New Testament Canon

[Mike]

8 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

I read them. They say nothing about how the Bible was put together.
 

What do you beleeve they say about making a Bible?

Did you notice at the end of 2 Timothy that just before his execution, Paul wanted to have a big scripture party with Timothy, Mark, and Luke.

Do you know what the Aramaic word is, where the KJV has the word "cloak."  ???

Did you notice that at the end of 2 Peter he refers to ALL the Epistles of Paul, as if they were in an already collected set?

Thanks for asking.

I asked God to show me as I read many years ago.
You might try that and see MUCH more. 
More in those 2 Epistles, and more in the rest of the Bible.

 

[So_crates]

6 minutes ago, Mike said:

You seem to be under the allusion that the devil (not Satan) is like Dracula with crucifixes, and stays far away from Bible scholars.  Just the opposite it true.  He whispers into those open ears all the time.  That is where he hobbles good Christians from finding the power in Christ that resides within.  He blew it, not knowing the Mystery, so now he has all these believers with Christ-in and the potential to beat him at every turn like Jesus did.  So what does he do?  He steers the churches to become prisons. 

Did you know that the devil can whisper in YOUR ear, and make it sound like a good idea of your own, or a revelation from the True God?

We were taught that, and taught that often.  I wonder if you remember.

There is one collateral where VPW teaches that TEN TIMES on just a few pages.

 

Looking at Saint Vic's life and how he used the postulates of the bible as toilet paper, I'd bet Saint Vic was an expert about how the devil whispers in your ear and makes it sound like a good idea. After all, Saint Vic listened to him all the time.

[Mike]

8 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

Don't expect him to do anything but troll, disrupt, and derail. I'm moving onto the topic without addressing his wierwillian doctrines.

I think you got the tense of your verb wrong there.

Try this:  "I have been moving onto the topic all along without addressing his....."

I'd fill in the blanks with "...Mike's findings in the KJV that he collected for 10 years."

[Nathan_Jr]

8 minutes ago, Mike said:

There is one collateral where VPW teaches that TEN TIMES on just a few pages.

Sounds like overkill. One would think he only needed to teach it twice - the second time establishing it and all.

But, Hey! I didn't write the book.

[Mike]

Just now, So_crates said:

Looking at Saint Vic's life and how he used the postulates of the bible as toilet paper, I'd bet Saint Vic was an expert about how the devil whispers in your ear and makes it sound like a good idea. After all, Saint Vic listened to him all the time.

You may be confusing the devil with Satan here.

Also, it was in his academic life and early ministry with churchianity leaders that he got a lot of whispers that confused him. 

[So_crates]

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

You may be confusing the devil with Satan here.

Also, it was in his academic life and early ministry with churchianity leaders that he got a lot of whispers that confused him. 

**Points above Mike's head**

Look Mike there goes the point.

[Mike]

3 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Sounds like overkill. One would think he only needed to teach it twice - the second time establishing it and all.

But, Hey! I didn't write the book.

But HEY!  You didn't read the book.... carefully enough to see it.  Ditto for me.  I saw it once plain as day about 15 years ago.  A couple years later I noticed that it was 3 times, because I didn't read enough of the context.  Then about 4 years ago I noticed that within that context were some hidden or alluded to statements to the same.  It shocked me!   I guess it is IMPORTANT for us to know.... eventually.  I keep studying the collaterals for deep things I missed in my youth, and that I missed in recent years.  It is a rich arena to study in.

[Nathan_Jr]

13 minutes ago, Mike said:

Do you know what the Aramaic word is, where the KJV has the word "cloak."  ???

Do you beleeve 2 Timothy was originally written in Aramaic???

[Mike]

4 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Do you beleeve 2 Timothy was originally written in Aramaic???

It doesn't say, so I don't know.
It's what it DOES say that interests me.

Did you notice the abababababa structure in 2 Timothy,
and the aba structure in 2 Peter?

