Isaiah isn't called the "Gospel of the Old Testament" for no reason.
Isaiah as a mini bible
Eli Gray
Wyatt Cruz
interesting video overall. MacArthur is a powerful speaker. Guess that's the fruit of spending 24/7 studying God's word
That was interesting. I'd never heard that before. I'll have to research that.
OP can't inb4 or so I keep getting told no idea why
Ryan Thompson
...
Adam Myers
What if it was the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that divided the chapters in the first place? It makes your entire argument about "artificial" vs. "natural" chapters entirely moot. You sound like one of those "atheist Christians" that obsessively listens to Jordan Peterson while harbouring secret contempt for the Bible.
Charles Smith
So the writing and compilation of the holy scriptures really ended in the 16th century?
Whatever makes you happy, brother.
The scriptures being divided into chapters and verses is a 16th century thing and the scriptures are divided in a completely different way liturgically.
The division into chapters and verses is as "inspired" as the translators' preface and the index at the end. Useful for citations, but meaningless as to how the text is actually divided, or used liturgically. It's even detrimental in some cases - the epistle to the Romans greatly suffers when it is read chapter per chapter and not as a consistent whole.
It's always an interesting thing to observe when Protestants treat their Bible like a Qu'ran while still harboring contempt for Muslims.
Aiden Ortiz
So I'm curious, before the Mosaic covenant which Scripture did believers read? Adam and Eve didn't have the Bible, so what did they do? What about Job or Abraham?
I have contempt for Muslims and every non-believer because they hate God and refuse to accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Unfortunately, it seems you're the spiritually blind one making these autistic arguments about 16th-century this and that. Why is this so difficult for you?
Noah Sanchez
Answering a question with a question is very rude. Answer my question, and I will answer yours.
"A division between chapters and verses was made centuries upon centuries after the canon was recognized by the Church" is an autistic argument how? The earliest text was written by Moses. The latest text was written by John the Evangelist. Then it took 4-5 centuries for the canon to be recognized East and West, and the Church has used its scriptures as such for centuries up until now. Even though the division between chapters and verses is kept for convenience, it means nothing liturgically, where it is select passages that are read, sometimes crossing from one "chapter" to the next and sometimes putting together "verses" that aren't next to each other in the text.
So, now, answer my question. Do you believe the canon's development ended in the 16th century? Because that would be ironical, as Orthodox and Catholics are accused of developping the scriptures beyond what God intended too.
Andrew Martin
...
Nathaniel Collins
The Bible that we know of today is the Bible because it's the most prominent one. I'm sure the Holy Spirit has worked such that the Bible that we know of today is the proper canon, it's something called culture. Certain things in human history tend to be the way the they are because of history, due to cultural norms. I'm saying that you're autistic because you're obsessing over some historical footnote, honestly your layman Christian who truly believes in Jesus Christ doesn't care for the Roman Catholic vs. Eastern Orthodox division because they have the Word of God and we know it to be true. Just like Jesus Christ stood right in front of Pontius Pilate and Pilate asked Him what is Truth? We shouldn't be obsessing over which Bible canon is correct. Ultimately the question we need to ask ourselves is, what is Truth?
Anthony Cox
It's recognized as canonical and inspired because of its liturgical use, continuous use, and traditional transmission of the texts. The Church is not a democracy, what is and isn't inspired and true isn't a popularity contest.
Which Bible canon? Protestant? Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Ethiopian Orthodox?
Where is "culture" a word used to refer to matters of faith in the scriptures?
You have gone from calling my argument autistic (which is fine) to calling me, personally, an autist. That's a clear lack of charity on your part, and I don't say this to pretend I am better, but I'm not sure if you have realized that the moderators are strict on rule 2 around here. Tread carefully with those fighting words.
If you want to study the Bible, then study the Bible as it has been received by Christians historically. Christians historically have not considered the chapters & verses division to be an inspired and wholly integral part of the scriptures. The Reformers would have lost their marbles if you told them that.
Also, nice job putting a dead body in your post. A fraternal suggestion: remove this immediately, it will be a stumbling block for many who will see it and the mods will not take it lightly either.