EchDel on Nostr: Through study of the new testament and the manuscripts included in the King James I ...

Through study of the new testament and the manuscripts included in the King James I have found no extra texts which I deem need to be included or text included which I would exclude.
The compilation is sufficiently and irreducably complex.

With regards to the new testament it frequently cites and refers back to the old. This is what I consider a two witnesses minimum as described by Moses.(I know he meant it in the context of witnesses and accusers in the case of a crime, I am applying it more broadly in the way we determine if a historical text has a degree of verifiability)

When Jesus cites an old testament manuscript, like Jonah for instance he lends credence to the books historicity which many "scholars" would flippantly dismiss because of the texts fantastic claim. I on the other hand find no issue with the possibility of someone surviving such an event. Because I believe it happened (for multiple reasons not all relevant to this discussion) based on the fact that I hold Jesus in such esteem that I believe he would not qoute something if he did not value the account of it. There is text in the old testament that I would dispute more ardently than I would the new.

There are events in the new testament that I have read and understood but when I discussed my perception and understanding with christians in general they shout at me as if I am crazy but my statement is textually accurate and verifiably true.

So, just because I believe the new Testament is canonised by men. Does not mean that I believe a manuscript should be added or removed. That is an assumption on your part.

Moving on.

I call on witnesses to make my further claim.

Paul (1st witness) wrote that we should test all and retain that which is good. This supposes that he does not restrict lessons and edification to scripture alone but allows us to draw knowledge and inspiration from information extant to the "canon".

Joshua and Samuel (2nd & 3rd witnesses)
both state. "Is it not written in the book of Jasher?"

If God is indeed the author of Joshua and Samuel (like you claim) then why would He have referenced a book that no scholar on earth including myself would consider anything more but a compilation of stories which have value only in marginal and fringe research of history?

Would you value it if God referenced it as a source to verify events? Of course you must.
By nature of your claim you might just as well include the book of the upright into your supposed canon.

I do not fear reading it as I have. I do not fear drawing a valuable allegory or conclusion from it as I have. Most of what is recorded in it is utterly useless information.