The Bible and its Origins

Okay it's time once again for religion on the line. This is van hale your host and i welcome you to our program this evening and encourage you to join with us. As usual i do have a guest with me this evening as i have announced on several previous programs and that guest is james white who is up here for lds conference.

Uh... not as one of the general authorities or one of the bishop but uh... there's one of you. Just tell her uh... our listening audience who may not be familiar with you from uh... previous programs what you do with conference time.

Don't know if we have that amount i've been really uh... anymore uh... i have one full-time job in five part-time jobs these days. So uh... hit uh... that would be to be busy. I i remember the first time i came up here was on a different station i was going to be on and uh... the fellow uh... i picked up in provo was saying well we have a baptist minister from phoenix coming up to pass out tracks at the conference.

Tell us all we're going to hell. Let's give them a warm utah welcome. I almost turned around and went home right then. So but uh... this is actually our twenty-six consecutive uh... general conference uh... coming up and uh... worthy uh... worthy fairly well-dressed uh... quiet folks that's outside the gate and just uh... offer literature and witness to folks.

We are not the folks with the signs uh... we are not the folks dressed in the long robes walking around temple square seven times. They didn't show up yesterday either the uh... the weather even got rid of three me fight which was uh... pretty amazing.

But uh... we've we've come up here now for thirteen years and uh... and shared with folks. Obviously i'm not all the s on the reform baptist specifically and i'd like to help make ministries and uh... we do outreach to uh... mormons the easter pageant.

We're out there last uh... week four last down there. May sound like you caught that pageant down there but it's uh... very well attended down there and uh... that's just one of the many things we do really uh... uh... my work is in many other areas.

I teach for uh... two seminaries in a in a university uh... written nine books have another two or three coming out fairly soon and uh... only one of those books has been on mormonism. Actually so uh... the others have dealt with uh... the king james only controversy bible translation issues uh... critical insult on the new american standard bible uh... theological issues uh... working on a book in the trinity right now.

And in fact the next book coming out is on christians in grief uh... without a hospital chaplain for a number of years and a lot of uh... grief counseling. So uh... you could say i i i covered cover the gamut show is that.

Okay was and it's good to have you here again. I i don't know. We've been on the radio together probably ten or twelve times imagine over the years and except we've talked on uh... quite a number of topics last time you were up that you were on on the program with me we were talking about your book on me uh...

The King James Only Controversy

King james only issue.

And uh... actually we did on the phone but uh... i don't think we're in studio all that. And that's right that's right. This is uh...

Uh... i don't remember everything like i used to a few years ago but uh... if you are uh... but at any rate when we were talking in that uh... in our last program in our last discussion about the king james only uh... debate which which basically uh... i i would suspect that a good number of our listeners simply aren't familiar at all with uh... the debate that's going on about the king james bible.

But uh... just just in a in a nutshell there there are those uh... within the christian community who are clinging very tenaciously to the king james bible and insisting uh... i mean it comes. I have heard people insist i don't think i'm overstating this insist that if you're not reading the king james bible you're not reading the bible if you're reading some other translation or whatever.

That's not really the bible. That's actually an understatement. Uh... they they go so far as to say that if uh... uh... that only the king james version of the bible will proclaim the gospel in such a way as a person can be born again uh... hence if you uh... are led to the lord with the uh... american standard niv or an NRSV or a living bible you're not actually truly born again you're not truly a christian.

And that anyone who works on those other translations promotes those other translations preaches from those other translations is not only uh... disrespecting the bible but is in willful sin against god.

That's how far some will go. And not amongst LDS people that i've ever found. Uh... in fact when i was writing the book i may have mentioned this when we spoke before i asked a question of an LDS uh... news group, an electronic news group about their view of the king james version of the bible and i couldn't get anybody to even care enough to correspond with me about it.

They were just like whatever uh... No these these folks are generally amongst uh... independent baptist groups. And uh... of course i'm a reformed baptist and so uh... the fact that i wrote a book uh... specifically on that subject.

Really uh... uh... have you ever done anything or done any reading on the individuals like uh... peter ruckman or tex marz i haven't. No. Well both uh... both would take the most radical perspective that you could on that particular issue and uh... tex has identified me as a servant of satan and the devil uh... for uh... for even uh... writing the book that i did which i thought was fairly ironic uh... in uh... in nature but uh... that that doesn't matter.

