Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[Lon]

Interesting. It sounds like people are learning.

:nono: There is no need for such drivel as apologizing for being a Christian and embracing the whole Bible. Jews are well aware of a Christian's heritage. As a believer, I cannot apologize for appropriating scripture, they belong to the gentile as well. The reason we call them 'Old Testament' is because it is under the Law. Jesus fulfilled the law and introduced grace Ephesians 2:8,9

This is the Christian position. Anything else, isn't Christian, frankly, so realize you have a few nonChristians talking to you in thread and consider the source. Oh, these will argue, I'm sure, that they are Christians, but anyone 'apologizing' cannot be a Christian. He/she needs to read the bible a few more times. They are clueless and apologizing for the Lord Jesus Christ. Both the Tanakh and N.T belong to Jesus. -Lon

 

[Jacob]

:nono: There is no need for such drivel as apologizing for being a Christian and embracing the whole Bible. Jews are well aware of a Christian's heritage. As a believer, I cannot apologize for appropriating scripture, they belong to the gentile as well. The reason we call them 'Old Testament' is because it is under the Law. Jesus fulfilled the law and introduced grace Ephesians 2:8,9

This is the Christian position. Anything else, isn't Christian, frankly, so realize you have a few nonChristians talking to you in thread and consider the source. Oh, these will argue, I'm sure, that they are Christians, but anyone 'apologizing' cannot be a Christian. He/she needs to read the bible a few more times. They are clueless and apologizing for the Lord Jesus Christ. Both the Tanakh and N.T belong to Jesus. -Lon

Excellent.

Do you say the Old Testament is the Torah, the TaNaK, or the 39 books from Genesis to Malachi?

I accept the TaNaK and Matthew through Revelation as a Jew.

 

[TestedandTried]

Shalom.

I am a Jew, Jewish. But I used to be a Christian. I considered the Bible to be Scripture.

I accept the TaNaK and Matthew through Revelation. I still have questions about what Scripture is, even accepting all of these. So your definition or accepting this is not wrong. Meaning, I understand that.

The TaNaK is the Torah (the Law, Torah means Instruction Teaching Direction and Law) the Nevi'im (the Prophets) and the Ketuvim (the Writings).

I have questions about if the Torah or the TaNaK is the Old Covenant or Scripture. Is the Torah the Old Covenant? Is the Torah Scripture? This is different from the Christian or the Christian Bible's Old Covenant or Old Testament.

What is the reading of the Old Covenant?

When was the TaNaK accepted as and called Scripture? This is not the same as discussing what is the Biblical or Christian Canon.

Also, what is the Jewish Bible and what is the Hebrew Bible?

The Law and the Prophets or the Law the Prophets and the Writings. How do we think about these?

How do we think about the Torah, the Law?

What is the Old Covenant and the New Covenant different from Scripture as Scripture is not the Old Covenant or the New Covenant? The covenants are found in Scripture, but they are not the Scriptures themselves. But then what is the reading of the Old Covenant?

The New Covenant is for the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It is God's law written on minds and hearts. It came in Christ Jesus, Yeshua HaMashiach, Jesus the Christ, Jesus the Messiah, Jesus Messiah. But this is different from the subject of this thread though related for clarification and because it may edify you based on your answer.

Shalom.

Jacob

Hello Again, I'm going further.
Since you accept most of the Christian Bible...though not all...you must be a Messianic Jew...am I correct?

This is from your post...
What is the Old Covenant and the New Covenant different from Scripture as Scripture is not the Old Covenant or the New Covenant? The covenants are found in Scripture, but they are not the Scriptures themselves. But then what is the reading of the Old Covenant?

