." Isa. 11:6-9 (NIV)

Etc., etc.

While these are evident differences between current conditions and Paradise, none of them require the world to be "vastly different" pre & post Fall. The foundations of the earth are still fixed, the firmament is still overhead, "seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night" continue their rotation. Light still travels at the same constant speed in a vacuum, rivers still deposit sediment into lakes and seas, DNA still evolves.

And is this a restoration? The Isaiah passage tells us this is a new creation. Likewise, the book of Revelation is another place that speaks of a truly changed earth, one in which there will be no sun, no night and no sea. That is a vast difference, but it is not a restoration of Eden or at least not only that. It is a glorious new creation.

The 27 we now have gained widespread acceptance for obvious reasons. There was never any other book that even came close to being canonized other than the 27 we now have, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Do you deny there are several extant lists of recommended books drawn up to guide churches rightly prior to the finalization of the NT canon? They include books not admitted later to the canon. And such lists were a step toward forming the canon. And there were certainly books in the canon which almost did not get admitted. Of course, there were some over which there was almost no controversy: the four gospels we have, many of the letters of Paul.

The Protestant canon is the exact same as the Jewish canon.

I know. But it is a Protestant canon, not a Christian canon. Most Christians use a larger canon.

There is no confusion whatsoever: the Jewish canon goes all the way back to the time of Antiochus IV which is how he could have copies of their sacred Scriptures destroyed (since obviously they were canonized). The Protestant canon simply follows the Jewish canon.

Parts of it do. Certainly the Torah and the Prophets were settled by then. Now as to Antiochus IV, the only "canon" he could have destroyed were a) collections of scrolls kept in the temple and in synagogues--of which there is no listing that I know of and b) the various versions of the Septuagint which became the basic OT canon of the early church and is larger than the Protestant canon.

The discrepancy between the current Jewish canon and the Septuagint is completely within the section of Jewish literature called the Ketuvim (Writings) which are almost all post-Babylonian exile. The Ketuvim were not codified until the Council of Jamnia in the 2nd century CE.

Of course, in spite of disallowing several books usually found in the Septuagint, Judaism has not restricted itself to the biblical literature either, giving a semi-scriptural status to the collections of commentaries known as the Talmud.

 

[Achilles6129]

No, neither one does as neither deals with scientific or technological discoveries/inventions of the future. Both fit comfortably into the framework of a three-tier cosmos familiar to the authors and their audience.

We'll just have to disagree.

Certainly both speak of a time to come, and reveal to the human author a message for those he is speaking/writing to,

Obviously, then, the message is also for those in that time to come.

but neither shows any inclination to distract their hearers from that message by revealing information about the shape of the earth,

Christ says it is both day/night when he returns:

" 31 On that day, the one who is on the housetop and whose goods are in the house must not go down to take them out; and likewise the one who is in the field must not turn back. 32 Remember Lot’s wife. 33 Whoever seeks to keep his [u]life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left." Lu. 17:31-34 (NASB)

Obviously, the only way it could be both day/night at Christ's return is if the earth were spherical, not flat.

the motion of the earth, the age of the earth, or its history, much less information on bacteria, radio waves, atoms or DNA. Those were things they did not need to know to understand the main message.

Well, none of those things are theologically important. Scripture does speak, however, of future technologies (such as modern communication, flight/bombs, and so on), which I have already pointed out in previous posts but you denied. So it is pointless to continue the discussion.

The alternation of day and night is expressly mentioned as part of creation in Genesis 1. So are seasons, since sun, moon and stars were created to keep track of them. How then is this not saying that the natural order of creation, as it existed before the fall was to continue, even after the flood?

The natural order continues but that doesn't mean that the conditions prior to the fall are the same.

And is this a restoration? The Isaiah passage tells us this is a new creation.

I suggest you read again: this is talking about a restoration, not a new creation. There are many passages of restoration in Scripture. The end of Ezekiel is one example.

Do you deny there are several extant lists of recommended books drawn up to guide churches rightly prior to the finalization of the NT canon? They include books not admitted later to the canon. And such lists were a step toward forming the canon.

Absolutely there are some lists of recommended books that are not a part of our NT canon. But the fact is that none of these books ever obtained widespread acceptance. Craig Blomberg covers this topic and agrees with what I'm saying on pg. 56 of his new book Can We Still Believe The Bible?, a book which I'd recommend that you check out.

And there were certainly books in the canon which almost did not get admitted.

I don't agree with this statement and would like to see you prove it.

Parts of it do. Certainly the Torah and the Prophets were settled by then. Now as to Antiochus IV, the only "canon" he could have destroyed were a) collections of scrolls kept in the temple and in synagogues--of which there is no listing that I know of

Obviously Antiochus IV attempted to destroy all of what we know as the OT because all of what we know as the OT was already written by the time he came to power. He attempted to destroy these books and Judas Maccabeus collected them after the war. See 2 Maccabees 2:14-15 and Blomberg, pgs. 45-48.

and b) the various versions of the Septuagint which became the basic OT canon of the early church and is larger than the Protestant canon.

The Apocrypha were never recognized within Judaism or early Christianity. The logic of how they became a part of the "Catholic" canon is something that I'll never understand.

The discrepancy between the current Jewish canon and the Septuagint is completely within the section of Jewish literature called the Ketuvim (Writings)

The letter of Jeremiah is part of the Ketuvim?

which are almost all post-Babylonian exile. The Ketuvim were not codified until the Council of Jamnia in the 2nd century CE.

This is an extremely liberal interpretation. Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, etc., are post-Babylonian exile?

 

[gluadys]

We'll just have to disagree.

So where in those passages are there clear references to modern science? None, actually. We've been through the two witnesses bit in Revelation, and I don't see anything in that which necessitates modern communication. And even if we assume that, it still doesn't necessitate John knowing anything about it. Furthermore, Christians throughout ancient and medieval times and into early modern times did not raise objections to this passage saying "that's impossible, there is no technology to support that happening." So it is clear modern technology is simply not an issue.

Obviously, then, the message is also for those in that time to come.

And that begs the question of whether that time has come yet. Almost every generation thinks its own time is the end time. One day, one of them will be right, but we can't be certain it is our generation. Rather we are all to live as if Christ is returning now.

Christ says it is both day/night when he returns:

" 31 On that day, the one who is on the housetop and whose goods are in the house must not go down to take them out; and likewise the one who is in the field must not turn back. 32 Remember Lot’s wife. 33 Whoever seeks to keep his [u]life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left." Lu. 17:31-34 (NASB)

Obviously, the only way it could be both day/night at Christ's return is if the earth were spherical, not flat.

