2025 Bible Study Group

[Blade Runner]

For some reason, Eastern Orthodoxy struggles with the Biblical doctrine of predestination.

No we don't, we just clarify that English word with what it actually means. And it doesn't mean what you say it does. Thus, it's not a doctrine. Rather, you are in error, which is the point in bringing it up.

But you know better, developing doctrine 1500 years after the Apostles, not being original practitioners of the faith, not writing the Bible, not defending the faith all in Greek. The basic logic and humility you don't have in admitting that point is disappointing, and I'm being nice.

As for predestined, preordained, predetermined, predesignated, whatever you want to call it, they all mean the same thing in the Scripture which only uses one word for them all in it's original Greek.

That's my point.

The world isn't pre-determined. You use that idea, which by its own definition means that you can't change what's going to happen. That meets head on with free will. So either explain it (that's what I do, and what EO teaches) and/or change the understanding of what you are saying and teaching. That's all.

 

[Samseau]

For some reason, Eastern Orthodoxy struggles with the Biblical doctrine of predestination. And not so much Eastern Orthodoxy as a whole since some can affirm the Bible, but anti-Protestants in particular. They seem to believe in a false dichotomy that if you are predestined, then you are not responsible for your choices; or if you are not predestined, then you are responsible. But It's not either/or. It's both/and. The Scripture teaches that you are both predestined and responsible for your choices.

No actually this is exactly what the Church teaches, it's Calvin and Luther who claim otherwise. This is why there are Prot sects to this day that claim once saved always saved.

The Church teaches that God knows how we will use our free will, which is the message consistent with scripture. Predestined refers both to inanimate objects like the planets on their orbits, and the wills of humans and how they are used. For example, Jesus always knew Judas would betray him, He knew Judas would use his will to deliver him into the hands of sinners. Judas didn't have to, but Christ knew he would. That is what predestination looks like.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

No actually this is exactly what the Church teaches, it's Calvin and Luther who claim otherwise. This is why there are Prot sects to this day that claim once saved always saved.

The Church teaches that God knows how we will use our free will, which is the message consistent with scripture. Predestined refers both to inanimate objects like the planets on their orbits, and the wills of humans and how they are used. For example, Jesus always knew Judas would betray him, He knew Judas would use his will to deliver him into the hands of sinners. Judas didn't have to, but Christ knew he would. That is what predestination looks like.

Then that church is wrong and sub-Biblical.

You keep describing predestination as simple foreknowledge when the Apostles said it was more than that. Drop the man made tradition and believe the Scriptures instead.

It doesn't say, "God only knew that they would crucify Jesus."

It says, "They did what God's hand and purpose predestined them to do."

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

No we don't, we just clarify that English word with what it actually means. And it doesn't mean what you say it does. Thus, it's not a doctrine. Rather, you are in error, which is the point in bringing it up.

You do, which is why you have to redefine what the Bible says. Everybody can read for themselves what it clearly means, and it clearly means more than the Molinist, Jesuit-influenced interpretation of EO apologists.

It's also clear you're not arguing in good faith. You said that God didn't predestinate Jesus to be crucified and I just quoted a Bible verse to you saying that He did.

But you know better, developing doctrine 1500 years after the Apostles, not being original practitioners of the faith, not writing the Bible, not defending the faith all in Greek. The basic logic and humility you don't have in admitting that point is disappointing, and I'm being nice.

Anybody would know better if they took the Scripture as their standard. The Scripture knows better. There is no developed doctrine. The Reformation was about getting rid of all the developed doctrine that primarily Catholicism but also Eastern Orthodoxy, and other groups that claim to be the only true church, invented over the course of 1500 years.

There is a difference in the Greek of the New Testament and the Greek of Orthodox countries. They are not the same. Cyril Lucaris bemoaned that the people in Orthodox countries did not understand the Bible according to it's original Greek, and that was in the 1600s. Even the Greek of the New Testament is not the same as the Greek of the Greek Old Testament, and that was only a few centuries apart. So it's ignorant to flatten out the Greek and ignore the historical nuance in that area.

 

[Samseau]

Then that church is wrong and sub-Biblical.

You keep describing predestination as simple foreknowledge when the Apostles said it was more than that. Drop the man made tradition and believe the Scriptures instead.

It doesn't say, "God only knew that they would crucify Jesus."

It says, "They did what God's hand and purpose predestined them to do."

God's hand and purpose was that they would have free will, and he knew they would choose in the way they did, which is why it was predestined.

