Please Explain the Biblical Canon

[Justin A]

I just read through a good portion of this wikipedia article. As far as the history of the Biblical Canon goes I basically got from it that there were many competing canons that included or excluded some of the books in the modern Bible. Eventually the current set of books became the standard.

My question is how can you know that you're currently using the correct set of books?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I just read through a good portion of this wikipedia article. As far as the history of the Biblical Canon goes I basically got from it that there were many competing canons that included or excluded some of the books in the modern Bible. Eventually the current set of books became the standard.

My question is how can you know that you're currently using the correct set of books?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your use of the word "correct" Loads the question in my opinion. I would want to use some common sense when approaching the books. Where do they come from? What is their context historically and culturally? What do respected scholars say about them? What does the Church say about them. What do secular and spiritual critics of the Church say about them? What do the spiritual proponents of the noncannonical texts say about them?

Taking everything into consideration I would read them and use my best judgement to decide what to think. If I'm looking for a Spiritual Solution to my life I would see for myself if I could find one there. I'd see if anything I found there Moved Me Spiritually.

I wouldn't worry too much about what's "correct".

PairTheBoard

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just read through a good portion of this wikipedia article. As far as the history of the Biblical Canon goes I basically got from it that there were many competing canons that included or excluded some of the books in the modern Bible. Eventually the current set of books became the standard.

My question is how can you know that you're currently using the correct set of books?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your use of the word "correct" Loads the question in my opinion. I would want to use some common sense when approaching the books. Where do they come from? What is their context historically and culturally? What do respected scholars say about them? What does the Church say about them. What do secular and spiritual critics of the Church say about them? What do the spiritual proponents of the noncannonical texts say about them?

Taking everything into consideration I would read them and use my best judgement to decide what to think. If I'm looking for a Spiritual Solution to my life I would see for myself if I could find one there. I'd see if anything I found there Moved Me Spiritually.

I wouldn't worry too much about what's "correct".

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant correct in the sense of which books are the word of God and which aren't. This is more a question towards those who believe the Bible is inerrant. Maybe I have it wrong, but growing up I was taught that a writing was either divinely inspired or it wasn't. I'm trying to figure out the mechanism by which this was supposedly determined.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just read through a good portion of this wikipedia article. As far as the history of the Biblical Canon goes I basically got from it that there were many competing canons that included or excluded some of the books in the modern Bible. Eventually the current set of books became the standard.

My question is how can you know that you're currently using the correct set of books?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your use of the word "correct" Loads the question in my opinion. I would want to use some common sense when approaching the books. Where do they come from? What is their context historically and culturally? What do respected scholars say about them? What does the Church say about them. What do secular and spiritual critics of the Church say about them? What do the spiritual proponents of the noncannonical texts say about them?

Taking everything into consideration I would read them and use my best judgement to decide what to think. If I'm looking for a Spiritual Solution to my life I would see for myself if I could find one there. I'd see if anything I found there Moved Me Spiritually.

I wouldn't worry too much about what's "correct".

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant correct in the sense of which books are the word of God and which aren't. This is more a question towards those who believe the Bible is inerrant. Maybe I have it wrong, but growing up I was taught that a writing was either divinely inspired or it wasn't. I'm trying to figure out the mechanism by which this was supposedly determined.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that if you're looking for an answer along those lines you should prepare to be disappointed. PTB's answer is about as good as it gets.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just read through a good portion of this wikipedia article. As far as the history of the Biblical Canon goes I basically got from it that there were many competing canons that included or excluded some of the books in the modern Bible. Eventually the current set of books became the standard.

My question is how can you know that you're currently using the correct set of books?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your use of the word "correct" Loads the question in my opinion. I would want to use some common sense when approaching the books. Where do they come from? What is their context historically and culturally? What do respected scholars say about them? What does the Church say about them. What do secular and spiritual critics of the Church say about them? What do the spiritual proponents of the noncannonical texts say about them?

Taking everything into consideration I would read them and use my best judgement to decide what to think. If I'm looking for a Spiritual Solution to my life I would see for myself if I could find one there. I'd see if anything I found there Moved Me Spiritually.