Doesn't matter how you address the issue it's if you address it at all uh... earns you those types of epithets.

Well i had an independent baptist uh... on one time. Well i had him on a number of times uh... some years ago and uh... he opened up the king james bible. Well he was. He was insisting to me that the king james bible was the one bible that had been translated from the original manuscripts.

And i'm saying well uh... i don't know anybody who's ever claimed that that the original manuscripts are even in existence. And uh... and he said yes they are says right in the front of the bible. And i uh... i said well it doesn't say that.

Money says well here let me let me see your bible. You open it up and read this out of my bible it says uh... translated out of the original tongues and with the former translations diligently compared.

So you know he was he thought to his position or his reading of this was that the king james bible when it says original tongues was that that was actually translated from the original manuscript. And he was a uh... an independent baptist who'd been to uh... uh... a baptist uh... seminary you know somewhere.

And i think you know i was just amazed amazed at that. But but at any rate the uh... the thought that went through my mind as i and i really enjoyed your book your book on the king james only what's the exact title.

The king james only controversy can you trust the modern translations.

And uh... you know you brought together so much information in that and i thought that you're to to me you're thinking was so clear.

And why could i be wrong with so many other thing. Yeah that's. That's exactly uh... that's exactly what i was thinking. It's it's funny because uh... the follow-up book that. Well that was a follow-up book.

But uh... last year the roman catholic controversy came out from bethany house and i had some roman catholic apologists contact me and say you know your book on the king james was just just great. It's just just too bad you can't figure out.

You know that the pope is the vicar of christ and so on and so forth. So uh... it it it it's interesting uh... that you would say that.

But the the thing that was uh... was of interest to me and i i wanted to go this direction the last uh... time we talked. But that wasn't you know what we had talked about beforehand and and so i i decided not to represent.

But it seems to me that if you were and if you were applied the same kind of technique in in the same diligence to uh... the bigger question. And the bigger question in my mind uh... rather than just the king james only controversy the bigger question is the bible only controversy.

And that's of course a position upon which uh... you know you and i have always differed as to the question of whether whether there is any legitimate uh... scripture outside of the outside of the bible.

And i just uh... i thought tonight maybe we just gonna kick that around a little bit and i don't know how far will go with it is that you know i really was uh... It would have been better i think if we'd if we talk a little sooner than we did not both had a chance to know.

Really good.

Pursue a little bit more. But what would have really helped and and certainly may we can do this uh... looking toward october is that uh... a book came out early last year entitled solo scripture of the protestant position on the bible which i doubt very much you've had an opportunity to see.

That's right. Uh... and uh... the book has uh... chapters in it by our she's full uh... john mccarthur uh... sinclair ferguson noted church historian and i was privileged to do the chapter on uh... social terrain nearly church.

And uh... in fact next week i'll be going to minneapolis and uh... trying to work out the details on a book on biblical sufficiency with uh... with my publisher. So this is an area that in fact uh... uh... last november i did a bit against him staples a four-part and i'm a catholic on the issue so scripture so this is really an area that's very important to me.

And if what you mean by the bible only is solo scriptura that is the protestant viewpoint that the bible is the sole infallible rule of faith in the church and that there is no uh... revelatory organ whether it be scriptures like book mormon documents for a price or a how should i put this hierarchical structure uh... that has access to as roman catholicism puts it apostolic traditions that rome can define and make binding upon christians uh... for example the doctrines of the macula conception of the bodily assumption of mary which rome has defined on the basis of alleged apostolic tradition which is also revelatory in nature even if it's not easy quite easily identified as as you can uh... a text of scripture uh... the process is no to uh... to either the idea of the extra scripture or the uh... idea of uh... apostolic traditions uh... and if that's what you're talking about them.

Certainly that's. That's an area that i've i've delved into a great deal and certainly feel that's very very consistent with what i said king james only controversy. Well and and the uh...

Uh... the the point uh... view that i'm coming from is that uh... as we look at the various concepts about particularly protestant concepts that uh... are are looking specifically at the canon of scripture which was produced at a certain period of time and that can disclose and that uh... uh... that that all doctrine all uh... you know all of the christian doctrines need to somehow uh... be drawn from that.

To me simply seems like it does not square with the overwhelming uh... weight of of historical evidence about how the bible came into being and uh... and how it's been transmitted and so forth.

Well that of course depends on what you mean by uh... the overwhelming uh... uh... verdict of history. I i obviously disagree uh... and of course it also depends what you what you understand the canon to be and how the can exist.

Uh... would you say that that you have an infallible canon today due to the presence of uh... uh... living prophets. No i would certainly wouldn't. Okay. So you would not take a position that that there is that you have an infallible canon.

Uh... that's that's correct. Okay. Uh... would you identify that as a uh... if if we went down yesterday and brave the snow at the uh... at the conference and stood under a uh... uh... umbrella like we did uh... talking to folks my feeling is that most mormons i would speak to actually say that yes they yes they do know exactly what the candidates uh... because of the uh... uh... having a a living teaching authority.

Well well but the idea that i'm pursuing is uh... is this idea and that is which i think is consistent with the thinking of the church uh... and that is that the canon is is simply byproduct of the church.

It's not the canon that was produced to create the church. It was something that isn't isn't outgrowth from the church. The same thing is true i would say uh... in the lds movement that the uh... that is we're looking if if you were to ask a uh... and and all of the latter-day saints who came to conference this weekend if they believe that the canon is close at their uh... that it would never be modified.

I would imagine virtually all of what's a no we don't believe that it's.

Close finish right sort of thing but they would say that they do know what the canon currently.

Yeah i i think i think that they would uh... uh... identify within the lds movement. We do specifically have uh... uh... canon to an extent uh... there would be for example going back to your king james and that ish that whole issue.

I think i've heard many uh... latter-day saints talk about the king james bible being the official bible of the lds church which is which is now we're living here kind of isolated or insulated from the world.

But uh... latter-day saints who've been on missions to foreign countries know that they don't read the king james bible in any foreign speaking country because it's only an english translation.

And uh... but there's one thing is that there are no uh... as i read the early church uh... i'd i do not see them seeing the canon as an outgrowth of the church. I see them seeing the canon is an outgrowth of the act of inspiration itself.

And in fact i think that the protestant uh... viewpoint as well and that is that the canon of scripture uh... the the books of of the old testament uh... the process by which the cannot the old testament uh... was formed and especially in the in regards to the new testament that the canon is and needs to be understood in two ways.

And this is one thing that hopefully be developing this book and it's not something that uh... we've ever discussed before. I don't think in regards to this issue but i i would want to differentiate between to uses the term canon if we want to use a canon prime one is the canon as created by the act of inspiration.

I believe that what makes scripture scripture is the fact that god breeds that scripture. Paul's used the term found in stock in seventy three sixteen is that all scripture is they are in stock in this country.

God create a canon simply by not inspiring all books but inspiring some. To illustrate this i've written and currently right now nine books uh... i know the canon of my writings because i'm the one who did the writing.

No one else has infallible knowledge of the can of my of my books. Because even my best friend when he looks at my books it can't be totally certain that uh... i didn't get a ghost writer to do a chapter here something along those lines i haven't double knowledge which books i didn't didn't write.

Why. Because i wrote them the very now i've never sat down and said this is the canon of james white's writings and written out a golden index or something. The very fact that i wrote some books but didn't write all books creates a canon of my writing.

Well canon one is is infallible because god has infallible knowledge of it. And it is a function of scripture. It is simply it. It simply exists because god inspired some books and he didn't inspire others.

I don't think god inspired the karon uh... i don't think god inspired uh... mister uh... apple whites uh... writings on the internet. And i don't think there's a ufo behind the hail bob either uh... So there are some things that that are inspired.

I believe the gospel john is and there are others that are not. But the point being that when god inspires some things and not others he creates canon one. And it exists. It is not some separate biblical revelation it exists.

And because canon two is our knowledge of canon one is how we gain knowledge of that act of inspiration. And as i read the early church fathers as they begin to uh... wrestle with these issues as i read uh... athanasius' thirty-ninth festa letter in three sixty nine where he gives us uh... the exact same new testament canon that we use to this day.

And the same old testament canon with uh... about one or two differences with some some greek editions of a couple of the apocryphal books rejected all the popular except one or two little sections of it uh... as i listen to his reasonings and the way that he uh... presents this i don't hear him saying that this is a a uh... how do you put a function of the church but a function of what god has done in giving scripture.

And the church is the is the recipient of this the passive recipient of of the divine scriptures uh... i don't find anyone claiming to have some authority over the divine scriptures. I was finding when claiming to have what we might call canonical authority that is the idea to create canon uh... and uh... so uh... i would i'm not sure exactly what you meant by a function of the church.