Extreme literalism. I really question whether a geography lesson is being alluded to in this passage. The message of importance is spiritual: "Be ready!"

Well, none of those things are theologically important.

Exactly my point. And when something is not theologically important, it is not necessary to give the human author of scripture a preview of modern technology or other similar information. So, it doesn't happen.

Scripture does speak, however, of future technologies (such as modern communication, flight/bombs, and so on), which I have already pointed out in previous posts but you denied. So it is pointless to continue the discussion.

Because the links you make between the scriptural passage and modern information are completely ad hoc and have never been necessary to understanding the message.

The natural order continues but that doesn't mean that the conditions prior to the fall are the same.

OK. I can accept that. You apparently don't see vast physical changes in the world pre/post fall or pre/post flood. Many do and that is what I was reacting to.

I suggest you read again: this is talking about a restoration, not a new creation.

Right, it does not speak of a new creation. I was thinking of Isaiah 65: 17-25 which contains some similar wording. That says definitely "I am about to create new heavens and a new earth". Isaiah 11 does not, but it doesn't speak of a restoration either. Or at best, it speaks of the restoration of the people to the land of Israel--which is much more limited than the restoration of creation which is required in a Gap theology interpretation.

There are many passages of restoration in Scripture. The end of Ezekiel is one example.

Again, Ezekiel is speaking of the return of the people to the land of Israel at the end of the exile in Babylon, so far as I can see.

Absolutely there are some lists of recommended books that are not a part of our NT canon. But the fact is that none of these books ever obtained widespread acceptance.

You would have to define "wide-spread". How many lists or what proportion of lists does a work have to be included on to merit the conclusion that it was widely accepted as suitable reading for Christian worship and study? How often does it need to be cited favorably in Patristic writings?

I don't agree with this statement and would like to see you prove it.

You can start with the fact than few of the Bibles published in Greek included the book of Revelation during the first millennium CE. It did not get official recognition as scripture from the bishops and metropolitans of the Eastern churches until about the year 1,000 CE. And 500 years later, Martin Luther was prepared to delete the letter of James. Most other controversies were settled by the early 4th century, if not earlier. There was some resistance to including the 2nd letter of Peter, the letter of Jude and the letters (especially the 2nd and 3rd) of John, mostly because some scholars were unsure that they came from the apostles to which they are attributed. They were well aware of other material with apostolic names attached which were clearly not penned by the apostles. But the majority opinion held that these letters were true apostolic compositions, so they were admitted to the canon. Meanwhile other popular works widely read in the early churches such as the letters of Clement and the Didache were excluded, because, whatever their merit, they were clearly not apostolic.

Obviously Antiochus IV attempted to destroy all of what we know as the OT because all of what we know as the OT was already written by the time he came to power. He attempted to destroy these books and Judas Maccabeus collected them after the war. See 2 Maccabees 2:14-15 and Blomberg, pgs. 45-48.

If he was trying to destroy all that Protestants recognize as OT canon, he must have been trying to destroy the Apocrypha as well, for in his day there was no clear division between them.

The Apocrypha were never recognized within Judaism or early Christianity.

One has to remember that in Judaism, the third part of the canon was not fixed until the 2nd century CE at the earliest. I don't expect the recommendations of the Council of Jamnia were immediately accepted by all Jewish communities. Prior to that there simply was not any official division between what we now call the Apocrypha and other Ketuvim. It was not so much that the Apocrypha were included as scripture but that the limits of this type of scripture had not been settled yet within Jewish circles.

However, in the early Church, which was by-and-large Greek speaking, the Greek Septuagint quickly became "the scriptures" of the early church. When a passage from the OT is cited in the NT it almost invariably comes from the Septuagint. So yes, the early church did recognize the Apocrypha as scripture from its earliest days.

The logic of how they became a part of the "Catholic" canon is something that I'll never understand.

It' simple. The Apocrypha are part of the Septuagint which was the OT of the early church. They were not snuck in later. Rather, they were never excluded from the Christian OT until Martin Luther sequestered them in a separate category. Other Reformation era churches followed suit and it became a standard procedure to include the Apocrypha in a section between the OT and the NT. Eventually, they were excluded altogether--more a printer's decision than a theological one. Saves paper, allows more bibles to be printed and sold, increases profit to the printer.

The letter of Jeremiah is part of the Ketuvim?

Well, in the last couple of centuries before Christ and in the century following, it may have been considered part of the Ketuvim. However, not in the sense that they had received official approval as scripture. Rather in the sense that many Jewish communities were using them as such. But since the rabbis excluded the Apocrypha from the Jewish canon, the term 'Ketuvim' is only applied now to those recognized Hebrew scriptures that are not included by Jewish scholars in either the Torah or the Nevi'im (Prophets)

This is an extremely liberal interpretation. Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, etc., are post-Babylonian exile?

Only a few Psalms are post-exilic and many are certainly from the time of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Lamentations is connected to Jeremiah and so probably early exilic. Proverbs, like Psalms is a collection and it is impossible to date much of it with any precision. For the rest, yes, very likely post-exilic. Modern Judaism recognizes the following books as Ketuvim: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah (considered to be a single book), Daniel, Chronicles.

 

[Achilles6129]

Extreme literalism. I really question whether a geography lesson is being alluded to in this passage. The message of importance is spiritual: "Be ready!"

Some of the activities that Christ mentions take place in the daytime (such as workin the field) and some at night (such as sleeping in a bed).

Exactly my point. And when something is not theologically important, it is not necessary to give the human author of scripture a preview of modern technology or other similar information.

Except when theological relevance and technology go hand in hand.

Because the links you make between the scriptural passage and modern information are completely ad hoc and have never been necessary to understanding the message.

So how exactly do all the earth-dwellers rejoice over the two witnesses within 3.5 days without modern communication?

Right, it does not speak of a new creation. I was thinking of Isaiah 65: 17-25 which contains some similar wording. That says definitely "I am about to create new heavens and a new earth". Isaiah 11 does not, but it doesn't speak of a restoration either. Or at best, it speaks of the restoration of the people to the land of Israel--which is much more limited than the restoration of creation which is required in a Gap theology interpretation.

Yes, it does speak of a restoration. So are you suggesting this is not a restoration to Edenic paradise, but rather a state of affairs that has never taken place in history? That really wouldn't be much of a restoration, then, would it?