You have difficulty grasping this concept, but perhaps one day the Holy Spirit will illuminate you.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Job 24 & 25

Job continues his lament and Bildad comes in again: can Man be right with God? He gives evidences for why men cannot be and he argues for it very well. And while it is true that no man can be right with God left to his own power, it is even more true that any man can be made right with God should God give him grace.

There are times when figures in the Old Testament ask questions like these that anticipate Christ in a not so subtle way. One of my favorite instances of this is when Solomon, having finished building the Temple, asked 'will God indeed dwell on the earth?' He rightfully recognized the transcendence of God, that He is bigger than all His creation and cannot be contained by it, but it only had begun to dawn on him the immanence of God, that that God up there could be so near as well, even so near as to dwell on the earth as the man Christ Jesus and to dwell in your hearts, which is the true Temple of God, by way of the Holy Spirit.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Job 26 & 27

1 Then Job answered and said, 2 “What a help you are to the one without power! How you have saved the arm without strength! 3 What counsel you have given to one without wisdom! What sound wisdom you have abundantly made known! 4 To whom have you declared words? And whose breath comes out from you?

Job replies to Bildad with sarcasm. There's something of note in verse 4. The Hebrew word for breath can also mean spirit. The word is the same and the meaning is interchangeble. The Spirit of God may also be referred to as the Breath of God. The words that you speak are carried out by your breath. The ancients understood that there are spirits behind your words, which is what Job is getting at in verse 4. Job is asking, 'by who's spirit are you speaking?'

Paul picks up on this principle in the New Testament, in 1 Corinthians 12, when he says that "no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit." When you reecho God's words, believe and say the things He says, you are doing so by the operation of the Holy Spirit. Paul speaks to the flip side of this as well: "no one speaking by the Spirit of God says that Jesus is accursed." Anyone who denies the Lordship of Christ and commits idolatry does so by the spirit of antichrist.

The Apostle John also says, "Don't believe every spirit but test the spirits to see if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. Every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, but the spirit of antichrist, which is coming and already in the world."

People espouse doctrines and say things that reveal by who's spirit they're speaking. When I hear people say to take pride in sodomy, I know that they are speaking by the spirit of Satan. When they say that they do not deserve God's justice, that they deserve heaven, that they don't need God to save them, when they exalt themselves, they follow in the footsteps of their father the devil and speak by his spirit.

11 The pillars of heaven tremble And are astonished at His rebuke. 12 He quieted the sea with His power, And by His understanding He crushed Rahab.

The ancients understood the sea as emblematic of chaos itself. No man can tame it, but God can. God can bring order to the chaos, and He can bring chaos to order. Think of Christ calming the sea by His rebuke and think of God flooding the world when they had established a murderous order. Rahab does not refer to the woman in Jericho from Joshua. Remember that Job takes place long before that. It is a monster/fallen angel, just like Leviathan, which Job will get into later.

3 For as long as breath is in me, And the spirit from God is in my nostrils, 4 My lips certainly will not speak unrighteousness, Nor will my tongue utter deceit. 5 Far be it from me that I should declare you right; Till I breathe my last I will not remove my integrity from me. 6 I hold fast my righteousness and will not let it go. My heart does not reproach any of my days.

Job maintains his case that he is justified and innocent. You too maintain your righteousness, not that you never have done anything wrong, but that Christ did everything right in your place.

 

[Tippy]

Thoughts on Job 1 and out of SHEER RAGE I am going to catch up with the study of this book:

Wow, okay, that's a lot of sheep... Hmmm... okay, he’s rich. He seems devout.

And uh oh — Satan appears again. God is boasting about Job now.

Satan almost seems to test God here. Isn't God kind of bargaining with Satan?

Why doesn’t He just kick his ass and tell him to leave Job alone?

Then Job receives a kind of “mic drop” message that… yeah… the Sabeans came and kind of stole all the animals. But that’s not the worst news — they also slaughtered all the farmhands.

...argh...

And then the bad news just compounds and compounds — more animal slaughter and murders, even the house collapsing, and now all the children are dead.

This makes Game of Thrones look like Humpty Dumpty.

Job then shaves his head American History X style.

But Job never blames God.

Analysis: Horrible things happen, but we shouldn’t blame God. It’s weird because I was in the Orthodox Church yesterday, and the priest was mentioning how drunk drivers hit his car — he was upset and kept getting calls from the insurance company. I thought, man, it never stops. You can build a shrine, a church, have your whole life in order, and then one day a drunk driver just smashes into your heavenly retreat. Chaos knocks!


Job 2-

This is like Saw 2 how could this be any worse?