I beg to differ with you on that first sentence. Scripture is both the Old and New Covenant.
Hebrew 8:6-8:
But now, Jesus has obtained a ministry that is as much superior as the covenant that he mediates is better, because it has been established on the basis of better promises. 7 Indeed, if that first covenant were without fault, there would have been no reason to look for a second. 8 But because God found fault with the people...
Hebrew 8:13:
When God said “new,” he made the first covenant obsolete, and something that is obsolete and growing old is going to disappear. --EHV
So the Old Covenant, written code the Jews lived under before Christ, God found fault with. Christ ushered in a New Covenant...this is prophesied in the Old Testament/Covenant btw
Jeremiah 31:29-30:
“In those days people will no longer say,
‘The parents have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’
30 Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge. --NIV

So this is just a morsel of prophecy of the changes Messiah would bring.

Here we see that the Covenants are part and parcel of the Scriptures below...and many other places...
Luke 24:26-27:
Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
Luke 24:44-45: --NIV
44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. --NIV

You see imbedded in these verses just what Scripture had consisted of.

I'll do a final analysis a bit later...once again.
Build faith in God...the True Israel/True Jew post Christ is a true believer. This is the position I come from. All Israel is not Israel...they are no longer a nationality. A jew is circumcised in the heart and lives for Christ as the Spirit moves him and enables him.

 

[Jacob]

Hello Again, I'm going further.
Since you accept most of the Christian Bible...though not all...you must be a Messianic Jew...am I correct?

This is from your post...
What is the Old Covenant and the New Covenant different from Scripture as Scripture is not the Old Covenant or the New Covenant? The covenants are found in Scripture, but they are not the Scriptures themselves. But then what is the reading of the Old Covenant?

I beg to differ with you on that first sentence. Scripture is both the Old and New Covenant.
Hebrew 8:6-8:
But now, Jesus has obtained a ministry that is as much superior as the covenant that he mediates is better, because it has been established on the basis of better promises. 7 Indeed, if that first covenant were without fault, there would have been no reason to look for a second. 8 But because God found fault with the people...
Hebrew 8:13:
When God said “new,” he made the first covenant obsolete, and something that is obsolete and growing old is going to disappear. --EHV
So the Old Covenant, written code the Jews lived under before Christ, God found fault with. Christ ushered in a New Covenant...this is prophesied in the Old Testament/Covenant btw
Jeremiah 31:29-30:
“In those days people will no longer say,
‘The parents have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’
30 Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge. --NIV

So this is just a morsel of prophecy of the changes Messiah would bring.

Here we see that the Covenants are part and parcel of the Scriptures below...and many other places...
Luke 24:26-27:
Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
Luke 24:44-45: --NIV
44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. --NIV

You see imbedded in these verses just what Scripture had consisted of.

I'll do a final analysis a bit later...once again.
Build faith in God...the True Israel/True Jew post Christ is a true believer. This is the position I come from. All Israel is not Israel...they are no longer a nationality. A jew is circumcised in the heart and lives for Christ as the Spirit moves him and enables him.

I disagree with you.

I am not a Messianic Jew. I do know what a Messianic Jew is. I do not agree with all of Messianic doctrine.

I am a Jew. I accept the TaNaK and Matthew through Revelation. I accept Yeshua as the Messiah.

 

[TestedandTried]

I disagree with you.

I am not a Messianic Jew. I do know what a Messianic Jew is. I do not agree with all of Messianic doctrine.

I am a Jew. I accept the TaNaK and Matthew through Revelation. I accept Yeshua as the Messiah.

Where do our major disagreements lie regarding the Covenants as Scripture (I provided proofs quoting Scripture which you say you accept.)?

 

[Jacob]

Where do our major disagreements lie regarding the Covenants as Scripture (I provided proofs quoting Scripture which you say you accept.)?

The TaNaK is not the Old Covenant. Unless it was the TaNaK that is the Old Covenant. Is the Torah the Old Covenant? In the Torah we read about the Old Covenant.

The New Covenant is for the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It is God's law written on minds and hearts. It is in Jesus Christ who died on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins.

We are commanded to circumcise our hearts. Israel and the Jews still exist. This is not the New Covenant.

 

[2003cobra]

Yep, and here :Rev 22:18
　 For I testify together to everyone who hears the Words of the prophecy of this Book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add on him the plagues that have been written in this Book.　