Again, Ezekiel is speaking of the return of the people to the land of Israel at the end of the exile in Babylon, so far as I can see.

If he is then he is a false prophet: Ezekiel's descriptions have never happened in history.

You would have to define "wide-spread". How many lists or what proportion of lists does a work have to be included on to merit the conclusion that it was widely accepted as suitable reading for Christian worship and study? How often does it need to be cited favorably in Patristic writings?

It has to have widespread acceptance as Scripture. I challenge you to find me one book outside of the 27 that have ever had that distinction.

You can start with the fact than few of the Bibles published in Greek included the book of Revelation during the first millennium CE.

Please provide a source for this. Revelation was accepted as Scripture and as apostolic early on; it is true that some in the East (as you pointed out) resisted this, but that seems to be more because there was trouble interpreting the book than anything else. In other words, they just couldn't understand it.

It did not get official recognition as scripture from the bishops and metropolitans of the Eastern churches until about the year 1,000 CE.

Yes, like I said, I believe this was because they had such trouble understanding it that they simply didn't include it in the canon.

And 500 years later, Martin Luther was prepared to delete the letter of James.

I don't really consider Luther to be an authority on this subject...

It's obvious why the books that are in the New Testament made it in. There really isn't any contest with any book outside of the New Testament.

If he was trying to destroy all that Protestants recognize as OT canon, he must have been trying to destroy the Apocrypha as well, for in his day there was no clear division between them.

The Jews have never included the Apocrypha in their canon.

One has to remember that in Judaism, the third part of the canon was not fixed until the 2nd century CE at the earliest.

The official "fixing" of the canon need hardly have implied there was any debate as to what should be included in it. Like I said, the Jews knew well what books they considered inspired and what books then didn't.

So yes, the early church did recognize the Apocrypha as scripture from its earliest days.

Just because the early church used the LXX in no way means they recognized the Apocrypha in the slightest. They would have had to actually cite from the Apocrypha and proclaim it Scripture (which they have not, aside from a citation in Jude from Enoch).

It' simple. The Apocrypha are part of the Septuagint which was the OT of the early church. They were not snuck in later.

You're correct, but the logic is totally flawed. The Jews never recognized the Apocrypha and so they should have been left out of the Christian canon. Just because the LXX translators translated them in no way makes them Scripture.

Proverbs, like Psalms is a collection and it is impossible to date much of it with any precision. For the rest, yes, very likely post-exilic. Modern Judaism recognizes the following books as Ketuvim: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah (considered to be a single book), Daniel, Chronicles.

Right...I thought you were saying the Ketuvim was mostly post-Babylonian exile. Clearly it is not.

 

[Papias]

Achilles wrote:

Again, if the Bible is written by the Creator of the cosmos then we have every reason to suppose that he would know things that weren't known at that point in time.

Of course God knew them. God was also wise enough to communicate to people in terms they could understand. If God started talking about endogenous retrovirusts, guanine, stellar nuclearsynthesis, and allelic disproportionat selection, then no would have understood it.

Instead, He used clear and understandable language - like evil spirits causing disease, the Earth being created (not mentioned that this was by accretion), and so on.

Originally Posted by Papias

Sure - Genesis 1:11-29.

What about Genesis 1:1-10? And the order is all wrong for evolution in Gen. 1:11-29 - so explain how that is an accurate allegory?

So what if the order is all wrong? As we discussed, the order is all wrong in the Old Testament in other places too - so toss the whole Old Testament?

There is no such thing as an "accurate allegory". Allegories, by their very nature, deviate from the literal world - that's why they are allegories, and hence, not "accurate". That's the whole point of an allegory - that it doesn't exactly match the real world.

We discussed this before - you seem to think that allegories are literal reading (hence they have to be "accurate"), and that literal text need not be real (only that it "looks like" what happened). You seem to still have the ideas of "allegory" and "literal text" switched in your mind.

I hope you don't think that the literal resurrection only "looked like" Jesus was really resurrected. I've asked you about that several times.

Similarly, I've also asked you about God "knitting" us together in the womb (Ps 139) - that's obviously a "dishonest allegory", right, since there is no thread in the womb? Obviously it's not an "accurate allegory".

Originally Posted by Papias

And Rev. 13 certainly doesn't match reality - dragons and beasts like that don't exist. That's the whole point of an allegory - it doesn't match reality.

An allegory depicts reality in allegorical terms. It has to correspond to reality - that's the point. So yes, Revelation 13 does match reality, because the allegorical figures introduced therein correspond to reality.

No they don't. There are no beasts with that number of horns in reality, and that's not the point of the text anyway. So I guess that's another "dishonest allegory". Again, we are back to the oxymoron - the contradicton in terms, of "accurate allegory". That's kinda like a "square circle".

Genesis 1, however, does not correspond to any sort of evolutionary reality; therefore, if you wish to use it to depict evolution, you are using a false allegory.

As pointed out in detail in previous posts, sure it does. Plants are created, birds are created, fish are created, and so on. It corresponds creature by creature to what really exists.

Originally Posted by Papias

I said that others said that AIG lied.

As I recall, you said that "they (AIG) have been known to lie repeatedly."

I did say that (and it's true). The very next sentence clarified that Christians and others have pointed out that they lied. Since you disputed that second part as well, I gave references, and said repeatedly that I was first showing that people said they lied (which you seem to have failed to grasp over many posts), and would leave the details of the lies until after the first claim (that people said they lied) was settled.

I'm not denying that people have said that they lied

Well, that's a refreshing change. The whole question up to now has been whether or not some Christians had said they lied.

You even know that the first claim was that Christians have said AIG lied because you quoted me saying it, it back in post 98:

I wrote, you quoted:

Are you actually unaware of how many people have pointed out their lies? ... Christians, in particular, have pointed it out, including other creationists. I could start listing them if you'd like.

Then, I repeatedly clarified that the first claim was about Christians saying AIG lied, such as these two statements from two separate posts:

Papias wrote:

You asked for instances where other creationists say AIG is lying, I gave some. Case closed.

If you'd like to discuss the details of the AIG lie, we can, but first, you can see that your request for sources where other creationists say AIG is lying is satisfied, and I hope you can acknowledge that.

You replied, and didn't agree that anyone said AIG lied. And again later:

The point was that others have pointed out the lying, (and you asked for examples). I gave them. Whether or not they are correct is irrelevant, since you objected to my statement that others had claimed he lied. You don't understand this goalposts thing, do you?

