There is no such thing as The Bible

This may need a seperate thread but just to deal with Buzsaw's points (Buzsaw have you READ all of Isiah 7, with Isaiah 8 ?)

quote:

---

1. It was a prophecy of a future birth.

---

Aside from the fact that the verse can be read as indicating that the young woman *is* with child, it is clear that the birth is in the *near* future.
The child is a sign that Syria nad Isreal - who had been raiding Judah - would shortly be conquered and cease to be a threat.

quote:

---

2. OT scriptural practice was to name the father of one having been born or to be born, not themother. Geneologies nearly always list the fathers and sons. It would be very unusual to say a young woman was to bear a son. This would implicate adultery.

---

This point cofnuses NAMING the father with indicating that a woman is pregnant. It is not unusual to say that a woman would bear a child - unless you think that men normally give birth !. It would be unusual to name the mother and not thre father - but the mother is not named.

quote:

---

3. The NT reference to it bears out that it was a reference to a virgin birth.

---

The NT reference strips the verse out of context, ignoring the fact that Isaiah 7 demands that the birth must have taken place in the reign of Ahaz. If you know of a virgin birth THEN then please enlighten the rest of us.

quote:

---

4. Michah 5:2 bears out that the messiah son is to be born in Bethlehem. This and other context enforces the notion that the 'young woman' of the Isaiah text would be a virgin.

---

Can you explain this ? Aside from the fact that the birth of the child of Isaiah 7 has to have taken place generations before Micah lived (so how can Micah predict anything about it ?) What then is the connection between Isaiah 7 and Micah 5:2 - why can they not refer to completely different children ? And why would Micah's predicition - even on your reading - reinforce the idea that Isaiah weas referring to a virgin birth ? Are you telling us that all births in Bethlehem are virgin births ? Even if you assume that both were referring to Jesus and that Jesus was born of a virgin it hardly changes the fact that the Hebrew of Isaiah does not contain any strong connotations of virginity and would be a very odd way to predict a virgin birth specifically.

Perhaps you would like to explain why it is impossible to be undecided on the existence of spirits.If you really want to make such assertiosn you had better be prepared to back them up.

quote:

---

Other than the Apochryphal books (which were added by the Roman Catholic Church after the Reformation started, to support their extra-biblical doctrines of purgatory etc., so that they could point to why you couldn't be saved if you weren't a member of the Roman Catholic Church)...

---

Where did you get that idea ? The Deuterocanonical books were (and in many places still are) a standard part of the Bible - it was Protestants who removed them. The Orthodox Churches accept even more books than the Catholics.

You still haven't answered the question. Why did you say that the RC church added the deuterocanonical books during the Reformation when it was the Protestants that took them out ?

The problem with that claim is that it ignores the position of the Orthodox Churches which also use the deuterocanonical works (including some that the RC Church does not accept).The deuterocanonical works are found in the Septuagint, which is the version of the OT used by the early Christians. The Jewish canon seems not to have been decided until afterAccording to the Btitannica the African churhc affirmed that deuterocanoncial books as scrpture at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, long before the Reformation. A list of the canon dating from the early 6th Century includes deuterocanonical works.While there were certainly peopel who suggested otherwise, including some important figures, the deuterocanonical works were used (even by those who considered them to be of lower status) and widely considered scripture right up until the ReformationAll that seems to have gappened at Trent is that the RC Church affirmed its commitment to a long-standing majority view - a view which the Protestants had set themselves against.You really ought to watch that anti-Catholic prejudice.

You seem to be misrepresenting the NAB: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/historical.htmSince the NAB is available online perhaps you can tell me where this "note" of yours is to be found.On the Orthodox church Britannica states The Orthodox Church in America states: Canon of Scripture - Questions & Answers - Orthodox Church in AmericaAgain we see that the RC church did not change the Bible as you claimed. So I still await an explanation fo why you would make such a claim.

A page number is not exactly a helpful reference to the online version.So perhaps you can give a useful reference. If it's a footnote the book and chapter would do. If it's an introductory section then the title of that section would do.And I don't see it as quibbling to point out that these books were widely accepted and included in the Bible and its predecessors for the millenium and a half you refer to.

The book of Enoch as we have it is a composite work. Even if parts of it are contempory with early Christian writings (and 50 AD would be early for ANY Christian writing), much of it is pre-Christian..