Rev 22:19

　 And if anyone takes away from the Words of the Book of this prophecy, God will take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which have been written in this Book.　

Some people are interested in their thoughts, not scriptures :Z

Certainly that passage only refers to the prophecies in the book of Revelation.

Anyone who
1) takes it as applying to the entire canon and
2) who uses a 66-book canon which has many books removed from the canon found in the 1611 KJV and earlier versions
has a serious problem. The 66-book canon has many books removed.

Here is the canon listed in 397:
It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, 3 two books of Paraleipomena, 4 Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, 5 the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, 6 two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

 

[2003cobra]

Cobra, in an attempt to get past your attempts at pointing out error, which are erroneous, let us ask, what would be the repercussions from an errant text vs an inerrant text?

They were more than attempts. No one will even try to explain Matthew’s error in saying all the generations from David to the deportation were 14, when there were actually 18.

The repercussions are really from a text with minor, insignificant errors being presented as having absolutely no errors. When a believer honestly studies the scriptures and finds minor errors, there is the potential for them to fall away from the faith. The teachers of inerrancy are placing a stumblingblock in the path of believers.

Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary said it well:
What I tell my students every year is that it is imperative that they pursue truth rather than protect their presuppositions. And they need to have a doctrinal taxonomy that distinguishes core beliefs from peripheral beliefs. When they place more peripheral doctrines such as inerrancy and verbal inspiration at the core, then when belief in these doctrines start to erode, it creates a domino effect: One falls down, they all fall down. It strikes me that something like this may be what happened to Bart Ehrman. His testimony in Misquoting Jesus discussed inerrancy as the prime mover in his studies. But when a glib comment from one of his conservative professors at Princeton was scribbled on a term paper, to the effect that perhaps the Bible is not inerrant, Ehrman’s faith began to crumble. One domino crashed into another until eventually he became ‘a fairly happy agnostic.’ I may be wrong about Ehrman’s own spiritual journey, but I have known too many students who have gone in that direction. The irony is that those who frontload their critical investigation of the text of the Bible with bibliological presuppositions often speak of a ‘slippery slope’ on which all theological convictions are tied to inerrancy. Their view is that if inerrancy goes, everything else begins to erode. I would say that if inerrancy is elevated to the status of a prime doctrine, that’s when one gets on a slippery slope. But if a student views doctrines as concentric circles, with the cardinal doctrines occupying the center, then if the more peripheral doctrines are challenged, this does not have an effect on the core.

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.ca/2006/03/interview-with-dan-wallace.html

 

[2003cobra]

I apologize for not reading your personal info before posting...so you consider yourself Jewish now, once having been a Christian.
My answer remains unchanged, but we can say that the Scriptures are inspired. The books of the prophets themselves testify to this, words to the effect: write this down as commanded by the Lord, are in those texts. The N.T. reinforces this in very clear language so that we know this is how those books were accepted. See II Peter 1:19-21:
We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
I will address some of your other queries/points by separate post a little later.

That passage is about prophecies of scripture and specifically about spoken prophecies by prophets of old.

It makes no comment on the New Testament in its entirety.

 

[TestedandTried]

I disagree with you.

I am not a Messianic Jew. I do know what a Messianic Jew is. I do not agree with all of Messianic doctrine.

I am a Jew. I accept the TaNaK and Matthew through Revelation. I accept Yeshua as the Messiah.

Continuing here...
I conclude that perhaps you wish to be a true Jew...a Revelation 2:9 Jew; that is to say a True Believer. Probably not, but your positions perplex me. You say you were a Christian and became a Jew...a Christian no longer. However, you do not know your belief systems, you cannot possibly, for you do not know which or what is God's Word. BIG problem! (Romans 10:17: Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.) You do not realize it my friend, but you are being wreckless. Go with the Scriptures and follow Christ through love and the help of the Holy Spirit and do not lean on your own understanding.

 

[TestedandTried]

That passage is about prophecies of scripture and specifically about spoken prophecies by prophets of old.