After that, you again did not agree that anyone said AIG lied. Since it looks like we agree now that Christians, including other creationists, have said that AIG lies, then we can get to showing that what AIG said are lies - sound good?

Originally Posted by Papias

God never says that they can't eat meat. By your logic, they would have all died of thirst within a few days, since God didn't tell them they could drink water. Or, show me the verse were God says they can drink water?

You are correct, God does not say that they specifically can't eat meat, but he does tell them what their food is, and meat is not included.

And can't drink water. You again seem to have refused to address that, as it's one more reason to show that the whole vegetarian thing is an unscriptural human invention you are following.

That very strongly implies that they are all herbivores, as does the fact that only after the Flood does God allow human beings to eat meat with a reference back to Genesis 1. You would have to be very, very biased to not accept the strong implication that all animals/man are herbivores at the beginning.

Empty rhetoric. It doesn't strongly (or even weakly) imply any of that.

Originally Posted by Papias

Um, Gen 1:26 already mentions livestock.

And...? That doesn't mean they ate meat.

Sure it does. That's what livestock has always been used for. Even if you consider other uses - like plowing - those came long after they were used for meat, and they were used for meat too then. Plus, Gen 1:26 is before farming anyway.




Originally Posted by Papias

Again, that's a non-functional world for many reasons. One is the reproductive rates of the animals far outstrip their resouces without predators (Just look up the "mantisplosion", or if you like, I can supply it). Similarly we know well today that an area without predators is rapidly overgrazed to the harm of the plants. And so on.
​

You're missing the point that things were vastly different prior to the fall.

Again you are assigning massive creative power to Satan, and diminishing God's power and role. It's painful to watch a Christian do so. It reminds me of your statement about the daylight not being sunlight, when I asked why don't we see that light now, and have no nights? Oh, because the sun is brighter? But then the light of God is nothing compared to the light of a measly star. Or is it because that light's gone? So then God is gone? etc. You didn't answer that.

I know you say that God built all that into the fall, but that too is unscriptural - unless you can show me a verse that says that God built all that into the fall.

Originally Posted by Papias

PS. You also asserted that no books other than the 27 NT books we have now were ever considered.

No, there were never any books prior to the 27 that we now have that were ever seriously considered for canonization. That is a correct statement. The other "books" you're referring to were ones that may have been popular here and there in various sects but never attained the approval of the church at large. None but those 27 ever obtained widespread acceptance. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

First of all, all popular books will start out unpopular, and grow in popularity, so it's circular to say that those 27 are the most popular - of course they are, eventually.

So long after they've gotten to be the most popular, of course they'll be most popular.

A more substantive question would be whether or not some Christians revered other books as sacred scripture - which they certainly did. And whether or not some Christians rejected any of the 27 currently most popular NT books as non-sacred - which they certainly did.

Third - and also important, since you have done this other times on this thread - Remember that in rational discussion, the burden of support is on the person making the claim. So if you make a claim, you support it - instead of saying "No, there were never any....... I challenge you to prove otherwise."

In Christ-

Papias

 

[gluadys]

Some of the activities that Christ mentions take place in the daytime (such as workin the field) and some at night (such as sleeping in a bed).

Yes, I saw that, but I don't know why one would consider that significant when speaking to people who did not conceive of the earth as a sphere.

Except when theological relevance and technology go hand in hand.

Which comes down to saying "never".

So how exactly do all the earth-dwellers rejoice over the two witnesses within 3.5 days without modern communication?

That is not what the text says about the 3.5 days. That is the time frame in which the bodies were exposed in Jerusalem. Nothing says it also applies to the period in which people rejoiced over their death.

Yes, [Isaiah 11] does speak of a restoration. So are you suggesting this is not a restoration to Edenic paradise, but rather a state of affairs that has never taken place in history? That really wouldn't be much of a restoration, then, would it?

Where? I can't find a single reference to "restoration" in that passage.

If he is then he is a false prophet: Ezekiel's descriptions have never happened in history.

You mean the way the land was divided among the tribes did not happen in history. No, of course not, but why would that be a problem? He is giving an ideal picture of the return, not a preview of actual history.

It has to have widespread acceptance as Scripture. I challenge you to find me one book outside of the 27 that have ever had that distinction.

I asked for a criterion of "wide-spread". Give me an idea of what "wide-spread" means and we can then determine, so far as records permit, what books meet that criterion. If you cannot define "wide-spread" then you are only going on gut feeling.

Please provide a source for this. Revelation was accepted as Scripture and as apostolic early on; it is true that some in the East (as you pointed out) resisted this, but that seems to be more because there was trouble interpreting the book than anything else. In other words, they just couldn't understand it.



Yes, like I said, I believe this was because they had such trouble understanding it that they simply didn't include it in the canon.

I won't speculate as to the reasons they didn't include it. The point is that you have agreed that they didn't.

I don't really consider Luther to be an authority on this subject...

And apparently, even Lutherans don't. They use the same NT as the rest of us.

It's obvious why the books that are in the New Testament made it in. There really isn't any contest with any book outside of the New Testament.

If it were obvious, there would never have been a need to create the lists of acceptable/recommended readings in the first place, much less establish a closed canon.

The Jews have never included the Apocrypha in their canon.

Technically true. But in the intertestamental period the only sections of the canon which were closed were the Torah and the Prophets. There was as yet no canon of the Ketuvim--or at least it was not yet a closed canon. So what was included in the term "Writings" was still somewhat flexible. Jamnia was the first conference of rabbis to establish the limits of the Ketuvim and it was at that time the decision not to include the books we now call the Apocryphya was made. So, once the decision of Jamnia was widely accepted, the Ketuvim became a closed canon and it is technically true to say the Apocrypha were never included in the fully-closed canon of rabbinically-recognised scriptures.

The official "fixing" of the canon need hardly have implied there was any debate as to what should be included in it. Like I said, the Jews knew well what books they considered inspired and what books then didn't.

The Septuagint, which was commissioned by Jews for Jews, included the Apocrypha. And clearly, it was received and used in Greek-speaking Jewish congregations as a Greek translation of Hebrew scriptures. So if we can trust the Jews to know what books they considered inspired, it would seem that Greek-speaking Jews, at least, considered the whole Septuagint to be inspired.

Just because the early church used the LXX in no way means they recognized the Apocrypha in the slightest. They would have had to actually cite from the Apocrypha and proclaim it Scripture (which they have not, aside from a citation in Jude from Enoch).