Where
a = the believer's job to uphold the integrity of the Word
b = the adversary's attacks on the integrity of the Word

 

Late edit:   

Did it occur to you that these Epistles
are Peter's and Paul's DYING LAST WORDS ?

 

Even later edit:
...Peter's and Paul's DYING LAST WRITTEN WORDS...

 

Edited October 11, 2022 by Mike

[Nathan_Jr]

Just now, Mike said:

It doesn't say, so I don't know.
It's what it DOES say that interests me.

But you're the one who brought it up, so it MUST interest you.

 

19 minutes ago, Mike said:

Do you know what the Aramaic word is, where the KJV has the word "cloak."  ???

What is your point? What does Aramaic have to do with 2 Timothy? Do you think 2 Timothy was originally written in Aramaic???

[So_crates]

9 minutes ago, Mike said:

It doesn't say, so I don't know.
It's what it DOES say that interests me.

You're already out in left feild.

You don't know whether or not the passage was written in Aramaic, yet you want to use Aramaic to translate what it says. 

I wonder what "cloak" means in Klingon?

Edited October 11, 2022 by So_crates

[Nathan_Jr]

Edited October 11, 2022 by Nathan_Jr
Duck soup for when it snows.

[T-Bone]

3 hours ago, Mike said:

You seem to be under the allusion that the devil (not Satan) is like Dracula with crucifixes, and stays far away from Bible scholars. 

“allusion” –    

that’s the “wrong misnomer” (now  that  two-word phrase " wrong misnomer" - actually said in a certain foundational class - yes that  is  my  allusion to a certain plagiarizing, pathological liar, thief, drunkard, and sexual predator who singlehandedly canonized a hodge podge of nonsense called   Palafel – a Middle Eastern word salad that is difficult to digest)

 

Ironic that your imagery brings to mind wierwille’s fascination of Bullinger’s erroneous 4 crucifixes by Jesus’. Evidently Bullinger and wierwille stayed far away from Bible scholars. Damn those blood-sucking con artists!

Edited October 11, 2022 by T-Bone
Can a vampire typos see itself in the mirror?

[OldSkool]

5 pages in and we havent even discussed the Canon in any meaningful manner 

[OldSkool]

6 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

Ironic that your imagery brings to mind wierwille’s fascination of Bullinger’s erroneous 4 crucifixes by Jesus’. Evidently Bullinger and wierwille stayed far away from Bible scholars. Damn those blood-sucking con artist

I need to see if I can find what Bullinger came up with on the Canon...order of books, dropped books, etc. He was a mixed bag though.

[T-Bone]

1 hour ago, OldSkool said:

I need to see if I can find what Bullinger came up with on the Canon...order of books, dropped books, etc. He was a mixed bag though.

I’m looking into that – I have a few of Bullinger’s works…my short answer is appendix 1 page 5 of Bullinger’s Companion Bible – he has only a half a page and it’s titled “THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ACCORDING TO THE HEBREW CANON”  and then he briefly organizes it into the law, the prophets and the psalms (writings). He doesn’t address any criteria by which the OT was determined to be the official canon other than recognizing what the Hebrews accepted as the canon. And when I say he “organizes” them – he simply shows a literary structure using Roman numerals and letters to outline it all.

For what it’s worth, this is one of the few things I like about the Companion Bible – in noting the literary structure of Scripture there’s not a whole lot you can royally screw up. 

And in general, just let me say I prefer analyzing the original work that wierwille plagiarized from rather than wierwille’s thinly disguised and mangled version of it. Sifting through wierwille’s plagiarism in order to remove his insidious hodge podge is a waste of time. It’s like trying to reinvent recycled toilet paper… Mike made reference to something like “a b b a “ structure earlier on this thread…I think he was using Bullinger's literary structure notes...anyway…Here's a few links on literary structure of the Bible followed by a couple of specialty study Bibles I’ve found to be helpful on this analytical process:

Bible Literary Structure

Literary Structure in the Bible

A Guide to recognizing literary structure relationship

The Literary Study Bible ESV

(Note The Literary Study Bible ESV focuses on literary features rather than historical, cultural, linguistic. I find I get a better sense of the logical flow of thought – “commentary” and notes are brief and are “boxed off” as lead-ins ahead of the text so as not to be a distraction.)