Maybe you mean that the church passively recognizes what god has done.

And i'm not really uh... from a function of the church but a product of the church. Okay it's uh... the canon was a product of the church. In other words uh... And i'm i'm going to be talking probably most the time tonight about the new testament but uh... the new testament is is a product of the church rather than the church being a product of the new testament.

When i'm when i'm saying by that is if you were to produce the new testament and then as the rule book the authoritative source the canon for the church and then set the church up based upon that that would be what i think that uh...

A good number of of christians today are thinking the that that's in fact what happened. When in fact what happened is that the new testament is simply uh... Well i'm not gonna say is simply but new testament is a selection from a much larger body of christian writings and christian teaching of the uh... first century.

Well i'm a little uncomfortable term selection on the i guess i could find a way of of becoming comfortable with it if we define what you what you meant by that. I'm not sure how much larger the quote-unquote body of writings was in the sense of twice as big ten times as big uh... there are only a certain number of writings that come down to us that are going to come even close the apostolic period.

In fact the big rage with the jesus seminar folks and uh... running around getting phd's and writing about the gospel of thomas or something like that uh... is is really i think rather amazing uh... we may be getting that little later on.

Certainly the new testament church as a as an established body if we want to use if we want to see the church being established shall we make any cost. The a a a friendly point in saying okay you have to be in new testament church here precedes the writing of the vast majority of the new testament and certainly the collection of the new testament into a single body.

Uh... but i don't see the issue. I don't see you may want to talk primarily about the new testament but i see the scriptures as a whole as being the issue. I think the process through which the old testament went is a paradigm for the same very same process of the new testament.

And i see the old testament functioning as the authority uh... the final authority in the sense of not denying the existence of revelation in the time in jesus christ. Obviously. But when you have paul right in the corinthians for example uh... and they are even making misuse of of the teaching of his own about christian freedom how does he and their misuse of the more than one teaching by a citation of the old testament which he obviously considers to be absolutely final in binding upon new testament christian so when you look at a at a greek new testament and uh... and you see all the the uh... in some sometimes they put in bold sometimes italics over and over and over again entire books are filled uh... romans corinthians filled with citations from the old testament.

So i see it as an organic unity. I certainly see the difference between the old covenant new covenant. But when paul said all scriptures god breathe at that point in time would've been speaking primarily of the ten o 'clock of the old testament.

And i see the very same process taking place in the canization of the new testament. That is our recognition of what god did in inspiration that took place in the old. I don't see any angels coming down from heaven uh... with golden indexes for the old testament.

Nor do i see it happening in the new. But i think we have in between the lord jesus providing a a means of establishing that the process took place in the old is the way the god intends to do it.

Well and and we could go back to the old testament. I think the old testament is a news. Is certainly interesting in that. Uh... The canon of the old testament is at this point still in considerable question throughout.

Throughout christianity and i think uh... you mean specifically specifically the process in catholic issue we also talking about but.

Uh... protestant catholic as well as uh... eastern orthodox and and uh... and other smaller uh... other smaller groups both currently and and and through uh... throughout the past. In fact them i'm just uh... i don't know if i'm gonna be able to put right to this but uh... uh... there's metzger in his in his book on entitled the canon of the new new testament which uh... this is uh... i think uh... remarkably fine source for this whole discussion.

He points out that in the tenth century there were six different lists of the scripture uh... of the uh... canon in the eastern christian turk church in the tenth century and even as well as for a long as a tenth century there were six different lists.

Of what the canon consisted of i don't doubt that all it's interesting to me however that when have you had an opportunity to look at roger beckwiths of the old testament canon new testament church. No i haven't.

I think if you enjoy reading metzger uh... you would you would find uh... beckwith to be just a scintillating uh... which uh... and i was familiar with the sources is going as bands reading list is is uh... definitely unusual uh...

But uh... seriously beckwiths work uh... is is much more up-to-date in the sense of the old testament studies than almost anything else i mean eighty five is now twelve years ago that's all fairly recent as far as major works on all testament canization does.

And he deals with not only the intertestamental period the laying up of certain books in the temple for example some it's rarely mentioned in other words uh... just even says witness and things like that.

The uh... uh... the information's come to light from from further studies that have been done in in the dead sea scrolls and things like that uh... that the that the point was there was a process that that the people of israel went through uh... beckwith strongly uh... disagrees with the standard viewpoint that for the past hundred years you had two cannons palestinian alexandrian cannons the old testament.