Sorry, but you can't set the standards for the Church Fathers. The Septuagint was and remains the OT of the Eastern churches. (Some add even more books but none use fewer.) No discrimination among the books has ever been part of their tradition. The OT of the Latin Vulgate is based on the Septuagint and includes all the Apocrypha. It has been used as the scripture of Latin-speaking churches ever since Jerome completed it. The earliest bibles printed in the common tongues of Renaissance Europe included the Apocrypha with no special designation. The consistent inclusion of the Apocrypha in all published Christian bibles from the earliest codexes up to the Reformation is a proclamation that they are scripture.

Now, you may agree (with Luther--whom you do not consider to be an authority) that the pre-Reformation church erred in not removing the Apocrypha from the Christian scriptures as the rabbis did from the Hebrew scriptures, but don't tell me the Apocrypha were not recognized as the scriptures of the Church because that is historically just not the case. They were, and in all but the Protestant churches, they still are.

You're correct, but the logic is totally flawed. The Jews never recognized the Apocrypha and so they should have been left out of the Christian canon. Just because the LXX translators translated them in no way makes them Scripture.

See comment on this above. With an open canon, such as existed at the time the Septuagint was created, there is no way to say they are not scripture. When Paul wrote--in Greek--to Timothy, a Greek-speaking Jew, that "all scripture is inspired by God" both he and Timothy would understand that to apply to the scriptures which Timothy knew. And the scriptures a Greek-speaking Jew would know at that time would be those of the Septuagint.

Right...I thought you were saying the Ketuvim was mostly post-Babylonian exile. Clearly it is not.

Well, out of about a dozen books in that list only three can obviously claim to be fully or mostly assigned to an earlier era. So that leaves about 75% to be post-Babylonian exile. I think that qualifies as "most".

 

[Achilles6129]

Of course God knew them. God was also wise enough to communicate to people in terms they could understand. If God started talking about endogenous retrovirusts, guanine, stellar nuclearsynthesis, and allelic disproportionat selection, then no would have understood it.

The book of Revelation has puzzled Christianity since it was written. If what you're saying is true then why didn't God make the book of Revelation easier to understand?

So what if the order is all wrong? As we discussed, the order is all wrong in the Old Testament in other places too - so toss the whole Old Testament?

The order is all wrong where else in the Old Testament? Clearly only in places where it indicates itself as such.

I hope you don't think that the literal resurrection only "looked like" Jesus was really resurrected. I've asked you about that several times.

It both happened and looked like it happened.

Similarly, I've also asked you about God "knitting" us together in the womb (Ps 139) - that's obviously a "dishonest allegory", right, since there is no thread in the womb? Obviously it's not an "accurate allegory".

No, it's a perfectly accurate allegory: it corresponds to reality. There doesn't have to be a "thread" in the womb - notice that you are adding the word "thread" in there by yourself, it's not something the text says. I'm not sure you know how to accurately apply allegories, metaphors, and the like in Scripture. Words used in allegories don't have to actually be real, they can only be depicting something that's real, like the seven-horned lamb in Revelation (we'll get to that in a bit).

No they don't. There are no beasts with that number of horns in reality, and that's not the point of the text anyway. So I guess that's another "dishonest allegory".

Not at all. The horns on the beast depict something that's real, so it's a perfectly honest and accurate allegory.

As pointed out in detail in previous posts, sure it does. Plants are created, birds are created, fish are created, and so on. It corresponds creature by creature to what really exists.

Right, and there's no evolution there.

I did say that (and it's true). The very next sentence clarified that Christians and others have pointed out that they lied. Since you disputed that second part as well, I gave references, and said repeatedly that I was first showing that people said they lied (which you seem to have failed to grasp over many posts), and would leave the details of the lies until after the first claim (that people said they lied) was settled.

OK, fine, so people said that AiG lied. That's not something that I was unaware of. The question is whether or not they actually lied in reality: clearly, you have not presented a case that they have.

And can't drink water. You again seem to have refused to address that, as it's one more reason to show that the whole vegetarian thing is an unscriptural human invention you are following.

God never addresses water in the passage, only food. He gives them plants to eat, which strongly implies they are all herbivores, as does the covenant he makes with the animals/Noah after the Flood.

Sure it does. That's what livestock has always been used for. Even if you consider other uses - like plowing - those came long after they were used for meat, and they were used for meat too then. Plus, Gen 1:26 is before farming anyway.

You're really overtranslating the word. The word used for "cattle" is #929, behemah, and can basically apply to any wild animal. See:

Hebrew Lexicon :: H929 (KJV)

Again you are assigning massive creative power to Satan, and diminishing God's power and role.

Not in the slightest. God built the capacity to fall into his creation. After the fall things were totally changed.

It's painful to watch a Christian do so. It reminds me of your statement about the daylight not being sunlight, when I asked why don't we see that light now, and have no nights? Oh, because the sun is brighter? But then the light of God is nothing compared to the light of a measly star. Or is it because that light's gone? So then God is gone? etc. You didn't answer that.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. The initial light that God created is light outside of the sun or stars: perhaps it's light from heaven itself. The light (that defines the days initially) is taken away when the sun is created to give light upon the earth.

I know you say that God built all that into the fall, but that too is unscriptural - unless you can show me a verse that says that God built all that into the fall.

Well, he placed the tree of the knowledge of good/evil into his creation, so clearly he placed within it the capacity to fall. That same capacity was placed within the rest of his creation as well. It was simply a changed creation after the fall.

First of all, all popular books will start out unpopular, and grow in popularity, so it's circular to say that those 27 are the most popular - of course they are, eventually.

There's a reason why they're the most popular and it's obvious: look at who they're written by and the time in which they were written.

Third - and also important, since you have done this other times on this thread - Remember that in rational discussion, the burden of support is on the person making the claim. So if you make a claim, you support it - instead of saying "No, there were never any....... I challenge you to prove otherwise."

I have supported it, and you've basically agreed with my assertion.

 

[Achilles6129]

Yes, I saw that, but I don't know why one would consider that significant when speaking to people who did not conceive of the earth as a sphere.

Because obviously the only way it could be day and night in the "day" that the Son of Man is revealed is if the earth were a sphere.

That is not what the text says about the 3.5 days. That is the time frame in which the bodies were exposed in Jerusalem. Nothing says it also applies to the period in which people rejoiced over their death.