The Outline Bible

(Note The Outline Bible    and the outlines use literary devices like alliteration, rhyme, etc. like bullet points to help a student or teacher visually remember the main ideas of a section of Scripture. Just to be clear – there’s no Bible text in this book – you use it in tandem with your preferred Bible version.   )

~ ~ ~ ~

I’ve been looking through the appendix index of Companion Bible and found things of note:

1.       Appendix 94 THE GREEK TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT …Introduction. While modern critics are occupied with the problem as to the origin of the Four Gospels, and with their so-called “discrepancies”, we believe that Matthew, Mark, and John got their respective Gospels where Luke got his, viz. anothen = “from above” (Luke 1.3, see note there); and that the “discrepancies” , so called, are the creation of the Commentators and Harmonists themselves. The latter particularly; for when they see two similar events, they immediately assume they are identical.

 

OldSkool, I’m glad you brought this up. That right there is proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that wierwille plagiarized Bullinger like crazy!  This  reveals wierwille’s   a priori assumptions  about Biblical research. Lovely.

~ ~ ~ ~ 

2.       Appendix 95 on page 137 & ff of Companion Bible there is something very revealing about Bullinger’s a priori assumption…on page 139 of the appendix “THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE ORDER OF ITS BOOKS” Bullinger says  Our English Bibles follow the order of the Latin Vulgate. This order, therefore, depends on the arbitrary judgement of one man, Jerome (A.D. 382-405). All theories based on this order rest on human authority and are thus without any true foundation.

 

You know – it has just occurred to me that the way Mike has been going on and on challenging the idea of anyone exploring the New Testament Canon – I get the sense that Mike has bypassed wierwille’s patchwork playbook and is going directly by Bullinger’s playbook…I dunno – just a guess…

Edited October 11, 2022 by T-Bone
Are typos ever canonized?

[Mike]

3 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

But you're the one who brought it up, so it MUST interest you.

What is your point? What does Aramaic have to do with 2 Timothy? Do you think 2 Timothy was originally written in Aramaic???

My point has nothing to do with the original language for Timothy.
BTW, which languages did Paul speak?  Hint: check Acts, not academia.

My point is that in the Greek, the word "cloak" is kinda out of context.  I heard VPW opine on this word in the Timothy teachings, and I disagree with his liking that word there.

The Aramaic word in that slot, according to Walter and Bernita J, is "bookhouse."  Now that fits exactly with the context. What is a bookhouse?  It is a large box with holes in the top that scrolls fit neatly in, for storage and travel.  There are labels on the scroll holes that constitute a table of contents…. or possibly a canon listing???

That, above, is just the tip of the iceberg.  As I was searching my KJV thru the 1970s my growing canon collection put the thaw on that ice, and things started flowing nicely in my understanding; a wonderful sunesis of sorts.

 

 

 

*/*/*/*

I want to say something about the Aramaic and the issue of earliest copies and original languages.  It is a much more murky subject than we perceived way back when. Maybe more murky than academia knows.

I’m wondering if anyone here took the Llamsa Bible seriously enough to thoroughly think through the ONE VERSE in there that we were taught:  Eli, Eli !

In that one verse is an interestingly odd anomaly. See if you can spot it.
 

Matthew 27:46 Llamsa
“And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice
and said, Eli, Eli, lamna shabachthani! Which means,
My God, My God, for this I was kept?”

 

 

 

Matthew 27:46 KJV
“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say,
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

Has anyone seen this before in the olden golden days? 

I did, because I was serious about thinking these things through as much a possible.   If you hadn’t thought this verse through with Llamsa open in front of you, NOW IS YOUR CHANCE!

