Search results

What does Jerome say on the matter? Your claim concerned Jerome's text. Since Jerome wouldn't know what a Masoretic text was, your point is irrelevant.

I never claim they didn't. So once again you are arguing against something I never said therefore your point is again irrelevant. You made a claim concerning Jerome's text. In order to support your claim you need to provide objective evidence. Since you cannot support your claim with objective...

You made a claim concerning Jerome's text. In order to support your claim you need to provide objective evidence. Since you cannot support your claim with objective evidence, then there is no reason to believe your claim is true. What Origen believed proves nothing in regard to Jerome text.

You do so like to change the subject when you cannot provide any evidence for your claim. You made a claim concerning Jerome's text. In order to support your claim you need to provide objective evidence. Since you cannot support your claim with objective evidence, then there is no reason to...

Sorry, no. This comment only proves you have zero objective evidence for you claim. You made a claim concerning Jerome's text. In order to support your claim you need to provide objective evidence. Since you cannot support your claim with objective evidence, then there is no reason to believe...

In other words you have zero objective evidence.

I see you are backing off what you initially claimed in post 81. You originally said "according to Jerome." That means you don't have any primary sources to back up your claim. Now you say it "is in the pudding" but you want me to prove it for you. You tell me. You are making the claim and...

I never said a word about the Masoretic so your point is moot. You are glossing over the truth of the matter. See link. https://christianityhaven.com/threads/o-t-quotes-in-the-n-t.9970/ What? You need to try and understand my point and stop trying to twist my words into something I never...

Since we have no original Hebrew manuscripts your comment cannot be supported. It is not only pure speculation but disingenuous. And besides, all Septuagint manuscripts do not have exactly the same text. They have textual differences between them.

There isn't one. Just like there is NOT a council where ALL Christians declared those books to be Scripture. I have never suggested such a thing so your question is just silly.

Still no evidence to support your claim. John Wycliffe's (1328-1383) translation has the Apocrypha. Martin Luther's (1534) translation has the Apocrypha. The Coverdale Bible (1535) has the Apocrypha. The Matthews Bible (1537) has the Apocrypha. Taverner's Bible (1539) has the Apocrypha...

The historical evidence for the Decree of Gelasius does not support its authenticity. See link. What year was it when Protestants first started to remove books from the Holy Bible? Hippo and Carthage changed nothing. Long after those synods\councils many did not accept them as canonical.

The old bait and switch. That was not your original claim now was it? You ask "year was it when Protestants first started to remove books from the Holy Bible?" Again your claim was "Protestants first started to remove books from the Holy Bible." You originally said nothing about placing them...

I am not demanding anything. Either you have the sources\evidence or you don't. I already know the answer to that question. Got it. In other words you don't have any primary sources or manuscript evidence to support your claims. Again I demand nothing. Either you have the sources\evidence...

That source never claimed it was the first time. Again, the historical evidence for the Decree of Gelasius does not support its authenticity. Hippo and Carthage changed nothing. Long after those synods\councils (in fact right up to the time of Trent) many did not accept them as canonical...

I decided to help you out on this one and it was very easy to do. Here is a list of all the English translation from Wycliffe to the KJV and all of them have the Apocrypha. John Wycliffe's (1328-1383) translation has the Apocrypha. Martin Luther's (1534) translation has the Apocrypha. The...

That indeed is the question. Cite those church fathers who make that claim with primary sources. Provide manuscript evidence to support that claim. Cite those church fathers who make that claim with primary sources. Another claims for which you have zero evidence. As you pointed out "The...

Thank you.

The historical evidence for the Decree of Gelasius does not support its authenticity. However that does not mean the council itself was fictitious. I do. You just don't like the answers.

My original plan was to divide all the known canon lists into two groups, Greek and Latin sources given in chronological order. I then planned on listing the manuscript evidence from codices according to the date. However, since certain synods\councils have been citied in other threads, it...