" 8 and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city that is prophetically[a] called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. 9 For three and a half days members of the peoples and tribes and languages and nations will gaze at their dead bodies and refuse to let them be placed in a tomb; 10 and the inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and celebrate and exchange presents, because these two prophets had been a torment to the inhabitants of the earth.
11 But after the three and a half days, the breath[b] of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and those who saw them were terrified." Rev. 11:8-11 (NRSV)

The text very clearly states that the two witnesses lie dead for 3.5 days (which is parallel to their 3.5 year ministry) and the earth-dwellers rejoice during that 3.5 day timespan.

Where? I can't find a single reference to "restoration" in that passage.

So wolves dwelling with lambs and children putting their hands in the serpents' lair is just....what, exactly?

You mean the way the land was divided among the tribes did not happen in history. No, of course not, but why would that be a problem? He is giving an ideal picture of the return, not a preview of actual history.

The temple Ezekiel speaks of also never occurred in history. Again, you're "spiritualizing" things away because they obviously never happened in reality. If Ezekiel is a true prophet, then what he prophesied must take place: see Deut. 18:20-22.

I asked for a criterion of "wide-spread". Give me an idea of what "wide-spread" means and we can then determine, so far as records permit, what books meet that criterion. If you cannot define "wide-spread" then you are only going on gut feeling.

Widespread means accepted by most of the patristic era writers and churches (say, before 200 AD).

I won't speculate as to the reasons they didn't include it. The point is that you have agreed that they didn't.

It doesn't really matter. The majority of patristic era writers accepted it and considered it inspired for obvious reasons. "Formation of the canon" is really unimportant. The bottom line is that the books of the NT (and OT) were bound to make it in no matter what: there was simply no other competition.

The Muratorian Fragment

If it were obvious, there would never have been a need to create the lists of acceptable/recommended readings in the first place, much less establish a closed canon.

These things were merely a formality. You keep referring to the "Council of Jamnia" like the Jews got around and debated what should be considered Scripture and what shouldn't. In reality there was no debate. Everyone already knew what comprised the OT and what didn't.

The Jewish “Council” of Jamnia and Its Impact on the Old Testament Canon and New Testament Studies | Timothy Gordon - Academia.edu

I suggest you do some further research.

The Septuagint, which was commissioned by Jews for Jews, included the Apocrypha.

The LXX translators translated the Apocrypha but they were never considered inspired by Jews. It's as simple as that. Just because you translate something doesn't make it inspired.

The consistent inclusion of the Apocrypha in all published Christian bibles from the earliest codexes up to the Reformation is a proclamation that they are scripture.

No, it is not. Again, just because something is translated or even read is no indication whatsoever that it is "Scripture":

Apocryphal Books in Early Christian Codices: Evidence for their Canonical Status? | Canon Fodder

One key fact that Ehrman does not mention in his discussion is the location of these apocryphal books within the codices. They all occur at the end of the codex, even after Revelation.

Moreover, if a book like 1 Clement or the Epistle of Barnabas were regarded as scriptural, then surely it would have been placed among the other General/Catholic epistles, which contain letters from a variety of different authors.

Well, out of about a dozen books in that list only three can obviously claim to be fully or mostly assigned to an earlier era. So that leaves about 75% to be post-Babylonian exile. I think that qualifies as "most".

Well let's see:

Psalms: pre-exilic
Proverbs: pre-exilic
Song of Solomon: pre-exilic
Job: pre-exilic
Ecclesiastes: pre-exilic
Ruth: pre-exilic
Chronicles: most likely pre-exilic

So it looks like you're left with Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Daniel as post-exilic. Of course you have Lamentations, which could barely be considered post-exilic.

So you've got 7 books that are pre-exilic and 5 that could be considered post-exilic. That means that 58.3% of the Ketuvim are pre-exilic and 42.7% of the Ketuvim are post-exilic. So clearly your estimate of "75%" is slightly suspect.

 

[gluadys]

Because obviously the only way it could be day and night in the "day" that the Son of Man is revealed is if the earth were a sphere.

Shape of the earth makes no difference. If you take "day" to refer to any 24-hour period of time, then any place on earth experiences a time of daylight and a night within the day. That would be just as true on a non-spherical as on a spherical earth.

" 8 and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city that is prophetically[a] called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. 9 For three and a half days members of the peoples and tribes and languages and nations will gaze at their dead bodies and refuse to let them be placed in a tomb; 10 and the inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and celebrate and exchange presents, because these two prophets had been a torment to the inhabitants of the earth.
11 But after the three and a half days, the breath[b] of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and those who saw them were terrified." Rev. 11:8-11 (NRSV)

The text very clearly states that the two witnesses lie dead for 3.5 days (which is parallel to their 3.5 year ministry) and the earth-dwellers rejoice during that 3.5 day timespan.

No, it doesn't. You are applying the 3.5 days to two different sets of verbs, ""will gaze/refuse" in v. 9 and "will gloat/celebrate/exchange presents" in v. 10. That is a possible interpretation but not a necessary one. The time period can apply only to the first cluster of verbs with the second cluster of verbs taking place over a longer period of time as the news spreads.

So wolves dwelling with lambs and children putting their hands in the serpents' lair is just....what, exactly?

A prophecy of the idyllic conditions of harmony in the peaceable kingdom to come.

The temple Ezekiel speaks of also never occurred in history. Again, you're "spiritualizing" things away because they obviously never happened in reality. If Ezekiel is a true prophet, then what he prophesied must take place: see Deut. 18:20-22.

What are you talking about? The temple was rebuilt under Ezra and Nehemiah.
I suppose you discount that because the actual fulfilment of Ezekiel's prophecy did not literally conform in its appearance to his ideal vision of the rebuilt temple. Idiotic literalism!

Widespread means accepted by most of the patristic era writers and churches (say, before 200 AD).

Why the patristic writers rather than the bishops and councils who made the actual recommendations to their parishes?

It doesn't really matter. The majority of patristic era writers accepted it and considered it inspired for obvious reasons. "Formation of the canon" is really unimportant. The bottom line is that the books of the NT (and OT) were bound to make it in no matter what: there was simply no other competition.

On the contrary, formation of the canon is the only official recognition of texts deemed to be inspired. We have no way of knowing that certain books "were bound to make it no matter what". We only know which ones were placed in the canon as it was closed. Of books not included in the canon, we cannot say which may or may not have been equally inspired. Exclusion from the canon is not a proclamation that a work was not inspired. Inclusion in the canon, though, is recognition that a work is inspired. What we do know is that as the canon was formed, church authorities came to an agreement on 27 NT books they all accepted as inspired. And we know that this recognition was extended to these works only because a canon was formed.