Still a bit annoyed at God for harming Job without cause just to prove some weirdo point.

This is almost like a Joker/Batman type vibe and Satan’s speech on ‘skin for skin!’ reminds me of Arthur Dent’s ‘one bad day can ruin any man’ speech.

Job continues to endure horrible boils.

Analysis :

Here we see Job taking some mad punishment like a legit G. Never complaining. I think it’s hard to really take away a lesson from this I just think God shouldn’t be allowing Jigsaw aka Satan to torture Job to make some weird point. But who am I to judge?



Job 3 – Job’s First Speech

‘Oh why give light to those in misery, and life to those who are bitter? They long for death, and it won’t come.

They search for death more eagerly than for hidden treasure.’

Analysis:

This hits HARD to anyone who has been in depths of despair grinding out days listening to Linkin Park and STAIND trying to just survive wondering why God puts us through all this? WHY!


‘I have no rest; only trouble comes’ is like a mantra for 14 year old me who used to smash colouring pencils over my forehead in an expression of despair.


Job 4 Elphiaz’s response to job:

‘doesn’t your reference for God give you hope?’ Uh no he just slaughtered all my animals my kids and even the farmhands. Or allowed them to be slaughtered.

Describing humanity as ‘crushed easily as a moth’

‘those who cultivate evil will harvest the same’

I’m not entirely sure about that as many evil people live or even thrive in the current time!

Job 5: Elphaz’s response continues

‘resentment destroys the fool, and jealously kills the simple.’

‘thou he wounds he also bandages’

‘he strikes but his hands also heal’


What? Are we just voodoo dolls for God? I get that sometimes we must suffer but not when it’s gratuitous I mean, not...not the animals! Not the poor farmhands.

I guess the problem I have with this it seems the punishment was too heavy. Maybe he could blind him or something but his kids...God took away his kids! What about THEIR journey of self-discovery and redemption and understanding.

Job 6:

Job’s second speech: A response to Eliphaz

Makes some dope points with lines like ‘Don’t wild Donkey bray when they find no grass?’

‘Don’t people complain about unsalted food?’ Guilty!

‘No, I am utterly helpless, without any chance of success’ – me after hitting send on a job application or my mentality during attempts at ‘day game.’


Job defends himself to the insinuation that he must somehow deserve this punishment.

I get why Job is confused here and indeed his feelings are somewhat justified.

Job 7

‘is not all human life struggle?’

‘assigned months of futility, long and weary nights of misery’

‘I must express my anguish. My bitter soul must complain’ – sounds like a redditor

‘I hate my life and don’t want to go on living’ – this is lit writing. Like some early version of livejournal circa 2004.

‘Why not just forgive my sin and take away my guilt?’

And he has a good point. He didn’t even do anything wrong! HE was part of this weird pact/test and it feels to me like God himself was tricked by Satan. Some might say different but that’s how it looks to my eyes (which are thankfully not covered in boils).

Job 8

Bildad’s first response to job

Bildad gives some unhelpful ass commentary saying ‘your children’ must have sinned against him’ reminds me when I lost my job people saying to me ‘it’s your fault’ or when I busted my knee my girlfriend told me I ‘deserved it.’

Job is told if he lives his life with integrity he will get his happy home back though he already tried that and got burned.

But maybe...maybe this isn’t about Job but making us readers understand that bad horrible whack things will happen to us but we shouldn’t give up.

‘our days on earth are fleeting as a shadow.’


‘The home of the wicked will be destroyed’

Yeah but so many secular types own properties. I don’t see such moral influence and intervention at all around me. I can maybe ‘comfort’ myself that their consciences are tormented but even then I don’t want that nor is it even true in many cases.

Secular living has won.

Job 9

Job’s third speech: a response to Bildad

‘SO who am I, that I should try to answer God or even reason with him?”


Making an argument that basically God can move mountains he’s a beast he’s like...a thousand Brock Lesnar’s or something. So how can we really ask questions to God and I’ve used this analogy myself before by thinking things like my relationship to God is akin to a dog’s relationship to me. I can try to communicate but I’m not sure I can ever fully get through to such a being.

‘If only there were a mediator between us’

This is the hardest part man you’re praying to God trying to figure it all out and you just...never know. You’re ultimately left inside your own head.

Job 10

Job frames his plea to god

‘I am disgusted with my life’

At least in Job’s case he knows in his conscience he did nothing wrong. In most of our cases (well mine) I can complain like this but I know that I’m a vile sinner and I probably deserve even worse than I get. At least a few boils and a pet goldfish death.