I spotted this problem in the mid-70s, as soon as I got my first Llamsa Bible.  I never had an answer until about 10 years ago.  I asked a former TWI Aramaic person about this anomaly and was STUNNED at the answer.  But as I thought it through it made sense.  This is one of the reasons I don’t bother to think highly of academic retro-historians who think they are able to scientifically analyzing everything with great precision. 

Things were a great big jumble in the late 1^st Century, after many in the Church rejected Paul, and got sloppy with ALL his Epistles, as Peter testifies with his last written words.

I am going to let this Matthew 27 verse sit for a while. 
I’d like to see if ANYONE thought this through before.
I’d like to see if anyone CAN think this through now.


What is the anomaly in Llamsa’s verse?
There is no anomaly in the KJV verse!

Yes, this is another quiz to see who has the ability
to think things through on their own. 

I was not guided by anyone to see this anomaly.

By anomaly, I mean an unexplained (so far) mystery.
See if you can find it yourselves.
See if T-Bone’s links help you find the anomaly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2022 by Mike

[Nathan_Jr]

49 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

Our English Bibles follow the order of the Latin Vulgate. This order, therefore, depends on the arbitrary judgement of one man, Jerome (A.D. 382-405). All theories based on this order rest on human authority and are thus without any true foundation.

Right. It's obviously ordered by arbitrary judgement. How else? 

If not human authority, then what? Divine authority? Says who? A human?

[Mike]

53 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

I’m looking into that – I have a few of Bullinger’s works…my short answer is appendix 1 page 5 of Bullinger’s Companion Bible – he has only a half a page and it’s titled “THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ACCORDING TO THE HEBREW CANON”  and then he briefly organizes it into the law, the prophets and the psalms (writings). He doesn’t address any criteria by which the OT was determined to be the official canon other than recognizing what the Hebrews accepted as the canon. And when I say he “organizes” them – he simply shows a literary structure using Roman numerals and letters to outline it all.

For what it’s worth, this is one of the few things I like about the Companion Bible – in noting the literary structure of Scripture there’s not a whole lot you can royally screw up. 

And in general, just let me say I prefer analyzing the original work that wierwille plagiarized from rather than wierwille’s thinly disguised and mangled version of it. Sifting through wierwille’s plagiarism in order to remove his insidious hodge podge is a waste of time. It’s like trying to reinvent recycled toilet paper… Mike made reference to something like “a b b a “ structure earlier on this thread…I think he was using Bullinger's literary structure notes...anyway…Here's a few links on literary structure of the Bible followed by a couple of specialty study Bibles I’ve found to be helpful on this analytical process:

Bible Literary Structure

Literary Structure in the Bible

A Guide to recognizing literary structure relationship

The Literary Study Bible ESV

(Note The Literary Study Bible ESV focuses on literary features rather than historical, cultural, linguistic. I find I get a better sense of the logical flow of thought – “commentary” and notes are brief and are “boxed off” as lead-ins ahead of the text so as not to be a distraction.)

The Outline Bible

(Note The Outline Bible    and the outlines use literary devices like alliteration, rhyme, etc. like bullet points to help a student or teacher visually remember the main ideas of a section of Scripture. Just to be clear – there’s no Bible text in this book – you use it in tandem with your preferred Bible version.   )

~ ~ ~ ~

I’ve been looking through the appendix index of Companion Bible and found things of note:

1.       Appendix 94 THE GREEK TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT …Introduction. While modern critics are occupied with the problem as to the origin of the Four Gospels, and with their so-called “discrepancies”, we believe that Matthew, Mark, and John got their respective Gospels where Luke got his, viz. anothen = “from above” (Luke 1.3, see note there); and that the “discrepancies” , so called, are the creation of the Commentators and Harmonists themselves. The latter particularly; for when they see two similar events, they immediately assume they are identical.

 

OldSkool, I’m glad you brought this up. That right there is proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that wierwille plagiarized Bullinger like crazy!  This  reveals wierwille’s   a priori assumptions  about Biblical research. Lovely.

~ ~ ~ ~ 

2.       Appendix 95 on page 137 & ff of Companion Bible there is something very revealing about Bullinger’s a priori assumption…on page 139 of the appendix “THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE ORDER OF ITS BOOKS” Bullinger says  Our English Bibles follow the order of the Latin Vulgate. This order, therefore, depends on the arbitrary judgement of one man, Jerome (A.D. 382-405). All theories based on this order rest on human authority and are thus without any true foundation.

 

You know – it has just occurred to me that the way Mike has been going on and on challenging the idea of anyone exploring the New Testament Canon – I get the sense that Mike has bypassed wierwille’s patchwork playbook and is going directly by Bullinger’s playbook…I dunno – just a guess…

You guessed wrong.
I said I came up with this on my own and I am not lying
or joking,
or trolling,
or using a figure of speech.

Walter told me in 1972 that my structure analysis was one the best handling he had seen by that date, 50 years ago.

I still have not seen what Bullinger says about this very simple structure that I noticed in 2 Timothy, and then again in 2 Peter.

My impression was that I was glossing over the kinds of structure I see Bullinger come up with.

My structure is seen only if you put on a filter, and only look at what Timothy was told to do, and interleaving with Paul mentioning the various attacks of the adversary.  I'll bet that Bullinger's structure is far more complicated and detailed.

Not that I am going to disagree with Bullinger if that is the case.  I think I was looking at the structure from one special angle, and that's where the structure greatly simplifies.

 

[Mike]

36 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Right. It's obviously ordered by arbitrary judgement. How else? 

If not human authority, then what? Divine authority? Says who? A human?

I've been reading Bullinger's booklet on the Book of Job.

According to his chronology Job should come right after the Pentateuch, even though it looks like it was written before Moses' writing.  This is new to me THIS WEEK.  See, I am still learning.

 

Edited October 11, 2022 by Mike

[OldSkool]

Im not sure how walt3r C1ummins became the be all authority on all things Bible. Why because vic used to get him to fact check his drivel when he was in front of a crowd? Dog and pony show with that. Yeah, I know, walter is highly educated and probably does some really good work. But name dropping?...cmon.

[OldSkool]

2 hours ago, T-Bone said:

Our English Bibles follow the order of the Latin Vulgate. This order, therefore, depends on the arbitrary judgement of one man, Jerome (A.D. 382-405). All theories based on this order rest on human authority and are thus without any true foundation.

 

[OldSkool]

This is my first exposure to Dr. Thiel. Curious to see what others think and ill post up after I finish going over his articles/videos.

https://www.cogwriter.com/original-bible-order.htm

 

[OldSkool]

Also of note is the Complete Jewish Study Bible (CJSB). I don't do Hebraic Roots in any form, but with that out the way, CJSB has the books listed in (I think....pretty sure..) historical order...but maybe I am wrong. Im posting the link for discussion. Im posting an excerpt from CJSB - but the books are listed.

 

https://www.rockofisrael.org/wp-content/uploads/cjsb_excerpt_08_2_016.pdf

[So_crates]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

My point is that in the Greek, the word "cloak" is kinda out of context.  I heard VPW opine on this word in the Timothy teachings, and I disagree with his liking that word there.

The Aramaic word in that slot, according to Walter and Bernita J, is "bookhouse."  Now that fits exactly with the context. What is a bookhouse?  It is a large box with holes in the top that scrolls fit neatly in, for storage and travel.  There are labels on the scroll holes that constitute a table of contents…. or possibly a canon listing???

You lost me.

Where the Aramaic word come from if you don't know it was written in Aramaic?

What does the Greek word translate to? How do we get from "cloak" to "book house"?

Why did you fill the slot with an Aramaic word? Why not Hebrew?

How do you know that was the right word to fit the slot?

Edited October 11, 2022 by So_crates