He said that that what there is no evidence that was actually case there's only one can amongst the jews of twenty two or twenty four books and that was not a different canon between the two is depending on how you counted certain of the book uh... and the uh... issue of the apocryphal books is is is actually something that uh... that much later than the jewish people themselves uh... dealt with uh... they actually dealt with that issue fairly early on to christians who resurrected because of their presence the subject but the but the point being that uh... he brings out in the early church i found this very interesting that when you look at the individuals who rejected the apocryphal books in the early church you have malito sardis you have jerome you have athanasius and those who accepted them such as augustine there is almost a direct correlation.

The more the early father knew about the old testament and the jewish people the less likely he was to accept the apocryphal and vice versa. For example augustine uh... his he basically ruled over the councils of hippo and carthage in three ninety three and three ninety seven.

And yet he could barely make his way through greek at all and did not know any hebrew whatsoever was totally dependent upon the septuagint. Or the latin versions were running around primarily septuagint.

Well jerome knows hebrew he's learned it from a jewish rabbi. He lives in bethlehem. Uh... and what's his viewpoint. He doesn't accept the apocryphal books as being canonical now he is instructed by bishop damasus of rome to translate them.

And he does so rather reluctantly at the very end of his uh... process of translating the uh... uh... what became known as the latin vulgate. But there's this relationship and given the fact that there is a a rather tragic i think anyways uh... diminishment and and and for many hundreds of years uh... total abandonment diminishment of knowledge of an abandonment of any connection with the jewish people that eventually led to the tragedies we see in the in the uh... uh... crusades in uh... in the killing of of jews by people wearing crosses on their chest uh... because of that the old testament as you as you probably know during the middle ages was pretty much a closed book.

The idea of knowing anything about the background it was all interpreted metaphorically uh... the idea that had any meaning in and of itself just the words actually meant something everything was a symbol of something else.

And so it doesn't surprise me that by the tenth century uh... you would have all sorts of of confusions everything everything else about the old testament canon uh... because if you if you separate yourself from the the requisite studies from from doing the homework you need to do to go back and ask the question what what was the canon in palestine the days of jesus when jesus refers to the scriptures what was he talking about.

Let's look at the critical usage of of of the scriptures uh... in the newt of the old testament scriptures in the new testament how the apostles use the scriptures. Were they aware of the apocrypha. Certainly they were.

Did they ever cite it. As with the the canonical formula it has been written. It is written so on so forth. I don't believe they did but they show familiarity with it. Certainly they did. Uh... they showed familiarity.

Paul showed familiarity with a wide spectrum of of non-canonical writings unfortunately a lot of that information was not generally available or considered to be relevant for a long centuries the christian era.

But there are a couple of problems that i see with what you're saying. First of all if we're going to turn to the church as being the the body that's going to make the decision as to what what books belong in the canon the decision of the church in the east and in the west uh... you know i mean you're talking about jerome and uh... and uh... of course uh... jerome i i'm familiar with jerome's attitude about the apocrypha and that sort of thing.

But uh... but the fact is that the decision of the church prior to jerome at the time of jerome and following jerome was a larger canon than the current protestant canon that's in the west. I mean i'm talking about the uh...

We go back to the main back to the uh... bibles that have survived and we find in the old testament uh... portion that you're talking about nonetheless regardless of the fact that there were educated uh... christian scholars who did not accept the apocrypha because uh... of their of their position that the jews had didn't accept it no matter what the reason but uh... uh... and then also in the east where you know we're not dealing with jerome within the eastern church and they also followed the uh... the larger extended canon uh... which included the books that have been referred to as a park or book uh... so you've got that situation.

Plus you have the fact that in the new testament most in most of the instances where we can distinguish what uh... the new testament writers are quoting from. They're not quoting from the hebrew old testament.

They're quoting from the septuagint version which which would uh... to me suggest that they have they were looking to a version of the old testament which was substantially different than the version that the uh... that the jews were using in palestine and that they were uh... they were seeing that as being uh... significant and authoritative.

And we're quoting passages from that which didn't even have parallels in the uh... in the hebrew old testament. Well first i didn't say that we go to the church to do that.

Uh... i specifically would not say that you go to the church for the uh... uh... for canonical authority the church. A fact that said was that the early fathers do not claim to have canonical authority uh...