It makes no comment on the New Testament in its entirety.

Jason's question was not only about NT it was also about what to think of OT and that is what I am addressing here.
As for your "spoken prophecies...you are sadly mistaken by reading into Scripture.

 

[Jacob]

Continuing here...
I conclude that perhaps you wish to be a true Jew...a Revelation 2:9 Jew; that is to say a True Believer. Probably not, but your positions perplex me. You say you were a Christian and became a Jew...a Christian no longer. However, you do not know your belief systems, you cannot possibly, for you do not know which or what is God's Word. BIG problem! (Romans 10:17: Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.) You do not realize it my friend, but you are being wreckless. Go with the Scriptures and follow Christ through love and the help of the Holy Spirit and do not lean on your own understanding.

The Torah is the Word of God. The TaNaK is the Word of God. The Bible is the Word of God.

I read, study, observe, keep, and teach the Torah.

Yes, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

I am a Jew, of Israel. A proselyte and a convert to Israel and Judaism.

I do not know what you mean by calling me a Jew who is not a Jew, or a person who says they are a Jew when they are not.

Jesus instructed that we keep and teach the Commandments, and that is what I do.

Please tell me what you mean or how you perceive me as being reckless. That is not a goal of mine nor is it an approved action.

Shalom.

Jacob

 

[TestedandTried]

The Torah is the Word of God. The TaNaK is the Word of God. The Bible is the Word of God.

I read, study, observe, keep, and teach the Torah.

Yes, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

I am a Jew, of Israel. A proselyte and a convert to Israel and Judaism.

I do not know what you mean by calling me a Jew who is not a Jew, or a person who says they are a Jew when they are not.

Jesus instructed that we keep and teach the Commandments, and that is what I do.

Please tell me what you mean or how you perceive me as being reckless. That is not a goal of mine nor is it an approved action.

Shalom.

Jacob

Without going back to re-read the post I initially responded to I recollect that you are uncertain as to what is inspired. If one does not believe Scripture (and I'll only deal with Scripture here b/c I am a Christian [though I am aware of TaNka and and Torah and know what they are yet I've never read them]) to be inspired then how can you in good conscience follow them or call them the Word of God. That is a big contradiction you must see, that is, calling something uninspired the Word of God. We call Scripture the Word of God b/c that is what it is...the true Words of our Creator written by men whom He inspired as the Peter passage I quoted you states.
Wreckless?? yes. You don't switch away from a faith without having sorted out the inspiration issue. (And that comes only by faith...faith that we can take Christ at His Word and then we from reading His Word discover that it is miraculous and is indeed God's Word. Before this step how can you decide to switch religions?
More on the covenants too, I hadn't seen your response to me at the time I sent you more posts...sorry.
May the Lord lead you on His path and may you follow...all of us really.

 

[2003cobra]

Jason's question was not only about NT it was also about what to think of OT and that is what I am addressing here.
As for your "spoken prophecies...you are sadly mistaken by reading into Scripture.

Have you read the passage?

2 Peter 1 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

It is clearly about prophecy of scripture.

It is clearly about their speaking when moved.

Pretending this is about the entire Bible is inconsistent with the text.

 

[TestedandTried]

Without going back to re-read the post I initially responded to I recollect that you are uncertain as to what is inspired. If one does not believe Scripture (and I'll only deal with Scripture here b/c I am a Christian [though I am aware of TaNka and and Torah and know what they are yet I've never read them]) to be inspired then how can you in good conscience follow them or call them the Word of God. That is a big contradiction you must see, that is, calling something uninspired the Word of God. We call Scripture the Word of God b/c that is what it is...the true Words of our Creator written by men whom He inspired as the Peter passage I quoted you states.
Wreckless?? yes. You don't switch away from a faith without having sorted out the inspiration issue. (And that comes only by faith...faith that we can take Christ at His Word and then we from reading His Word discover that it is miraculous and is indeed God's Word. Before this step how can you decide to switch religions?
More on the covenants too, I hadn't seen your response to me at the time I sent you more posts...sorry.
May the Lord lead you on His path and may you follow...all of us really.

