Was the Biblical Canon Directed by God?

by Chris Tann 57 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  enlarged postate

  This is a question a sincere Christian may agonize over after learning that some books of the Bible were rejected by certain early Christian groups,while other books that did not make the canon were accepted. Also,when one realizes that so called inspired writers of the Greek scriptures quote from apocrypha,that most Christians reject today,one wonders if these writings that include these quotes should even be in the Bible.

  It is true that when it comes to the Christian Greek scriptures the canon has been closed for many centuries. Also, these books have been accepted by Christians ever since the second,perhaps first,century. But wait! Around 170c.e. 2 Peter was doubted as inspired in certain quarters, around 180 Hebrews was doubted, 190-Hebrews,1&2 John and Jude. 230c.e. -Hebrews,James, 2 Peter, 2&3 John and Jude. Also, according to the Muratorian Fragment of 170c.e., the church accepted an apocalypse of Peter,which never made it in the canon of today.

  Yes, we as Christians can believe that God gradually directed certain writings to be weeded out,while others included. My objection is- why was there such confusion of which ones were inspired around the time of their writings? Why did God not make it explicitly clear which ones he "breathed on"? No where in the Bible does it say God would direct the formation of books for the Christians.

  Now,for me, I feel that every Christian book is in harmony with God's will and standards,whether inspired or not. Thetefore I believe at the very least that he approves of these writings for us to live by; even if some may have written things that are not accurate. When it comes to inspired topics, the writer usually says he had a vision or revelation prior to his writing about it. Therefore at best,the vision was inspired,not the writing of it. This whole topic does concern me because when I read my Bible I want to be sure that at least it has God's approval;and that Iam not just studying a man's oppinion about God.

  Because, basically, the Catholic Church is what decided what books were in, and what books were out. After a few centuries, a council was held to end the debate, and of all the books circulating, it was decided which books made the cut, and which didn't. And, in a nutshell, that was that.
• 

  Chris Tann

  Does anyone have historical records of this. Because according to the Muratorian manuscript of around 170c.e, all 27 books were accepted by most groups and only one in that ms is not in the canon(appocolypse of Peter)?
• 

  3rdgen

  If the Bible is inspired by God then he is a #$%#@! Of course I am just female, you know, property. So my opinion has no merrit.
• 

  redvip2000

  How do you determine which book is inspired? Accuracy?!?! Does that mean that ANY book with any type of falsehood is non-inspired?!?! If so, what is the point of putting faith in any book of the bible?

  I find this whole subject very interesting. It continues to amaze me how people today validate ancience writings as being holy simply because they are cloaked in a shroud of mystical appeal. Much more impressive things are written today or recently and yet we yawn at them because we can don't see this same appeal for them.

  Why? Why do we have such high standards or expectations for current knowledge but are willing to believe everything from some ancient sheep herders who were prone to believe that everything was supernatural? These sheep herders were not different from others around the world who believed the Sun was God, or who believe you needed to sacrifice a virgin to get good crops. It's all the same nonsense. These were extremely ignorant people who needed to use supernatural excuses to explain everything around them.

  Yet here we are, looking at their silly writings for answers. We read them on our IPAD, a palpable product of obvious advancement in science, but yet we ignore the explanations that science has to offer, and focus on reading the ramblings of ancient people who were desperately trying two rub two sticks together to create a fire.
• 

  Chris Tann

  Redvip:It's not that simple. I recomend reading the book The Signature of God,revised version. If you have a book that proves the Bible as false I would love to know,preferably a recent book. Thanks.
• 

  Apognophos

  The Bible isn't "true" or "false", it's a collection of disparate writings with many noted flaws, but certainly also some historicity. Take a look at contradictionsinthebible.com. If you prefer hard copy material, the writer recommends a few books in his articles, esp. in his early/introductory posts. It can take a while reading the site before his point sinks in -- that you need to take the writings at face value and let them speak for themselves, instead of viewing them through an interpretive lens that was invented centuries/millennia later.
• 

  jwfacts

  Your OP misses the mark in that you don't identify which Bible Canon that you believe to be the correct one. There are several in use by different Christian groups. That point in itself is good indication God did not direct the selection of books.
• 

  enlarged postate

  Your OP misses the mark in that you don't identify which Bible Canon that you believe to be the correct one. There are several in use by different Christian groups. That point in itself is good indication God did not direct the selection of books.

  From a JW perspective, which claims to be book centric (because it's lineage is from the Protestant sola scriptura tradition, although the actual real world practice might not be), that argument might make sense. But from someone else that might come from a church centric perspective (the book comes from the faith/church, rather than the faith/church from the book), the line of reasoning doesn't persusade quite as much. The various Catholic and Orthodox churches fall under the latter grouping.
• 

  Phizzy

  And I believe Orthodox Jews have the same attitude, the Scriptures that they recognise spring from the religion, not the other way around, hence they have never been too hung up on what is"Canonical" and what is not, although they do have an accepted Canon.

  Many Christians recognise that there was a religion before there were any writings, so they too are not so dependent upon what is canonical or not.

  The JW position is a nonsense for a number of reasons, most covered already in this Thread. That the Bible JW's use is in any way "Inspired" is one of the biggest.
• 

  punkofnice

  Yet again god proves to be useless at communicating his word.