Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

+ Reply to Thread
Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3910111213
Results 121 to 129 of 129
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    747
    Yes, I their order is:

    1 Gen
    2 Exo
    3 Lev
    4 Num
    5 Deu
    6 Jos
    7 Jdg
    7 Sam
    8 Kgs
    9 Isa
    10 Jer
    11 Eze
    12 Hos-Mal
    13 Chr
    14 Psa
    15 Job
    16 Pro
    17 Rut
    18 Sos
    19 Ec
    20 Lam
    21 Est
    22 Dan
    23 Ezr-Neh

    As to why Chronicles would have been separated, while Sam and Kings would be counted as one book, I do not know.
    Last edited by gregoryfl; 02-15-2010 at 06:00 AM.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,551
    Quote Originally Posted by gregoryfl View Post
    Yes, I their order is:

    1 Gen
    2 Exo
    3 Lev
    4 Num
    5 Deu
    6 Jos
    7 Jdg
    7 Sam
    8 Kgs
    9 Isa
    10 Jer
    11 Eze
    12 Hos-Mal
    13 Chr
    14 Psa
    15 Job
    16 Pro
    17 Rut
    18 Sos
    19 Ec
    20 Lam
    21 Est
    22 Dan
    23 Ezr-Neh

    As to why Chronicles would have been separated, while Sam and Kings would be counted as one book, I do not know.
    So why do you think the modern Jewish order of the Tanakh is correct? The Jews gave us two primary patterns, both with minor variations. Namely, the order of the LXX and the order of the modern Tanakh. The LXX order is vastly superior on a number of counts. Consider the Kethuvim. It is a miscellaneous collection of history, poetry, and prophecy. It looks like a snapshot from a time before the books were properly ordered as they are in the LXX (with the various books placed in their proper categories).
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    747
    When did I say that I believed it was correct? I was merely sharing why I believe they grouped certain books together as they did, that's all.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,551
    Quote Originally Posted by gregoryfl View Post
    When did I say that I believed it was correct? I was merely sharing why I believe they grouped certain books together as they did, that's all.
    Ah ... that makes perfect sense.

    But that leads to another question - why do you think that is the pattern that they were using to try to fit the books into a pattern of 22? I agree completely that they joined Judges and Ruth and Jeremiah with Lamentations because there are records of that. So I would guess that the original attempt was something like this, which is the same as your first example except that I separate Samuel and Kings and unite 1 & 2 Chronicles:

    1 Gen
    2 Exo
    3 Lev
    4 Num
    5 Deu
    6 Jos
    7 Jdg/Rth
    8 1,2Sa
    9 1,2Ki
    10 Isa
    11 Jer/Lam
    12 Eze
    13 Hos-Mal
    14 Psa
    15 Pro
    16 Job
    17 Sos
    18 Ecc
    19 Est
    20 Dan
    21 Ez/Neh
    22 1Ch,2Ch
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Ah ... that makes perfect sense.

    But that leads to another question - why do you think that is the pattern that they were using to try to fit the books into a pattern of 22? I agree completely that they joined Judges and Ruth and Jeremiah with Lamentations because there are records of that. So I would guess that the original attempt was something like this, which is the same as your first example except that I separate Samuel and Kings and unite 1 & 2 Chronicles:

    1 Gen
    2 Exo
    3 Lev
    4 Num
    5 Deu
    6 Jos
    7 Jdg/Rth
    8 1,2Sa
    9 1,2Ki
    10 Isa
    11 Jer/Lam
    12 Eze
    13 Hos-Mal
    14 Psa
    15 Pro
    16 Job
    17 Sos
    18 Ecc
    19 Est
    20 Dan
    21 Ez/Neh
    22 1Ch,2Ch
    It appears as though they were linking the completed scriptures with the 22 letters of their alephbet. The only different I would make is that there is manuscript evidence that the LXX arranged 1,2 Samuel and 1,2 Kings as one book in 4 parts, only later in history split into 4 separate books. Is there any known manuscript evidence that 1,2 Chronicles was ever composed as 1 book?

    Ron

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,551
    Quote Originally Posted by gregoryfl View Post
    It appears as though they were linking the completed scriptures with the 22 letters of their alephbet. The only different I would make is that there is manuscript evidence that the LXX arranged 1,2 Samuel and 1,2 Kings as one book in 4 parts, only later in history split into 4 separate books. Is there any known manuscript evidence that 1,2 Chronicles was ever composed as 1 book?

    Ron
    Yes, I believe it is quite evident that they were attempting to force an alphabetic correlation. We have many witnesses from the early church that confirm the correlation between the books and the 22 letters.

    I'm not sure that I would agree that "the LXX arranged 1,2 Samuel and 1,2 Kings as one book in 4 parts, only later in history split into 4 separate books." How would we distinguish between those two possibilities? It seems to me that all we know is that the LXX contained four books with numbered names 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 3 Kings, 4 Kings. How could we know whether they were thought of as "one book in four parts" or simply "four books with a continuous theme concerning the Kings?"

    I briefly scanned my resources (a rather large collection of exhaustive scholastic works on the canon) but have not been able to find a discussion of whether Chronicles was originally a single work. I'll report back if I find something.

    Also, have you considered the absurd anachronism of placing Chronicles after Ezra/Nehemiah? It seems to me that the Jewish canon is defective relative to the Christian OT in every way.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #127
    Unregistered Guest

    Opinion of this thread

    While I am not formally educated in the history of the church or the canon, I do have undergraduate degree in Science from the United States Military Academy and an MBA from University of Texas at Austin. I believe that my education has given me the capacity to think critically. I have reviewed a great deal of this thread. It is my opinion that Dr Martin and his "Restoring the Original Bible" are unfairly and inappropriately characterized by RAM in his review and in this thread. It is my opinion that RAM's responses to "student's" posts were, overall, unnecessarily argumentative and, in the final analysis, unconvincing. RAM's posts have not changed my opinion of Dr. Martin or his works one iota. I highly recommend Dr. Martin's book "Restoring the Original Bible" for those interested in the biblical canon.

    God bless,

    Joe Elledge

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    While I am not formally educated in the history of the church or the canon, I do have undergraduate degree in Science from the United States Military Academy and an MBA from University of Texas at Austin. I believe that my education has given me the capacity to think critically. I have reviewed a great deal of this thread. It is my opinion that Dr Martin and his "Restoring the Original Bible" are unfairly and inappropriately characterized by RAM in his review and in this thread. It is my opinion that RAM's responses to "student's" posts were, overall, unnecessarily argumentative and, in the final analysis, unconvincing. RAM's posts have not changed my opinion of Dr. Martin or his works one iota. I highly recommend Dr. Martin's book "Restoring the Original Bible" for those interested in the biblical canon.

    God bless,

    Joe Elledge
    Well Joe Elledge (unregistered) you nailed it.

    David

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,551
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Well Joe Elledge (unregistered) you nailed it.

    David
    Ha! That's hilariously revealing David. You are so biased you failed to note that Joe didn't make one criticism with any substance. It was all empty rhetoric. In what way did I "unfairly and inappropriately characterize" Martin's work? He didn't say. Which posts were "unnecessarily argumentative? He didn't say. And where is the "analysis" that led to his conclusion? Silence.

    Did he even mention, let alone refute, a word of what I have written? Nope.

    And yet you, David M, declare that he "nailed it." Very revealing indeed.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •