Asia Leaving Paul

[OBW]

YP,

I originally started a longer post and decided to simply say that you have sufficiently clarified the things on which I had question.

That is except one. When someone suggests that there is something less than authentic about part of the scripture that we have accepted as the divinely inspired Word of God, we better be sure about it. In any case, my initial reaction to words that were not in use until 200 years later is to consider what older writings were “updated” just like we update our translations today. I can hear the arguments about not finding copies with alternate wordings. But I thought there were some alternate wordings in many of the various manuscripts ─ but all with a consistent meaning. As an interesting note, I have recently learned that the earliest copies of Ephesians does not mention the Ephesians. It is surmised that it was written to all in the region around Ephesus and later on “in Ephesus” was added by a transcriber since that was the primary city in the region. It has no bearing on its authenticity.

When I made reference to joining Lee, it was about finding fault with the 66 books and diminishing, or excluding one of them, or parts of them. If we decide to parse which are truly inspired and which are not, how do we decide? It took a lot of divine inspiration for the group that made the decision hundreds of years ago when their understanding of the sources and issues was at least a little fresher. How do we propose to make those decisions again today (or more rightly, second-guess them)?