thomas malloy wrote:
either the Bible is what it claims to be, or it isn't. What it claims is that a Holy G-d set it up.
Ah, an interesting assertion: the Bible is what _it_ (the Bible) claims to be.
Where, Thomas, does the Bible say that the Bible itself (the _whole_ Bible) is the word of God?
Where, Thomas, does it say, in the Bible, in the holy writings of God, exactly which _books_ should be in the Bible and which should not? This was the topic of some heated discussions a few centuries back. Perhaps you have a definitive answer, attained by some direct means, rather than one arrived at by a committee? Surely if the Bible claims that God "set it up" then it must say what "it" is, somewhere, must it not?
Where, in the Bible, does it say that the original manuscripts, all copies, and all translations of those 66 books are, and shall always be, error-free? Please name the passage, because I am not familiar with it.
Hmmm -- I notice that the Douay bible seems to include some books that the KJV does not. Interesting. One of them must be ... wrong, eh? I wonder which?
Where does the Bible say that, for instance, Maccabees, Tobit, the Prayer of Mannassah, and Enoch should not be part of the canon, but the Revelation of John, the letter of Jude, the book of Proverbs, and the Song of Songs _should_ be?
Are you familiar with the term "antilegomena"? The very existence of such a word would seem to have some implications regarding the precision with which we know what should and shouldn't be in the Bible.
For that matter, regarding the OT, what do you believe _is_ the correct source of the old testament Bible? The Masoretic Text, or the Septuagint? And why do you choose the one you do? (They're not identical, so if the Bible is exactly correct it can't be properly represented by _both_ of them -- you must pick one.)