I grant, of course, that in the case of many NT books, that recognition preceded the final closing of the canon by decades, even by a century or two.

These things were merely a formality. You keep referring to the "Council of Jamnia" like the Jews got around and debated what should be considered Scripture and what shouldn't. In reality there was no debate. Everyone already knew what comprised the OT and what didn't.

I don't think Jews debated canonicity like the Christians did--likely a difference in Jewish and Greek temperament. And I would certainly agree that by the time the Council of Jamnia was held most of whatever debate there was would be in the past. Psalms, for example, was clearly recognized as "canonical" long before the birth of Christ.

Formation of a canon is a process over time. And the only point at which you can say the formation is complete is when the canon is closed. By the time it is closed, it may be only formalizing what is already the case. Still, until that formality occurs it is not possible to say a work had been excluded from consideration.

The Jewish “Council” of Jamnia and Its Impact on the Old Testament Canon and New Testament Studies | Timothy Gordon - Academia.edu

I suggest you do some further research.

An interesting little text. I did not find a great deal surprising in it. That the canonicity of certain books was not a significant item in the deliberations of the rabbis is not surprising. At the time, they had far more pressing matters to discuss.

Indeed, of more importance to them was making firm the division between Christians and Jews.

I can see why the traditional term "Council" is probably not appropriate, being an imposition from non-Jewish culture. One might say the OT canon was never formally closed by a conciliar decision but by the progressive success of rabbinical Judaism in the synagogues as Jewish Christians were expelled.

The LXX translators translated the Apocrypha but they were never considered inspired by Jews. It's as simple as that. Just because you translate something doesn't make it inspired.

Again, as I said, this is technically correct. Still we have a translation of "Hebrew scriptures" made mostly in the 2nd century BCE (apparently the Torah was completed in the 3rd century and it took nearly a century to complete the whole work) which includes works now labelled Apocrypha. Two centuries later we have a Jewish consensus that the inspired Ketuvim consists of a smaller number of works and does not include several of the works included in the Septuagint.

Clearly that consensus developed during the intervening period of time. It could not have existed yet as the Septuagint was being worked on. So one cannot say that these works had either official approval or official disapproval in the intervening centuries from Jewish scholars during this period. We can only say that the final Jewish consensus did not include them.

No, it is not. Again, just because something is translated or even read is no indication whatsoever that it is "Scripture":

The only thing that is an indication that something is scripture is that it is read and used as such and/or an official imprimatur. The Septuagint (and translations such as the Vulgate based on it) were the scriptures in universal use in the Christian church up to the Reformation. It was during the counter-Reformation in the Catholic church that the Vulgate was affirmed as the official scriptures of the Catholic church, but it was certainly used as such during all the centuries preceding, just as the Septuagint has been in continual use in Greek-speaking Orthodox and Catholic churches.

Jewish and Christian history is simply different here. Judaism came to a consensus that excluded the Apocrypha by (at the latest) the 2nd century CE--though, as your article stated, this was largely a re-affirmation of what the current practice in the synagogues was. The Church never came to such a consensus at all, which is why Protestant bibles are different from Catholic bibles. So the consensus to exclude the Apocrypha is strictly Protestant.

Apocryphal Books in Early Christian Codices: Evidence for their Canonical Status? | Canon Fodder

Wrong set of apocrypha. This refers to Christian apocryphal writings, not anything in the Septuagint.

Well let's see:

Psalms: pre-exilic
Proverbs: pre-exilic
Song of Solomon: pre-exilic
Job: pre-exilic
Ecclesiastes: pre-exilic
Ruth: pre-exilic
Chronicles: most likely pre-exilic

So it looks like you're left with Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Daniel as post-exilic. Of course you have Lamentations, which could barely be considered post-exilic.

Well we will have to disagree here.

My reading of the literature on the dating of the books would give something more like this:

Psalms: mostly pre-exilic with some exilic and post-exilic
Proverbs: pretty much undatable in respect of the exile
Song of Solomon: undetermined date in respect of the exile
Job: post-exilic
Ecclesiastes: post-exilic
Ruth: post-exilic
Chronicles: post-exilic
Esther: post-exilic
Ezra-Nehemiah: post-exilic
Daniel: post-exilic
Lamentations: exilic.

Now, since I don't have the qualifications to actually try dating scripture for myself, and you probably don't either, all we get from this is citing one authority against another and that is a fruitless discussion I will not take part in.

 

[Achilles6129]

Shape of the earth makes no difference. If you take "day" to refer to any 24-hour period of time, then any place on earth experiences a time of daylight and a night within the day. That would be just as true on a non-spherical as on a spherical earth.

The different activities that Christ mentions indicate that it is both the middle of the night (two in a bed) and yet also middle of the day (in the field working). You don't get much more specific than that. The only way that is possible is if the earth is spherical. If you have a flat earth then it would be day/night at the same time for everyone.

No, it doesn't. You are applying the 3.5 days to two different sets of verbs, ""will gaze/refuse" in v. 9 and "will gloat/celebrate/exchange presents" in v. 10. That is a possible interpretation but not a necessary one. The time period can apply only to the first cluster of verbs with the second cluster of verbs taking place over a longer period of time as the news spreads.

No, it can't. The rejoicing takes place within the 3.5 days which is why the entire section is bracketed by "3.5 days." The only way the rejoicing could take place within the 3.5 days, is, again, if there were very rapid communication - something only possible in modern times.

What are you talking about? The temple was rebuilt under Ezra and Nehemiah.
I suppose you discount that because the actual fulfilment of Ezekiel's prophecy did not literally conform in its appearance to his ideal vision of the rebuilt temple. Idiotic literalism!

The temple rebuilt under Ezra/Nehemiah did not even begin to fulfill Ezekiel's prophecies. So you're correct.

Why the patristic writers rather than the bishops and councils who made the actual recommendations to their parishes?

Because the patristic writers are the closest people to the Apostles that we have.

On the contrary, formation of the canon is the only official recognition of texts deemed to be inspired. We have no way of knowing that certain books "were bound to make it no matter what".

Yes, we do. Again, look at the authors of the New Testament and show me anything written in Christianity that even remotely resembles them.

The only thing that is an indication that something is scripture is that it is read and used as such and/or an official imprimatur.

The fact that Christianity came to accept the Apocrypha is irrelevant because they did so for very flawed reasons (which I have already pointed out on this thread).