Well, it was Jews who compiled the Septugaint - and generally they would have been closer to the writing of the books than the Pharisees who decided the current Jewish canon.And of course, from your view the Christian Church was in error from the very early days right up until Luther had the Apocrypha removed. Shouldn't the judgement of the Christian church carry more weight to a Christian than the judgement of the Pharisees ??

YOu're right the the original Septuagint was probably just the Torah. But by the time the early Christians were using it, it had accumulated the other books.

SO you accept that the decisions on the canon were fallible human judgements. Which calls all of them into question.Aside from that you are in error in equating the writing of the books with their acceptance as canon. What is more you admit that several books were only admitted as canon after after Christianity had split from Judaism. In that case it msut be pointed out that the NT is not short of references to one of those books - Daniel.THe fact remains that whatever the view of some the Deuterocanonical books were generally accepted by Christians right up until the Reformation. As opposed to your claim that tey were rejected up until that point.

You've stated theat some were wrong - so how can you assume that any of them were not fallible human judgements ?I note that your judgement of Daniel is based on misepresenting the arguments against a late date. (Not your fault, I know, you are only re peating what you have been told by people who are biased and either ignorant or dishonest).The arguments for an early date are weak. Ezekiel's "Daniel" is an obscure figure - not identified as a contemporary or the author of a book. All we have is a na me. And we certainly are not on safe ground in assuming that the refernces indicated that Ezekiel's Daniel was a contemporary. In Exekiel 14 Daniel is one of a list of three - the other two being Noah and Job. Are you going to say that there names refer to contemporaries of Ezekiel ?And from the forgoing discussion you should already know that early Christians used the Septuagint, which adequately accounts for the acceptance of Daniel - not to mention that the Gospels claim that Jesus refered to Daniel.(added in edit)
The Jewish acceptance likely had nothing to do with Christianity. Daniel was a popular book at the time even if there was sufficient doubt about its origins to keep it classified amongst the Writings. (And if the Jewish judgeent is so reliable why not accept that they had grounds to suspect it might not be authentic ?).
(end addition)As for your final paragraph you are not only addressing a strawman you are forgetting that this discussion started with your historical error. An error you have not adequately explained. nThis message has been edited by PaulK, 09-09-2005 02:24 PM

Accordign to you the mrer fact that the Jews rehected books from their canon is enough to decide that they don;'t belong in the Christian canon. But when it comes to a book you approve of the judgement of the Jews isn't enough. A bit of a double stndard there,You claimned that Ezekiel indicated that Daniel was a contemproary. Now you are moving the goalposts. And considering that "Daniel" is mentioned with the Edomite Job we can't even conclude that Ezekiel's Daniel is a Jewish figure. If Ezekiel's Daniel were THE Daniel it is surprising that he is mentioned so little by Exekiel or any otherbooks of the Bible. And even that would not remove the evidence that the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd Century BC.And your historical error was in claiming that the Deuterocanonical books had been added to the Bible during the Reformation. The fact is that they had been considered part of Christian scripture even before the Bible was compiled, and were included in the Bible until Luther took them out. As Ihave pointed out the Council of Trent only reaffirmed a long-standing view.r

Unfortunately it is Archer who needs to "adjust" the Empires of Daniel. Daniel's "prophecy" is almost entirely concerned with the Hellenistic states, with no room for a succeeding empire. The Hellenistic empire fits the legs of the image well - divided, somme parts strong (iron) and others weak (clay). And this is in the text of Daniel itself. Rome on the other hand is only briefly mentioned for it's interference in the conflict between the Seleucids and the PtolomeysNeedless to say Archer - like mot inerrantists IS a fan of "adjusting" the text of the Bible to fit his own beliefs.

quote:

---

I was under the impression that a book was assumed to be accurate historically until proven otherwise.

---

Well that's absolutely wrong. Without a reasonable idea of who wrot it, when and for what reason why should we assume that it was historically accurate ?

quote:

---

If there is an interpretation which suggests that the book is wrong in some way, and an interpretation that makes the book right, why would you pick the former??

---

In this case because the former is truer to the actual text. You said that you weren't in favour of "adjusting" the text. So presumably you consider that a valid reason.

quote:

---

The fact is, the latter interpretation avoids a key mistake you say the book made. So why stick with your original interpretation?

---

I'm not sure what mistake you're referring to, but are you arguing in favour of adjusting the text so it doesn't include errors ? If not then you need to deal with what it actually says instead of arguing that we should choose the interpetation that fits YOUR beliefs best.i