Should all of the dead sea scrolls be considered scripture?

A Truth Hunter · Aug 30, 2017

JackRT said:
I accept the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Library and other non-canonical scriptures in exactly the same way that I accept the Bible itself. They are all human documents. I approach all these documents like a prospector would approach his claim. I am prepared to spend a lot of time and effort searching for the shining nuggets of wisdom and insight but I am also prepared to have to shift a lot of rubble in order to find them.

For what it's worth I have read that the Ancient Church Fathers rejected the Nag Hammadi Library as heretical.

SAAchristian757 · Aug 30, 2017

JoeP222w said:
Only that which is the canon of scripture.

So books that all bishops couldn't agree on were not canonized. But that didn't mean that they weren't scripture. Christian communities still used them...

JoeP222w · Aug 31, 2017

SAAchristian757 said:
So books that all bishops couldn't agree on were not canonized. But that didn't mean that they weren't scripture. Christian communities still used them...

Scripture is not scripture because a group of bishops agree on them. God formed the canon of scripture, not men and not by men's agreement.

And because a community may use books that are not part of the canon does not make them scripture.

Shempster · Aug 31, 2017

From what I remembered, the group in the Qumran valley were a small religious group called Essenes who went their own way, probably after some local persecution. Some claimed they were a "cultish" group because they used and taught these books....like the book of giants probably written during the period from about 200 B.C. to 68 C.E./A.D.
I have also heard that there are two versions of Enoch. Perhaps Jude mentioned one of them. Perhaps the one we now have, or maybe we have an adulterated one. Either way, it is fairly old.

SAAchristian757 · Aug 31, 2017

JoeP222w said:
Scripture is not scripture because a group of bishops agree on them. God formed the canon of scripture, not men and not by men's agreement.

And because a community may use books that are not part of the canon does not make them scripture.

the counsel of Nicaea was a miracle! The books we have in the cannon were agreed on unanimously. (Especially after they told a few groups to arrive after the vote) so what happened to the book of Enoch?

A Truth Hunter · Aug 31, 2017

Sea Horse said:
Scripture is God-breathed as we see in 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Other books can be nice to read , even these mentioned in bible like book of Enoch , but they are not inspired by God , and it's not my or your duty to preserve them but God , if he wanted dead sea scrolls included in Bible he would do it .
Psalms 12:6-7

Some of the Ethiopian churches have Enoch in their bibles. Kind of interesting.

JoeP222w · Aug 31, 2017

SAAchristian757 said:
the counsel of Nicaea was a miracle! The books we have in the cannon were agreed on unanimously. (Especially after they told a few groups to arrive after the vote) so what happened to the book of Enoch?

The council of Nicaea had absolutely nothing to do with the canon of scripture. That is a myth that has been perpetuated over time that has not one shred of evidence for that claim.

And again, the canon of scripture is not created by an agreement of men by popular vote.

Enoch was never part of the canon. It has many disagreements with scripture. It fails the 3 tests of canonicity: it is not Apostolic, it is not Catholic (as in universal, not Roman Catholic), it is not Orthodox.

JoeP222w · Aug 31, 2017

A Truth Hunter said:
Some of the Ethiopian churches have Enoch in their bibles. Kind of interesting.

A concordance is found in many bibles, but does that mean the concordance is God-breathed scripture?
A publishing company information is found in many bibles today, does that mean that the publishing information is God-breathed scripture?

lesliedellow · Sep 1, 2017

Jim Langston said:
Amongst the dead sea scrolls there were some manuscript fragments that are not a part of our canon. Since the scrolls that we consider canon matches what we know today, can we as Christians say they are false in good conscience? The most we could say is we are not sure, I believe, to say they were wrong on the face of it seems illogical.

An example, and case in point, would be the manuscript 11Q13. This scroll does appear to be commentary, however, and am not sure how to classify that. Can commentary be inspired?

11Q13 - Wikipedia

This sounds like the old atheist anthem, that everything ever written by a Jew or Christian, before about 200AD, should be in the Bible, and if there is something not included, there must have been some conspiracy by the Church to keep it out.

Mainstream Judaism in the first century did not regard texts the Qur'an community had produced for itself as scriptural, and there is no sign Jesus did, so we shouldn't.

ViaCrucis · Sep 1, 2017

Simply put, the Christian Canon is not determined by whatever might have been written by an obscure 1st century sect. The Canon is defined by the historic reception and confession of the Christian Church down through the ages by the general consensus of the Faithful.

-CryptoLutheran

A Truth Hunter · Sep 1, 2017

JoeP222w said:
A concordance is found in many bibles, but does that mean the concordance is God-breathed scripture?
A publishing company information is found in many bibles today, does that mean that the publishing information is God-breathed scripture?