Wrong set of apocrypha. This refers to Christian apocryphal writings, not anything in the Septuagint.

Regardless, it has relevance for the rest of our discussion which is about the formation of the NT canon.

 

[gluadys]

The different activities that Christ mentions indicate that it is both the middle of the night (two in a bed) and yet also middle of the day (in the field working). You don't get much more specific than that. The only way that is possible is if the earth is spherical. If you have a flat earth then it would be day/night at the same time for everyone.

Jesus is referring to two different sets of people and two different activities. One occurs during the daylight hours of the "Day of the Lord" and one during the nightime hours of the "Day of the Lord"--the "Day of the Lord" referring to the complete cycle of day and night. The earth does not need to be spherical for day and night to both occur within one diurnal cycle.

Therefore, even though you are scientifically correct, the scriptural passage is not an indication of the true shape of the earth.

No, it can't. The rejoicing takes place within the 3.5 days which is why the entire section is bracketed by "3.5 days." The only way the rejoicing could take place within the 3.5 days, is, again, if there were very rapid communication - something only possible in modern times.

You are insisting that a possible interpretation is also a necessary interpretation. It is not.

The temple rebuilt under Ezra/Nehemiah did not even begin to fulfill Ezekiel's prophecies. So you're correct.

Just because you want the prophecy to be fulfilled literally. Many prophecies are not fulfilled literally. Did Jesus ever literally crush a serpent's head with his foot?

Because the patristic writers are the closest people to the Apostles that we have.

Ok. So show me where the patristic writers questioned the use of the Septuagint (or LXX based translations) as the OT scriptures of the church.

Yes, we do. Again, look at the authors of the New Testament and show me anything written in Christianity that even remotely resembles them.

What difference would it make if they were not remotely like the NT books we have. John's gospel is decidedly different from the synoptic gospels. Paul's letters are different from the gospels. The letter to the Hebrews is unique and Revelation is decidedly unique. Most of the Gospel of Thomas is much like Matthew stripped down to Jesus' sayings without context. Yes, it has Jesus saying some decidedly Gnostic things, but most of its verses are quite close to those we have in the accepted gospels.

The fact that Christianity came to accept the Apocrypha is irrelevant because they did so for very flawed reasons (which I have already pointed out on this thread).

Well, I am glad to hear you agree at last that Christianity did accept the OT Apocrypha as scripture. I have no problem with your preference for the Protestant canon of the NT.

Regardless, it has relevance for the rest of our discussion which is about the formation of the NT canon.

No, in spite of the similarity of name, the relationship is quite different. A few of the Christian Apocrypha did have some currency in the early church, but none ever became part of the official canon. Whereas the OT Apocrypha have always been and are still recognized as part of the official canon by most Christians.

 

[Achilles6129]

Jesus is referring to two different sets of people and two different activities. One occurs during the daylight hours of the "Day of the Lord" and one during the nightime hours of the "Day of the Lord"--the "Day of the Lord" referring to the complete cycle of day and night. The earth does not need to be spherical for day and night to both occur within one diurnal cycle.

How could a flat earth have both day/night at the same time?

Ok. So show me where the patristic writers questioned the use of the Septuagint (or LXX based translations) as the OT scriptures of the church.

That's not the point. The point is that the OT Apocrypha were in fact not accepted by the Apostolic Era church, nor is there any evidence that they ever were. Later Christianity added in the OT Apocrypha for the sole reason that the LXX translators translated them.

What difference would it make if they were not remotely like the NT books we have. John's gospel is decidedly different from the synoptic gospels. Paul's letters are different from the gospels. The letter to the Hebrews is unique and Revelation is decidedly unique.

The point is that all the NT books come straight from the Apostles with the exception of Hebrews which comes very, very close to the Apostles. There are no other books that have that Apostolic authority.

Most of the Gospel of Thomas is much like Matthew stripped down to Jesus' sayings without context. Yes, it has Jesus saying some decidedly Gnostic things, but most of its verses are quite close to those we have in the accepted gospels.

The gospel of Thomas was not written by the Apostle Thomas; it is a forgery. Take a look at this statement:

Saying 114: Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."
Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

 

[gluadys]

double post

 

[gluadys]

How could a flat earth have both day/night at the same time?

Why would it have to be at the same time as long as it is on the Day of the Lord?

If you think it is really important that these activities occur at the same moment within the day, we could speculate that Jesus is describing an hour around dawn, when some people are up working while others are still sleeping. Or for that matter, there is really nothing unusual about people sleeping anytime during the day.

That's not the point. The point is that the OT Apocrypha were in fact not accepted by the Apostolic Era church, nor is there any evidence that they ever were.

The Septuagint was accepted. It is the version of scriptures cited in the NT itself. You have no evidence that is was accepted piecemeal. You have no evidence that Paul was not including the Apocrypha when he spoke of "all scripture" being inspired by God. You are trying to rewrite history to fit Protestant theology.

Later Christianity added in the OT Apocrypha for the sole reason that the LXX translators translated them.

The Septuagint was completed a century before Christianity existed. It was the scripture of the Greek-speaking Church from its inception. They had no other collection to be called scripture until the NT was added to it. There is no place for the Apocrypha to be added to scripture in the history of the early church. Those writings are already there in the scriptures they are using.

The point is that all the NT books come straight from the Apostles with the exception of Hebrews which comes very, very close to the Apostles. There are no other books that have that Apostolic authority.

Hebrews was often attributed to Paul, and that may be the basis on which it is included. Neither Mark nor Luke were officially apostles either, but were believed to be spokespersons for Peter and Paul respectively.

But how was it determined which writings had apostolic authority and which did not? That was a judgment call by the bishops and councils who formulated the canon.

The gospel of Thomas was not written by the Apostle Thomas; it is a forgery.

Irrelevant. It is still very similar in tone to the synoptic gospels, especially Matthew. btw all the gospels were written by anonymous authors. No one knows or has any evidence that they were actually written by the people to whom they were later ascribed. It is quite possible that none of them were written by apostles. The name Mark on the canonical gospel is no more evidence that he wrote it than the name Thomas is on the non-canonical gospel that bears his name. Both works are actually anonymous and the names were attached later. That was not forgery as such. It was a common practice at the time.

Take a look at this statement:

Saying 114: Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."
Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

I have always liked that verse. I like how Jesus defends Mary, making her equal with the male disciples. Too bad that saying didn't get into one of the official gospels. Might have dampened a lot of misogyny down the ages.