Jason,
You said this in your post above:
I do not know what you mean by calling me a Jew who is not a Jew, or a person who says they are a Jew when they are not.
I did not call you a Jew who is not a Jew...you are looking at the passage and neglecting to look at my statement which was something like the following: guessing you are a True Jew?true believer as mentioned in the Revelation passage. My meaning was simply that you were taking up the name of Jew in the sense that you believed yourself a true Jew/true believer and I cited Revelation to show you where my idea originated.

Wanted to clear this up; more later I hope...busy season.

 

[TestedandTried]

Have you read the passage?

2 Peter 1 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

It is clearly about prophecy of scripture.

It is clearly about their speaking when moved.

Pretending this is about the entire Bible is inconsistent with the text.

Yes, I have read the passage...do you not see that these things were all written down as commanded by God Himself?

Here's another passage to round out the discussion point:
Romans 15:4:
4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.

Here are some examples of God commanding to record His Words: Exodus 17:14; Isaiah 8:1; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 36:2; Jeremiah 36:28; Revelation 1:11

 

[Jacob]

Without going back to re-read the post I initially responded to I recollect that you are uncertain as to what is inspired. If one does not believe Scripture (and I'll only deal with Scripture here b/c I am a Christian [though I am aware of TaNka and and Torah and know what they are yet I've never read them]) to be inspired then how can you in good conscience follow them or call them the Word of God. That is a big contradiction you must see, that is, calling something uninspired the Word of God. We call Scripture the Word of God b/c that is what it is...the true Words of our Creator written by men whom He inspired as the Peter passage I quoted you states.
Wreckless?? yes. You don't switch away from a faith without having sorted out the inspiration issue. (And that comes only by faith...faith that we can take Christ at His Word and then we from reading His Word discover that it is miraculous and is indeed God's Word. Before this step how can you decide to switch religions?
More on the covenants too, I hadn't seen your response to me at the time I sent you more posts...sorry.
May the Lord lead you on His path and may you follow...all of us really.

I do not know what you mean by switching religions or believing that Scripture is uninspired. Neither of these describe me. I believe that Scripture is inspired. I accept the TaNaK. I also accept Matthew through Revelation. It is what we call Scripture and how we speak of it that concerns me. If we start with the Torah, the Torah is Scripture. But this is in a how I think of Scripture sort of way. As for religions, no... I simply began following all of God's Commandments rather than only some of them as a Christian. And I do not accept or see the doctrine of the Trinity in Scripture, the Bible. So then I was not a Christian. But I am a Jew. Jesus was a Jew. Some people call me a Christian. I do not know that I call myself a Christian or that I ever will. Who knows? I don't. Right now I am content being a Jew.

Shalom.

Jacob

 

[Jacob]

Jason,
You said this in your post above:
I do not know what you mean by calling me a Jew who is not a Jew, or a person who says they are a Jew when they are not.
I did not call you a Jew who is not a Jew...you are looking at the passage and neglecting to look at my statement which was something like the following: guessing you are a True Jew?true believer as mentioned in the Revelation passage. My meaning was simply that you were taking up the name of Jew in the sense that you believed yourself a true Jew/true believer and I cited Revelation to show you where my idea originated.

Wanted to clear this up; more later I hope...busy season.

I do not know about how you are understanding things. It seems off-base. I am a Jew. My name is Jacob. You may have my name wrong if you are thinking that it is Jason.

 

[2003cobra]

Yes, I have read the passage...do you not see that these things were all written down as commanded by God Himself?

Here's another passage to round out the discussion point:
Romans 15:4:
4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.

Here are some examples of God commanding to record His Words: Exodus 17:14; Isaiah 8:1; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 36:2; Jeremiah 36:28; Revelation 1:11

I put some words in bold from your post.

Please quote scripture that supports that the entire Bible was all written down as commanded by God Himself.