Interesting point.

areelius · Sep 2, 2017

Jim Langston said:
I am not interested in their opinion because I have found many scripture outside of canon. If you don't want to bother thinking for yourself why even come to forums? I do not venerate any man, and neither should you.

I believe that the Dead Sea Scrolls are what the Bible should have been. If they had the Scrolls when Constantine's synod assembled the Bible we have today, there would have been NO DOUBT which books to include IMO.

SAAchristian757 · Sep 2, 2017

JoeP222w said:
The council of Nicaea had absolutely nothing to do with the canon of scripture. That is a myth that has been perpetuated over time that has not one shred of evidence for that claim.

And again, the canon of scripture is not created by an agreement of men by popular vote.

Enoch was never part of the canon. It has many disagreements with scripture. It fails the 3 tests of canonicity: it is not Apostolic, it is not Catholic (as in universal, not Roman Catholic), it is not Orthodox.

"popular vote" and unanimous consent are two entirely different things. As Christians, when we use unanimous consent it is a spiritual process. Similar to selecting a pope.

The Bible, even without scriptures that didn't make it, is still a miracle book. There is nothing wrong with using other books such as Enoch or the Apocrypha...

JoeP222w · Sep 2, 2017

SAAchristian757 said:
"popular vote" and unanimous consent are two entirely different things. As Christians, when we use unanimous consent it is a spiritual process. Similar to selecting a pope.

Not Biblical. Christians do not follow a Pope.

SAAchristian757 said:
There is nothing wrong with using other books such as Enoch or the Apocrypha...

They are not scripture. A Christian can read them, but they are not the word of God. If you claim that they are, you are against the truth of God and the early church.

SAAchristian757 · Sep 2, 2017

JoeP222w said:
Not Biblical. Christians do not follow a Pope.

They are not scripture. A Christian can read them, but they are not the word of God. If you claim that they are, you are against the truth of God and the early church.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. Many churches, including the Catholic Church, use unanimous consent. It IS a spiritual process.

Well, Paul says they are scripture 2 Tim 3:13; however they are not part of the Cannon. There are many references of these books from the Bible. Jesus quoted from them also.

Jesus is the Word of God, not the Bible. John 1.

This 'Bible is the Word of God and inerrant' is a totally new concept to the church. Started in the late 1800 and reaffirmed in 1978 in Chicago.

SAAchristian757 · Sep 2, 2017

BTW I am a Protestant, I don't follow the pope.

JackRT · Sep 2, 2017

JoeP222w said:
Not Biblical. Christians do not follow a Pope.

A very large fraction of Christians do follow the Pope. You might not be one of them and neither am I but they are Christians.

JohannineScholar · Sep 3, 2017

There are some texts from the DSS that have been added to recent translations of the Bible that were unknown before. That alone is significant. These are, of course, passages and different readings in verses that were unknown before but which likely represent the original text. There are also, if I'm not mistaken, additional psalms that were in their collection but not ours (the Syriac tradition has extra psalms too).

AnticipateHisComing · Sep 4, 2017

Mountainmike said:
But there of course is the problem:

Unless you trust the catholic church and the infallibility of councils, nor can you trust the canon of scripture, now called the new testament.

The logic of your argument is so lacking. It amounts to I was once right so I am always right. Note that the Pharisees also tried that same tactic. They developed the OT but rejected Jesus. Explain away that catch 22. I wish the RCC would just stick with they are right because they say they are right, a much more honest argument, even if not true.

AnticipateHisComing · Sep 4, 2017

nonaeroterraqueous said:
A lot of things can be divinely inspired, such as songs, missives, poetry, etc. I would even argue that they could be just as inspired as the Bible. However, that does not make them canon. The canon is a reed. It is a measuring rod. It is a standard against we compare other writings and ideas. A lot of stuff out there may be inspired, but those things also might not be inspired. Your standard for comparison is the canon. It doesn't have to be fully fleshed-out to encompass every single issue. It only needs to be absolutely reliable, and it needs to be complete enough to give us a full understanding of the nature of God's truth.

A lot of people argue that the canon is closed, and I fully agree with that, but a standard is there to act as a basis for comparison, against which all other claims of inspiration must be regarded. If we're not making that comparison, then we're not even using it as a canon. We can disagree on anything else, but the canon makes a backbone for our faith that we can all accept. Whatever comes along, I don't care if it was locked up in a cave with the oldest copies of the Bible. That doesn't make it canon. That doesn't even make it inspired. If you do find a spark of truth in it, and you do think it might be inspired, then that's your decision to make.

You might even be right, but it still isn't canon.

I don't do this often, but you have an excellent post.

Should all of the dead sea scrolls be considered scripture?

Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

ImJustMe

Active Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Confessional Lutheran

Member

New Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads