A more accurate question according to the scientific precision of usage is:
WITAF does abababababa have to do with the how the Biblical canon was formed???
It fits into my ALTERNATE THEORY
of how the Biblical canon was formed,
which you found fascinating,
and you started this thread,
as a place for me to post my alternate research.
It fits into my ALTERNATE THEORY
of how the Biblical canon was formed,
which you found fascinating,
and you started this thread,
as a place for me to post my alternate research.
.... remember?
I do.
How (H-O-W) does ababababa explain how (H-O-W) the Biblical canon was formed?
How (H-O-W) does ababababa explain how (H-O-W) the Biblical canon was formed?
I can see that you have not been paying attention to my posts. I explained that several times already. Did you read the text I have been posting, starting on page 7, yesterday at 02:11 PM Pacific Time.
Paul was starting the formation of the canon as he wrote to Timothy. Read the Epistle and the text I posted. This is just the beginning. I found evidence that Paul, Timothy, Mark, and Luke started the ball rolling in that writing which is in the ababababaab style. It is ALL explained, what "a" is and what "b" is.
I could re-post it here, but you are able to go back and see what you missed.
Try to remember that original, genuine fascination you had and posted. It was that fascination that started this thread.
Maybe you should go back and read your posts in the past, as well as mine.
I can see that you have not been paying attention to my posts. I explained that several times already. Did you read the text I have been posting, starting on page 7, yesterday at 02:11 PM Pacific Time.
Paul was starting the formation of the canon as he wrote to Timothy. Read the Epistle and the text I posted. This is just the beginning. I found evidence that Paul, Timothy, Mark, and Luke started the ball rolling in that writing which is in the ababababaab style. It is ALL explained, what "a" is and what "b" is.
I could re-post it here, but you are able to go back and see what you missed.
Try to remember that original, genuine fascination you had and posted. It was that fascination that started this thread.
Maybe you should go back and read your posts in the past, as well as mine.
Do you accept the definitions of 'canon' I provided? Do you understand that any written work cannot prescribe itself to be canonical?
Do you accept the definitions of 'canon' I provided? Do you understand that any written work cannot prescribe itself to be canonical?
I get that. But if the Bible is really from God, then He has foreknowledge of how His Word will be collected to gether. I am looking at the BEGINNING of the process, you and T-Bone are picking up the story a couple centuries later.
It is revolutionary to consider that the Bible can write about itself.
MORE SPECIFICALLY, it can show the attitudes and procedures the writers had.
Paul and his helpers had NO IDEA how their writings would be handled after them, BUT they could get revelation from God as to what they must do to get the ball rolling on preserving the unofficial 1st Century formation of the canon. You are looking at the OFFICIAL organized religion story of how they eventually recognized what the apostles assembled.
Do you accept the definitions of 'canon' I provided? Do you understand that any written work cannot prescribe itself to be canonical?
No.
You are looking at the official process that took place long after the apostles. I am looking at a much earlier process, that the NT text shows us. It is all in my paper, which you only have one third of here so far.
I insist they DO have a lot to do with the NT Canon.
I'm not talking of how scholars have found EVIDENCE in history, and from the evidence concluded the most likely history of how the Bible was assembled.
I am NOT talking about the VIEW that can be developed using recognized academic approaches from history and artifacts.
What I am talking about is a DIFFERENT VIEW of the canon process that one can have from INSIDE the Bible.
Picture it instead of asking history how the canon formed,
and asking God by searching for clues He left in there for us.
Mike said:What I am talking about is a DIFFERENT VIEW of the canon process that one can have from INSIDE the Bible.
T-Bone’s response: holy schnikeys !!!!! You’re going into the quantum realm of the King James Bible ?!?!
Please take every precaution.
I hear that India paper often used in printing some Bibles is pretty thin – so you better get yourself extra small…you might want to consult Tony Stark, Scott Lang and Doctor Hank Pym for technical details…of course, you know Stark, Lang and Doctor Pym are make-believe characters – but you’ve never had a problem with make-believe doctors anyway.
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike said:Picture it instead of asking history how the canon formed, and asking God by searching for clues He left in there for us.
T-Bone’s response: Gee…where have I heard that idea before? Hmmmmm…oh yeah:
In the authorized book on TWI, titled “The Way Living in Love” (by Elena S. Whiteside, co 1972, American Christian Press, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-89132), on page 178 of “The Way Living in Love”wierwille stated “I was praying. And I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on. And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others. Well, I nearly flew off my chair. I couldn't believe that God would talk to me.”
You so funny Mike! The subtle implication of wierwille’s claim shifts the Bible’s authority away from the text-in-context and onto wierwille’s “assumed authority”.
Considering wierwille’s claim that God would teach him the Word as it had not been known since the first century – it is worth noting that Christians back in that apostolic age had no Bible – the New Testament had not been written…there was no New Testament canon! So much forasking God by searching for clues He left in there for us.
Biblical research ministry my a$$ - wierwille was cluelesshaving no real knowledge of hermeneutics or the biblical languages, no real understanding of the ancient cultures, and seemed incapable of distinguishing the difference between honest and dishonest handling of the Scriptures.
You’re free to choose your own path – and if you want to follow wierwille’s road map to crazy town that’s your business…you can insist all you want to…silly temper tantrums and wacky wierwille-esque theories don’t move the credibility needle.
Marcion proposed a cannon in the 2nd century. He was a hardcore follower of Paul and Paul only. His canon included ten letters of Paul and a shorter version of Luke. None of the pastoral epistles were in Marcion's canon, probably because they weren't written yet, or else he didn't think Paul wrote them. He didn't think any OT books should be included because he thought they were about a different god.
Do you accept the definitions of 'canon' I provided? Do you understand that any written work cannot prescribe itself to be canonical?
Actually, I am not sure I saw those definitions.
Can you find the thread and timestamp so I can check?
Meanwhile, my text explaining how the abababab structure has to do with the EARLY work on the canon by the writers the NT themselves.
My theory is simple:
The NT writers started the collecting together of the canon,
and they finished the job.
It took centuries for people to line up
with the ORIGINAL version of the canon, but they did.
The church was both under lots of persecution, and drifting reprobate, in that they had rejected Paul. There is no record of Timothy in history. No one recognized him because they had "moved on" from Paul.
God protected and guided the canon the apostles settled, but the adversary made sure this was not to be found in historical artifacts. A couple hundred years later and it was settled.... somewhat.
It is a very slippery subject, after the apostles are out of the picture. But the picture that is portrayed in the NT writings about their own collection together is WAY more than I ever expected to find when I started.
The NT writers started the collecting together of the canon,
and they finished the job.
It took centuries for people to line up
with the ORIGINAL version of the canon, but they did.
Your theory sucks!
The reason I’m suspicious of your theory is because it appears uninformed…and it seems like your grabbing at straws since your other arguments didn’t work.
The earliest known complete list of the 27 books is found in a letter written by Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, dated to 367 AD.The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first. These councils also provided the canon of the Old Testament, which included the deuterocanonical books.
There is no scholarly consensus on the date of composition of the latest New Testament texts. John A. T. Robinson, Dan Wallace, and William F. Albright dated all the books of the New Testament before 70 AD. Many other scholars, such as Bart D. Ehrman and Stephen L. Harris, date some New Testament texts much later than this; Richard Pervo dated Luke–Acts to c. AD 115, and David Trobisch places Acts in the mid-to-late second century, contemporaneous with the publication of the first New Testament canon. The New Oxford Annotated Bible states, "Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus's life and teaching."
Besides Wikipedia other books and articles place the compiling of the books far beyond the lifetime of the writers (see hyperlinks below)…Most scholars lean toward the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, which would imply that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon.
Christians assume the early church fathers recognized the authority inherent in what were considered sacred texts because of the proximity of the apostolic connection. The early church looked to the apostles and there writings for the authoritative word about what was sound doctrinally. There’s no biblical or historical evidence for a second generation of apostles.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
199
126
90
153
Popular Days
Oct 17
109
Oct 11
87
Oct 15
69
Oct 10
54
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 199 posts
T-Bone 126 posts
OldSkool 90 posts
Nathan_Jr 153 posts
Popular Days
Oct 17 2022
109 posts
Oct 11 2022
87 posts
Oct 15 2022
69 posts
Oct 10 2022
54 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
I haven't been following this thread but had a peek. This whole thread is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the canon of scripture. But I did note the following, originally posted by our
waysider
Ahhh, those were the days.
waysider
Bake 'em away, toys.
Posted Images
OldSkool
It means YabbaDabbaDo in Aramaic? ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It fits into my ALTERNATE THEORY
of how the Biblical canon was formed,
which you found fascinating,
and you started this thread,
as a place for me to post my alternate research.
.... remember?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I do.
How (H-O-W) does ababababa explain how (H-O-W) the Biblical canon was formed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I can see that you have not been paying attention to my posts. I explained that several times already. Did you read the text I have been posting, starting on page 7, yesterday at 02:11 PM Pacific Time.
Paul was starting the formation of the canon as he wrote to Timothy. Read the Epistle and the text I posted. This is just the beginning. I found evidence that Paul, Timothy, Mark, and Luke started the ball rolling in that writing which is in the ababababaab style. It is ALL explained, what "a" is and what "b" is.
I could re-post it here, but you are able to go back and see what you missed.
Try to remember that original, genuine fascination you had and posted. It was that fascination that started this thread.
Maybe you should go back and read your posts in the past, as well as mine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Do you accept the definitions of 'canon' I provided? Do you understand that any written work cannot prescribe itself to be canonical?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I see that the text is on page 8 at abour 9 am Pacific time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I rest my case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I get that. But if the Bible is really from God, then He has foreknowledge of how His Word will be collected to gether. I am looking at the BEGINNING of the process, you and T-Bone are picking up the story a couple centuries later.
It is revolutionary to consider that the Bible can write about itself.
MORE SPECIFICALLY, it can show the attitudes and procedures the writers had.
Paul and his helpers had NO IDEA how their writings would be handled after them, BUT they could get revelation from God as to what they must do to get the ball rolling on preserving the unofficial 1st Century formation of the canon. You are looking at the OFFICIAL organized religion story of how they eventually recognized what the apostles assembled.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No.
You are looking at the official process that took place long after the apostles. I am looking at a much earlier process, that the NT text shows us. It is all in my paper, which you only have one third of here so far.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike said: What I am talking about is a DIFFERENT VIEW of the canon process that one can have from INSIDE the Bible.
T-Bone’s response: holy schnikeys !!!!! You’re going into the quantum realm of the King James Bible ?!?!
Please take every precaution.
I hear that India paper often used in printing some Bibles is pretty thin – so you better get yourself extra small…you might want to consult Tony Stark, Scott Lang and Doctor Hank Pym for technical details…of course, you know Stark, Lang and Doctor Pym are make-believe characters – but you’ve never had a problem with make-believe doctors anyway.
~ ~ ~ ~
Mike said: Picture it instead of asking history how the canon formed,
and asking God by searching for clues He left in there for us.
T-Bone’s response: Gee…where have I heard that idea before? Hmmmmm…oh yeah:
In the authorized book on TWI, titled “The Way Living in Love” (by Elena S. Whiteside, co 1972, American Christian Press, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-89132), on page 178 of “The Way Living in Love” wierwille stated “I was praying. And I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on. And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others. Well, I nearly flew off my chair. I couldn't believe that God would talk to me.”
You so funny Mike! The subtle implication of wierwille’s claim shifts the Bible’s authority away from the text-in-context and onto wierwille’s “assumed authority”.
Considering wierwille’s claim that God would teach him the Word as it had not been known since the first century – it is worth noting that Christians back in that apostolic age had no Bible – the New Testament had not been written…there was no New Testament canon! So much for asking God by searching for clues He left in there for us.
Biblical research ministry my a$$ - wierwille was clueless having no real knowledge of hermeneutics or the biblical languages, no real understanding of the ancient cultures, and seemed incapable of distinguishing the difference between honest and dishonest handling of the Scriptures.
You’re free to choose your own path – and if you want to follow wierwille’s road map to crazy town that’s your business…you can insist all you want to…silly temper tantrums and wacky wierwille-esque theories don’t move the credibility needle.
Edited by T-Boneeditor - you so funny!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Marcion proposed a cannon in the 2nd century. He was a hardcore follower of Paul and Paul only. His canon included ten letters of Paul and a shorter version of Luke. None of the pastoral epistles were in Marcion's canon, probably because they weren't written yet, or else he didn't think Paul wrote them. He didn't think any OT books should be included because he thought they were about a different god.
