The Case of the Missing Seven Books

[Blitz]

*Is to lazy do that* Actually more like in encyclopedias you find that they count them as less reliable.

[Eleventh Doctor]

In encyclopedias you find they count them as more reliable, there we go, just as much backing as your argument and so equally valid.

[Blitz]

I said less reliable in encyclopedias.

[Eleventh Doctor]

And I said more reliable, which of us is right? Who knows because you won't cite these encyclopedias. So as far as we know I'm actually right.

[Blitz]

World Encyclopedia, the one the kindles uses etc.

[Eleventh Doctor]

There is no Encyclopedia called "World Encyclopedia". Do you maybe mean World Book Encyclopedia by Encyclopedia Britannica? My Kindle has the New Oxford American Dictionary and the Oxford Dictionary of English, does your Kindle have an Encyclopedia?

[Blitz]

Well the New Oxford dictionary also double as an encyclopedia and World Book Encyclopedia is also called World.

[Pound Foolish]

So, maybe the Oxford Encyclopedia says some non-Christians consider the Protestant Bible more accurate. If so, that proves... what?

That non-Christians are eager to endorse the shorter version of a book they claim is largely false in the first place? Would you expect them to prefer the longer version? Given the choice between a longer Bible and a shorter, they would only naturally choose the shorter. Non-Christians, after all, by definition, disbelieve even in the Resurrection. They would like to dismiss nearly the entire Bible, or at the very least, all the miracles in it, as false.

[Doll]

That non-Christians are eager to endorse the shorter version of a book they claim is largely false in the first place? Would you expect them to prefer the longer version? Given the choice between a longer Bible and a shorter, they would only naturally choose the shorter.

I don't have anything to add to this debate, only that this quote made my day, and made me laugh. xD

[Eleventh Doctor]

The New Oxford Dictionary does indeed define the Bible as consisting of 66 books. The Oxford Dictionary of English however simply describes it as consisting of the Old and New Testament.

The New Oxford Dictionary defines the Septuagint as "a Greek version of the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament), including the Apocrypha, made for Greek speaking Jews in Egypt in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC and adopted by the early Christian Churches." So using your own source the Septuagint is actually the text used by the early Church.

[Blitz]

Oh and the Jews refuse to recognize more then 66 books. And at a time the Catholic Church, if I am right, only recognized 66.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Well first off the Jews never recognized 66 books because they don't recognize the New Testament but some sects of Judaism only recognized the five books of the Torah. Some like the Essenes, the sect that lived near the Dead Sea, recognized more than any other sects. The Septuagint, the text I use, was translated by Jews living abroad in Alexandria in 300 BC. It wasn't until the 2nd Century AD at the Council of Jamnia that the modern Jewish canon, shared by the Protestants, was finalized.

Do you have a source for the Catholic church argument?

[Blitz]

I said I think if I read an article awhile back correctly. Any way I don't really care about the books left out though if I get the chance I will read them to see.

[Pound Foolish]

A disgruntled debater mumbling after putting a long time towards the debate that he all of a sudden "doesn't care" about the subject. Well now, that's a surrender if I ever saw one. The Good Doctor wins, as usual, unless Blitz returns.

Now. So far, while Blitz claimed the Deuterocanonical books are invalid, nobody's actually proven that. In fact, nobody's even put forth any evidence.

The Deuterocanical books are perfectly inerrant. The fact is, you Protestants have an abridged Bible! Here you people are, with the Bible as your "only authority", and you only have two thirds of it.

Isn't that a bit of a problem?

[Blitz]

Oh did your forget Deuterocanical books are in the Old Testament. At least most I thk. And this is way away from the areas I know.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Actually Blitz the Protestant Old Testament is missing 1 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Children, Story of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, 1-4 Maccabees, and Psalm 151.

[Blitz]

Most of those are legends or are not found in all of the texts.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Can you explain what you mean by legends? And expand on your point they're not in most texts? The majority of Christians in the world have them in their texts.

[Blitz]

*coughs* Protestants make up a large majority, and we don't use them. The only half of the Christians that use it are the Catholics.
The Story of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon are both considered to be legends why the Jewish. And some of the others one but I don't remember which ones.

[Pound Foolish]

*coughs* Protestants make up a large majority, and we don't use them. The only.

Since Eleventh Doctor can easily handle this, I'll let him enjoy correcting you here. But I just couldn't refrain from saying this is highly amusing. Ah, the masterful art of self-delusion. Now, to be clear though Blitz, I am impressed that you are comfortable with debating at all. it seems many Protestants aren't.