Superiority of the 'Protestant Canon'?

Most of the American strict literalists insist on the King James Version. I've heard any number of pastors criticize other translations by comparing them to the KJV.Some of the reasons for insisting on the KJV are, in my opinion only peripherally associated with accuracy of translation, and in fact, some are probably not rational. I'll refer you to the wikipedia article "King James Only movement" for one take on the controversy. I've heard pastors deliver sermons that revolve around a specific, and probably meaningless, choice of wording. In some cases, those sermons would not even be "Biblical" according to a different translation of the Bible. And of course to those people who practice that brand of Bible numerology in which they find hidden prophecies by searching for patterns in the letters used in the Bible, a fixed translation of the Bible is essential.The order of creation only matters to a strict, Bible literalists. Very little of the differences have any effect on Christianity. I imagine that the actual author of the Torah would be very amused at the mess such people have made of his work. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

You could not possibly have made any attempt to verify this before stating it as fact. All of the book of Enoch predates the birth and ministry period of Jesus Christ. Most of the book dates from centuries before Jesus was born. Jude dates from some time after the crucifixion and resurrection. Could you provide a source for this claim. I don't believe you checked this either. Let's look at the relevant passages from each.KJV Jude 1:14-15

quote:

---

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying , Behold , the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed , and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

---

Enoch 1:9

quote:

---

9. And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of ⌈His⌉ holy ones
To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy ⌈all⌉ the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works ⌈of their ungodliness⌉ which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners ⌈have spoken⌉ against Him.

---

I'd suggest that Jude was quoting from Enoch and not merely citing a common theme. The other Biblical verses you cite don't contain anything resembling the wording used in Enoch and Jude. I've used your main source below:Deuteronomy 33:2

quote:

---

And he said , The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.

---

Wow. No resemblance at all. Authorship and inspiration are not the same thing. And your evidence of claims of authorship is sorely lacking.Yes, there are quotes written in the first person, but that's a far cry from saying that God wrote the quotes or the description of events surrounding the quotes. You'll find far more references to God in third person than first person. Seriously? This is the type of claim of inspiration that makes you believe that every word of the book of Esther is dictated by God?

I'm a bit puzzled, and perhaps it is because I am not parsing your sentence above properly.You seem to be using the term "Protestant" to refer to a class of worshippers that excludes Lutherans. Such a usage would be ... non-standard, and it should not be too terribly surprising if someone did not pick up on that usage without some help. Edited by NoNukes, : Bad use of the word "to". I'm glad I didn't do any grammar flames in my post.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Here is your original statement My point is that your surprise when somebody does not know that Protestant in the statement above does not include Lutherans is misplaced. The above statement looks to me like an inside joke between Catholics. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

What would be the original version of the Bible? Although individual chapters may be old, the Bible as a collection is not as old as some of those Books. I suspect that some parts of the Bible, for example, the letters attributed to Paul, are likely to be accurate renditions of the originals.But for other books of the Bible, it may be difficult to define what would constitute an original version. For example, Genesis describes events are alleged to have happened long before anyone wrote them down. Whoever wrote down the version from whom the Book of Genesis descends does not claim to have interviewed any eyewitnesses. So is the original version related to the oral tradition, or to one particular account put into writing? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

The Bible deifying can find a tough spot here. Paul's testimony is that of a human with human frailty and human subjection to error. His recollection, by his own admission, falters. Yet somehow Paul's writings, with all of their errors are the words of God himself. Well, at least if we let you tell it.Was Paul given his commission and direction on the road to Damascus, or not until he reached the city? Did the people with him on the road hear Jesus, or did they see the light and hear nothing? Is there one great commandment or two? Is Paul actually your Father in Christ through the Gospel or is there only one Father?In the past, you have argued that such discrepancies are evidence that the Bible accounts are correct. Yes, real people telling stories get some details wrong. But if we grant that, we have to grant that Paul's testimonies are that of a human being doing his mortal best to understand and follow Jesus. Paul gets so much right, but he is not Jesus and the text reflects that in a number of places.You and Davidjay may represent the extremes of opinion held by Christians on this topic. Most likely neither of you are correct. If, in fact, there are places were the words of Jesus differ from what Paul says about something important, the resolution should be an easy one for most Christians. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

And yet they do not always agree. I don't have any issue with your answer, but nothing you say even challenges what I posted.

Lol! Why are you posting responses just to tell me that you are not interested in my opinion?

Sigh. There are even contradictions between Paul and Paul. Yes, I understand that my message from yesterday is too much effort for you to look at again, so let's just go with you being uninterested in my opinion and leave the record as it stands.

Beyond that, the question is extremely Christianity centric. The Hebrew Canon includes the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, which collective match most of, but not all of the Old Testament in the Protestant canon.