And clarify that you mean whether
1) God specified everything in the entire Bible was to be written word for word or
2) God specified that the writers were to write and the writers chose the words and may have made some minor mistakes.

Remember, pretending the words “Word of God” means “Bible in its entirety” is not a teaching of scripture.

I will note that Luke disagrees with your view:
Luke 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Luke claims he decided to write, not that he was commanded by God.

 

[Lon]

2 Peter 1 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

It is clearly about prophecy of scripture.

So you believe some scriptures are inerrant. How could it be a false doctrine then? :idunno:

They were more than attempts. No one will even try to explain Matthew’s error in saying all the generations from David to the deportation were 14, when there were actually 18.

The repercussions are really from a text with minor, insignificant errors being presented as having absolutely no errors. When a believer honestly studies the scriptures and finds minor errors, there is the potential for them to fall away from the faith. The teachers of inerrancy are placing a stumblingblock in the path of believers.

If they are that minute, what is the point of arguing about it on a forum? :idunno:

Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary said it well:

Spoiler

What I tell my students every year is that it is imperative that they pursue truth rather than protect their presuppositions. And they need to have a doctrinal taxonomy that distinguishes core beliefs from peripheral beliefs. When they place more peripheral doctrines such as inerrancy and verbal inspiration at the core, then when belief in these doctrines start to erode, it creates a domino effect: One falls down, they all fall down. It strikes me that something like this may be what happened to Bart Ehrman. His testimony in Misquoting Jesus discussed inerrancy as the prime mover in his studies. But when a glib comment from one of his conservative professors at Princeton was scribbled on a term paper, to the effect that perhaps the Bible is not inerrant, Ehrman’s faith began to crumble. One domino crashed into another until eventually he became ‘a fairly happy agnostic.’ I may be wrong about Ehrman’s own spiritual journey, but I have known too many students who have gone in that direction. The irony is that those who frontload their critical investigation of the text of the Bible with bibliological presuppositions often speak of a ‘slippery slope’ on which all theological convictions are tied to inerrancy. Their view is that if inerrancy goes, everything else begins to erode. I would say that if inerrancy is elevated to the status of a prime doctrine, that’s when one gets on a slippery slope. But if a student views doctrines as concentric circles, with the cardinal doctrines occupying the center, then if the more peripheral doctrines are challenged, this does not have an effect on the core.

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.ca/2006/03/interview-with-dan-wallace.html

If he 'said it well' then your main focus is that you are accepted among evangelicals? If you are so interested in being included with evangelicals, why would you pick fights? Why do YOU make it a big deal and contention? The only thing Dr. Wallace says, is that it isn't an issue to chuck you out of the faith and he was influenced by talking to his family and those like Bruce Metzger. IOW, he works a bit closer among these men and sees them as brothers, even if he sees them wrong. If you are so concerned with the inclusion, why come to TOL and start a fight???

Certainly that passage only refers to the prophecies in the book of Revelation.

Anyone who
1) takes it as applying to the entire canon and
2) who uses a 66-book canon which has many books removed from the canon found in the 1611 KJV and earlier versions
has a serious problem. The 66-book canon has many books removed.

Spoiler

Here is the canon listed in 397:
It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, 3 two books of Paraleipomena, 4 Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, 5 the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, 6 two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

Nope, not serious at all. All you are showing here, is that you are not familiar with the Protestant Reformation nor how 'we' collate our book based on inspiration. For instance, there is no mention of God in the Maccabees. Great history, but certainly not inspired for spiritual concerns. It simply informs of what happened with no mention of God's plan or work. Obviously we should read it. Obviously, it is not one of the books God guided men to write. Don't get caught in details, this is just an example to show what's and why's, not get into debate with you. We are completely at odds and disagreement and there is no point, the only thing I want to know are answers to the above and make a mention of your theology vs. mine here. Again, there is no point in arguing, we strongly disagree. I simply want to know why you find it necessary to come to an evangelical board to fight, then quote Wallace saying it isn't a big deal. It just doesn't add up. -Lon