**cdcdcdcdcdcdcdcd ccddccddccddccdd ef
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Actually, I am not sure I saw those definitions.
Can you find the thread and timestamp so I can check?
Meanwhile, my text explaining how the abababab structure has to do with the EARLY work on the canon by the writers the NT themselves.
My theory is simple:
The NT writers started the collecting together of the canon,
and they finished the job.
It took centuries for people to line up
with the ORIGINAL version of the canon, but they did.
The church was both under lots of persecution, and drifting reprobate, in that they had rejected Paul. There is no record of Timothy in history. No one recognized him because they had "moved on" from Paul.
God protected and guided the canon the apostles settled, but the adversary made sure this was not to be found in historical artifacts. A couple hundred years later and it was settled.... somewhat.
It is a very slippery subject, after the apostles are out of the picture. But the picture that is portrayed in the NT writings about their own collection together is WAY more than I ever expected to find when I started.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Have to love the cojones to build an utter lack of evidence right into your main thesis.
I tell you, if the devil didn't exist, you would have to make him up to explain ... oh wait.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
OK, so let me get this straight.
Paul initiated the formation of the biblical canon, which includes writings that did not yet exist in his lifetime. He was clearly a time traveler.
(Care for a Jelly Baby?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
And the proof of this is that there's no evidence.
Checkmate!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I want to say you just can't make this stuff up, but obviously I'd be wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
A bowl of fruit + dogs + lmlmlmlmnopqrstutututuvwvwvw + gloves + spacecraft + 398 + Elizabeth Gardner = duck
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I'm assuming quince is unprovable if cardboard Africa.
It's a totally different system of logic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Everything is based on this axiom:
Waterhead babies carve cloudy blenders. Rip currents. Even gloves. Did I mention gloves?
HOWEVER, bacon breath.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Upon careful scrutiny, it becomes apparent that Pachelbel's Canon did not, in fact, follow the yabadabadoo form.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Prepositions. Nothing but prepositions. Until conjunctions.
Try writing THAT in cursive. Put it in a bag, Jasper!
Evidence. Pure, cold-pressed evidence. Even envelope rainbows!
See? Isn't that just wonderful. Bless your little hearts!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
No, no, no, no, NO!!!!!! You obviously missed it the first time.
You should go back and read the duck equation I posted. Read it again and again until it infects your brain. Read it until it ferments in your shoes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Your theory sucks!
The reason I’m suspicious of your theory is because it appears uninformed…and it seems like your grabbing at straws since your other arguments didn’t work.
The earliest known complete list of the 27 books is found in a letter written by Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, dated to 367 AD.The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first. These councils also provided the canon of the Old Testament, which included the deuterocanonical books.
There is no scholarly consensus on the date of composition of the latest New Testament texts. John A. T. Robinson, Dan Wallace, and William F. Albright dated all the books of the New Testament before 70 AD. Many other scholars, such as Bart D. Ehrman and Stephen L. Harris, date some New Testament texts much later than this; Richard Pervo dated Luke–Acts to c. AD 115, and David Trobisch places Acts in the mid-to-late second century, contemporaneous with the publication of the first New Testament canon. The New Oxford Annotated Bible states, "Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus's life and teaching."
From: Wikipedia: The New Testament
Besides Wikipedia other books and articles place the compiling of the books far beyond the lifetime of the writers (see hyperlinks below)…Most scholars lean toward the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, which would imply that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon.
Christians assume the early church fathers recognized the authority inherent in what were considered sacred texts because of the proximity of the apostolic connection. The early church looked to the apostles and there writings for the authoritative word about what was sound doctrinally. There’s no biblical or historical evidence for a second generation of apostles.
See also:
The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? By FF Bruce
The Canon of Scripture by FF Bruce
How We Got the Bible by Neil R Lightfoot
who compiled the Bible and when?
When was the Bible assembled?
Got Questions: How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?
Got Questions: How do we decide which books belong in the Bible since the Bible does not say which books belong in the Bible?
even now the 2nd or 3rd time I'm waving my freak flag high has already been absolutely held in abeyance
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The joke's on you. There's already something fermenting in my shoes.
(People call me the kimchi kid.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.