> > > The original Old Testment scriptures used to be seperate, but were evetually collected together.
> > > The same with the New Testment.
> >
> > That has approximately nothing to do with anything, as far as I can tell.
> >
>
> Well, it was the Priest in both times that collected them, and the edited all the books as they went in. Most of the times in the old testment when you get a lot of information on how to, say, build an Arc of the Covenant, that is the Priestly (or 'P') author at work. Most of the book of Leviticus is information that was important to the Preists, and not much use to any one else. While step by step instructions for building an arc and its tent is cool trivia, I don't think it is really important.

Except that, years later, when college students constructed one for themselves, they found it had a lot of power all on its own, such that is destroyed stuff until they destroyed it. And an engineer who knew nothing about the experiment did some calculations and came to the same conclusion.

In short, it was a miracle that there were High Priests who went near it and survived.

> The motives of the Priests, and the other editors must be taken into acount.
>
> > > Also, when the Christian Bible was put together they reaganged the order of the Old Testment. The diffrence this order makes is profound.
> >
> > First, I don't buy any of your arguments about why this rearrangement is "profound." Secondly, if the OT can be studied and the purpose of the original ordering divined -- that very purpose which you have discussed in your post -- it CAN'T be THAT profound. It may change the way we look at it, but it doesn't change the essential message of the OT nor impact any argument over its truth or falsehood. Thirdly, if it does indeed make a "profound" difference, might this not be because post-crucifixion readers need to apply the Old Testament in a different way than pre-crucifixion readers did? Doctrinally, a lot changed when Christ died and rose again on the cross. Christ spend a lot of time preaching what was already different just by his arrival, and Paul spends an entire book (Romans) and more about what the Law's purpose was then and how its application was changed in light of the overriding event of Christ on the cross. Sure, if you're interested in the history of religion, you are presented with the minor inconvenience of actually having to take into account the order in which the OT books are written instead of having them chronologically ordered. This is not, however, the study for which the Bible was primarily designed.
> >
> The original order isn't 'divined' the Jews still keep it in that original order. You just compair. And yes the same Bible books can be applied in a diffrent way by changing the order, that is the 'profound' change.
>
> What I was pointing out is, that if a change in order of a 'Infalibal' book can change the understanding, is the book infalibal? It would seem that there must have been something wrong with the original order that it needed changeing.

It may make a difference in the understanding, but why can't both understandings be correct?

And why must the original order necessarily be the one that is wrong, if there must be a "wrong" order?

> > > In the Christian order the entire Old Testment is turned into a prelude for the Gospels.
> >
> > This isn't a change. This is a discovery. A new light cast by more of God's Word being written. In many places in the New Testament, statements are made to the effect that the change in doctrine caused by Christ on the cross was in past times a "mystery" and not known until it was given by divine revelation from God. Paul uses nearly this exact wording many times in his writing. And is it any surprise that there are things God knows that we don't? Does learning something new necessarily make something we already knew false? What does this have to do with anything about the Bible's truth, either before or after Christ?
> >
>
> No, learning something new doesn't make all old info false,

True.

> but it does change the understanding of it to a more true state. But if it was less true before then something was lacking.

Yes. Our understanding. In and of itself, it doesn't lack. We lack in our understanding of it.

> And there may still be stuff lacking, and we have no way of being sure.
>
> > > ...makeing the Apocrapha (not scriptures but still containing good leasons).

Such as why Chanukah is celebrated.

> > My argument is about the "scripture," as defined by being inspired by God and error-free. What are you lambasting this argument with talk of other books that you admit aren't scripture anyway? It would be one thing to start a discussion about the status of the Apocrypha (I like your spelling better), but if we're already on the same side, you're just gratuitously throwing in irrelevant complications to fill space.
>
> What I mean is this, before those books got taken back out and labeled Apocrapha (if you like it I'll use it) they were considered scripture, authorized by the Pope. And it wasn't till later that the Catholic church took out some of the same books.
>
> In the Catholic church it held that the Pope is infalible. Which raises the question, is one Pope declares a book to be scripture and a Pope 100 years later declares it isn't what does that mean. If they are both infalible the book must have changed, some how it was de-scriptafied, which doesn't seem possible. Thats why I don't consider myself Catholic any more, just Christian, and this paragraph had no real impact on the argument, sorry.
>
> Speed'are my posts wandering'ball

Nyper"sorta kinda"old