I wouldn't worry too much about what's "correct".

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant correct in the sense of which books are the word of God and which aren't. This is more a question towards those who believe the Bible is inerrant. Maybe I have it wrong, but growing up I was taught that a writing was either divinely inspired or it wasn't. I'm trying to figure out the mechanism by which this was supposedly determined.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I read the books I'm getting it from the mouth of the horses who ran the race. I'll use my own best judgement as to what kind of inspiration they enjoyed.

PairTheBoard

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]

When I read the books I'm getting it from the mouth of the horses who ran the race. I'll use my own best judgement as to what kind of inspiration they enjoyed.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I understand your metaphor.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

When I read the books I'm getting it from the mouth of the horses who ran the race. I'll use my own best judgement as to what kind of inspiration they enjoyed.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I understand your metaphor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can only go so far listening to what others say about the books. When I read the books I'm hearing from the people who actually wrote the books.

PairTheBoard

[godBoy]

It makes sense to me that at the time when they created the canon, they were far better suited to understanding the truth of what actually happened at the time.

Think about it for a second, if joe blow writes a book about Jesus Christ saying he was a ham sandwich... If any book that was written about Jesus Christ was considered correct then you would have more reason to be skeptical. But at a time relatively close to his death they decided which books were accurate and which books were not. I'm willing to trust that the consistency found in the gospels is correct above the other lone books that suggest things that contradict these.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
It makes sense to me that at the time when they created the canon, they were far better suited to understanding the truth of what actually happened at the time.

Think about it for a second, if joe blow writes a book about Jesus Christ saying he was a ham sandwich... If any book that was written about Jesus Christ was considered correct then you would have more reason to be skeptical. But at a time relatively close to his death they decided which books were accurate and which books were not. I'm willing to trust that the consistency found in the gospels is correct above the other lone books that suggest things that contradict these.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first Gospel (Mark) wasn't written until around 70 AD, with the others later. If, in modern times, anonymous biographies of a person first appeared 40 years after their deaths, and which biographies were accurate was judged on the basis of hearsay and oral tradition 130 years later, how confident would you be that what you had represented an accurate history? And that's modern times. We're talking about ancient Judea, where generations were a lot shorter, hardly anyone could read and write, and extremely low standards of evidence were the norm.

Also, the consistency of the Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke), such as it is, comes from the fact that Matthew and Luke plagiarised a lot of their text straight out of Mark and perhaps a second source. There are only 51 verses in Mark out of 600-odd which don't appear (sometimes paraphrased a little) in Matthew or Luke or both.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It makes sense to me that at the time when they created the canon, they were far better suited to understanding the truth of what actually happened at the time.

Think about it for a second, if joe blow writes a book about Jesus Christ saying he was a ham sandwich... If any book that was written about Jesus Christ was considered correct then you would have more reason to be skeptical. But at a time relatively close to his death they decided which books were accurate and which books were not. I'm willing to trust that the consistency found in the gospels is correct above the other lone books that suggest things that contradict these.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first Gospel (Mark) wasn't written until around 70 AD, with the others later. If, in modern times, anonymous biographies of a person first appeared 40 years after their deaths, and which biographies were accurate was judged on the basis of hearsay and oral tradition 130 years later, how confident would you be that what you had represented an accurate history? And that's modern times. We're talking about ancient Judea, where generations were a lot shorter, hardly anyone could read and write, and extremely low standards of evidence were the norm.

Also, the consistency of the Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke), such as it is, comes from the fact that Matthew and Luke plagiarised a lot of their text straight out of Mark and perhaps a second source. There are only 51 verses in Mark out of 600-odd which don't appear (sometimes paraphrased a little) in Matthew or Luke or both.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the writings closest to contemporary with the events were the Letters of Paul. He didn't know Jesus himself but he knew people who did.

You can definitely see some bells and whistles getting added when you campare accounts of the resurrection. There was probably some Oral Drift over 40 years and some theological infusion. But you take what you can get and read it with those things in mind.

PairTheBoard