Yuyutsu,

<<By definition ALL Scripture is God-breathed, yet the question remains, which books/scrolls/chapters/verses are scripture and which aren't>>

Don't you know the meaning of ALL?

As for which MSS are Scripture, bibliology and textual criticism examine that dimension. The topic of this thread is, 'The origin of facts'.

<<There's still one possibility, which we cannot prove or disprove, that some God-breathed scripture is non-factual (such as the book of Job which according to Jewish tradition was written by Moses as fiction) or even factually-incorrect>>

You provided not one reference or link to demonstrate your point. That is your opinion when you do this.

The OT canon of Scripture was decided before the Council of Jamnia in AD 90. This Council confirmed what had been accepted by the Jews for a long time. Josephus had the same list of book as the Council of Jamnia. His 22 books are our 39 books.

It is difficult to provide an exact date when the Hebrew canon of Scripture was finalised. It probably reached its final form between 400-300 BC. However, conservatively speaking it was completed by 200 BC.

This we do know: The Jews rejected the Apocrypha. See: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3671027/jewish/What-Is-the-Jewish-Approach-to-the-Apocrypha.htm

Now let's get back on track. Sells wrote:

<<A good friend of mine once wrote: "It is of first importance to grasp that 'facts', like wigs and snuff boxes, were the invention of the eighteenth century." He meant by this that "facts" only took on importance after the work of the English empiricists>> of 17th century.

I find it impossible to accept that facts, like wigs, were invented as a result English empiricism.

Surely the mountains, valleys, rivers, streams and deserts were facts that existed from the beginning of time.

Is it a fact that the the Eastern and Western churches split in the Great Schism of 1054? The Eastern church became the Greek Orthodox Church when it broke all ties with the western Roman Catholic Church. Eastern Orthodox Church refused to acknowledge the pope as its head. Surely these are facts - long before the 17th century?

Yuyutsu,

<<First a few links: http://simania.co.il/bookdetails.php?item_id=1650
http://simania.co.il/bookdetails.php?item_id=690860>>

I find it offensive that in a post to Not_Now_Soon, on an English forum you provide links to two books in a foreign language.

Are you trying to exalt your superiority in doing this? Do you read the language of these two books?

Dear OzSpen,

Regarding the Jewish view that Job did not exist, but was written by Moses as a fictional fable:
«You provided not one reference or link to demonstrate your point.»

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_in_rabbinic_literature#Job's_life
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=2ahUKEwiy3bK1yYHhAhVYaCsKHdz0BBQQFjAMegQIFhAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.shulcloud.com%2F618%2Fuploads%2FPDFs%2FDivrei_Torah%2Fbehindthebible.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1oej6fx8JV1mo59tXenGZ7

Regarding the referenced books, I told Not_Now.Soon that the books I relied on to form my opinion on the OT are in Hebrew, yet he insisted that I provide him the references anyway, which I did. It is not surprising that these two books which I read were not translated into English because they rely heavily on the subtleties of the original text. Other books by the same authors were translated into English or German and the list is here: http://www.bookdepository.com/author/Yair-Zakovitch
Among these, the book "Jacob", http://www.amazon.com/Jacob-Unexpected-Patriarch-Jewish-Lives/dp/0300144261, has some overlapping materials with the two books I mentioned.

Regarding the origin of facts, nobody in their right mind is denying that facts existed long ago - the question is, when did humans started having the CONCEPT of "fact" and since when this concept became an important or dominant consideration in their decisions. Sellick claims that [in the West] this happened around the 17th century.

To OzSpen.

I asked Yuyutsu to reference the books. Don't take offense, he was only doing what I asked. I explained why earlier to Yuyutsu. Though the books being in Hebrew will deter a conclusion on the author, or the subject matter within the book, it is at least a chance to follow through on some of the points that Yuyutsu believes. As of now much of what he says remains like you've pointed out to be his opinion and his world view. If he can point to sources (when asked) that he stems these perspectives from it at least helps. Those sources might be Hindu articles, or they might be in a different language.

It would be easier to have reasons come from an English source and from a Christian or Jewish scholar when discussing points on Christianity. However this standard of removing one's own faith from their reasoning in a discussion is not a standard I am willing to commit to for myself for those who are atheist or of a different faith. Therefore it is not something I want to make the habit of asking others to do. That said, in an earlier discussion I have told Yuyutsu that I see biblical scripture as an authority, so if he wants to reason with me on the basis of scripture, then Hindu scripture won't be considered any more of an authority, then the opinions and findings of anyone else in the world. Yuyutsu knows where I stand on the matter.

To Yuyutsu.

You said earlier:

<<Fortunately it is possible to read/interpret the new-testament in ways that do not depend on Judaism. What's so great for a Christian bible-believer about the Jewish faith anyway? It prevents Jews from recognising Jesus!>>

I'm not sure you are aware, but there are many philosophies in Christianity that are either doctrine and theology oriented or otherwise views on the world and on behavior. Not all of these perspectives have a solid foundation in their beliefs. For instance, there are dissuasions, debates and different positions within Christianity on salvation, what it means to be saved, and if that can be lost. There are also debates on faith versus works, different interpretations of bible verses, and different stances on sin.

I bring this up because I want to highlight a conclusion that I've found while trying to grabble with a handful of these issues when I was younger and just accepted Christianity. The conclusion is that no matter the topic there's always someone with a counter point, counter argument, and a different position. In order to get through any of that you need to give yourself a good foundation to base your own thoughts on and to test the thoughts of others through. That way the unjustified positions aren't confused as much with the justified positions. Even if a person says they are an expert, and writes an article well having a good foundation is a good first step for filtering through the bs and sifting through what might be possible and reasonable.

(Continued)

(Continued)

For me my two foundations regarding Christian perspectives are what is in the bible, and what is experienced in a person's life. These two foundations should have the authority to correct a person's views and change their perspective. After that everything that isn't outright corrected from those two factors can be counted as a possibility, even if it isn't accepted or rejected.

As to the Jewish faith I would give the same filter as I give Christian perspectives. Test it against what is written in the bible, and what a person experiences in their life. Accepting the Old Testament is not accepting all Jewish disputes and discussions. Just as accepting the new Testament is not accepting all Christian disputes. (For instance I reject Peter's position on miracles completely. God does act in the world today so there's no reason to reject that He gave miracles through Jesus and the prophets as described in the bible). Regarding Christianity depending on Jewish faith, The foundation of the Jewish faith is through the scripture of the Old Testiment. That does not weaken a Christian foundation, but instead strengthens it. Because the Scriptures in the Old Testiment point towards Jesus.