There is a difference between the people of god passively recognizing something and in a thought hierarchical authority defining something. And i would also disagree in regards to the east uh... athanasius is considered uh... an eastern father and his is one of the earliest canons of the old testament and other than i think two sections of greek of the apocrypha he rejected all the rest of it instead has the identical hebrew canon that i used today.

And and when you know identical. Well well with with to very small exceptions it's not uh... But otherwise uh... other than two small exceptions it is. And uh... when you say when you go to when you go to manuscripts when you go to sign atticus when you go to add a canvas uh... i think we may have discussed this before i'm not sure but i think it's an error to assume that uh... simply because something is bound together in a manuscript means it's viewed as canon there's all sorts of funny things bound together with manuscripts throughout the new testament manuscript tradition well into the uh... eleven twelve century when you produce a book back then uh... it was a very expensive and and long process and there are works of devotion that are bound together with biblical manuscripts.

And there are many examples of these in in the uh... new testament manuscript tradition i think we weaker uh... if we assume that the presence of a from our viewpoint non-canonical book uh... in a biblical manuscript means that for the person who copied that that was of equal canonical authority with something else uh...

I think you have to go to the clear statements of the fathers who live contemporaneously with the writing of those manuscripts uh... before you go to uh... an assumption based upon the inclusion of a book in a manuscript uh... you know that that seems very clear to me.

Well i i think uh... i think.

You've got a point there to an extent. But uh... when we have uh... when we have for example the uh... pistol clinton uh... written most scholars are saying about ninety five eighty and into the corinthians yes or no i went to the corinthians and uh... we also we also see that this particular personal was written prior to some of the uh... at least if we accept the dating of the of the majority of those who are dating the new testament books.

That book was probably written before some of the last of the new testament books uh... it's it's right in the same time frame is what i'm suggesting and uh... and and that book was included in uh... included as a canonical book by many early christians and uh... rather widespread fashion.

Whereas on the other hand on the other hand and i you know i'm referring uh... my information on this comes principally from uh... the writings of bruce metzger uh... but uh... on the other hand you have a book like uh... the book revelation which uh... appears uh... according to edgar goodspeed in it's uh... two-thirds of the manuscripts where you would expect to find the book revelation it's not there i mean it was it was widely it was widely rejected as was the book of hebrews.

So we've got the book of hebrews we've got the book of clement uh... bitter and the book revelation which are which are written at roughly the same in the same time period according to what the scholars are saying.

We have uh... the book of hebrews being included in a number of uh... list of the canon being excluded in a number of lists of canon and being included in a in a grouping referred to as uh... questionable or or dubious uh... works in in a number of others.

So what it what it comes down to me uh... when you were correcting him a minute ago about your thinking about how the canon came into being is if it's not the church that's making the decision if if that's not where the decision is coming from as to what is canonical how is it that you make the decision for yourself between the book of revelations the book of hebrews and first clement i mean which ones belong in and which ones don't.

And that that gets us to the whole issue of uh... Does one have an infallible knowledge of the canon or uh... or not. Certainly the roman catholics believe you have to have an infallible knowledge of the canon to use any part of canon at all.

And i reject that that notion. I don't believe that's the case. I don't believe that historically functions uh... at all either if again we use the old testament paradigm and apply it to the new testament uh... in the old testament i'd see a process about four hundred years that begins to yield very clear results about two hundred years in and by the end of about four hundred years has pretty much come to to full completion.

And amazingly enough almost two within two decades uh... that's the exact same process you have taken place in the new testament uh... During that period of time you certainly have some jews who may not have access uh... to all of the tonight uh...

You may have some jews who do not accept uh... an element of what will finally uh... in acknowledged by everyone to be part of the tonight uh... That's a period of process and superior of of of not a hierarchy sitting down and casting lots for not like the jesus seminar we before the pink uh... whether you know what what were the cubes are balls or some like that you know pink balls for yes jesus said this error black ones for no that's not can or something like that.

And then add them all up. You don't have that type of process going on any time during that period of time. You do not have any type of external miraculous events going on that led the people of god in the old testament to recognize what was and what was not god agreed.

You read in a testamental period read uh... the uh... literature i mean uh... you need to read the in the mishnah uh... they recognize that beginning four hundred years before the time of we would call the time of christ uh... the box poll the voice of god the voice of prophecy left the people of israel and so they became very concerned to to uh... recognize what was and what was not authoritative.