This has some mad poetic passage

‘It is a land as dark as midnight, a land of gloom and confusion, where even the light is dark as midnight.’

I’ve been there bro! Just uh...clean up your room, I guess?

Job 11

Zophar’s First Response to Job

Zophar (we need to bring this biblical name back) chimes in with ‘Can you solve the mysteries of God? Can you discover everything about the Almighty?’

This part seems about hanging on with faith even when all seems hopeless it’s easy to give up but if you know in your heart you’ve done good you haven’t sinned and you worship God he WILL help you Unless you are one of Job’s farmhands or animals I guess

Job 12:

Now it’s Job’s turn on the mic. This book is honestly like the most intense spiritual edition of WWE RAW promo cuts ever.

Long list of things God does the power God has more epic language like ‘he uncovers mysteris hidden in darkness; he brings light to the deepest gloom’

All sounds powerful. Job ACKNOWLEDGES God like he’s Roman Reigns

It’s weird in a way because it contradicts some of his previous emo posts by saying ‘true wisom and power are found in God’

Because previously he seemed pretty baffled. Was there true Wisdom in what he enacted on Job?
Or was this a kind of...game. A weird game with Satan.


Job 13:

Job wants to argue his case with God

Now he’s like prime Cena and CM punk referring to physicians as ‘worthless quacks’

‘Will you argue God’s case for him?’

Job actually makes a good point here that in all the counter arguments people do seem to be speaking FOR God so are they not in a way undermining God and also subtly positioning themselves above both. Intellectual arrogance!

Now Job is gonna ask God....

He pleads with questions but thus far? No reply. Job gets left on read so to speak in the most awkward way imaginable.

Job 14:

How frail is humanity!

Asking important questions ‘Can the dead live again?’ and he’s not talking about 28 days later. And he makes a point that maybe we don’t live again not like trees or whatever so what’s the point? WE don’t SEEM to live again and so life is meaningless.

Dark times.

Job 15:

Eliphaz’s Second response to Job

Uh-oh. The roast battle continues. Job gets called a ‘windbag’ by Eliphaz. Don Rickles must have taken notice.

His key argument here is that no man in just. Even ‘the heavens are not absolutely pure in his sight.’

He says again that sinners are miserable. Is that entirely true? Some secular sinners seem ok. But they key point made here is that the ‘godless are barren’

Sometimes hard to see/believe that though.

Job 16:
Job’s fifth speech

Basically Job is annoyed that the situation is horrible AND his homies just keep on reminding him he can’t really complain. He’s in a bind.

Job 17:

Job continues to defend his innocence

‘I am but a shadow of my former self ‘ - I guess this is the first time that expression was used?

And again Job says he’s going to kill himself. He needs some mad therapy at this point but the only therapist who can actually help him? God. Who appears fully booked in this moment.

Job 18:
Bildad’s second response to Job

Again saying all wicked won’t have houses which probably should be taken allegorically I guess? Ok...we continue to

Job 19:
A response to Bildad

‘My breath is repulsive to my wife’ that’s like me with my dental issues.

Another expression I guess originating here is ‘have escaped death by the skin of my teeth’

IN a weird way despite the anger here Job maintains his faith in God. NOT due to the arguments of his friends but more out of frustration at his friends have the temerity to think they can speak for God.

Job 20:

Zaphar’s second response

‘They were always greedy and never satisfied’ ‘the heavens will reveal their guilt’

Empty. Meaningless. Secular. Lives. Do. Not. Bring. Joy

Basically here it is saying – sinners will not prevail!

Job 21:

Job makes the counter that plenty do well with wealth without God and ‘they think their prosperity is their own doing.’

‘All your explanations are lies!”

I’ve been thinking this exact point for a while now so it’s good to see Job finally make it.

It’s just not true that the wicked are always punished and many have a ton of money, life awesome seeming lives and never appear to turn to God.

Job 22:

Elphaz’s third response

Job is probably going to be pissed off to hear this argument made yet again that he just has to be GOODER and pray and things will all work out but that is the crux of the argument.

Job 23:

Job basically says yeah I’d love to talk to God but I can’t and my situation sucks and now ‘darkness is all around me’

queue Simon and Garfunkel track

Job 24:

Jobs ask why the wicked are not punished:

Job seems to circle back from his earlier argument focusing on the fact that rich cannot have ‘assurance of life’ because God ‘drags away the rich’

He did just say previously that it didn’t always seem that way so a bit of a shift here.

Job 25:

‘people are maggots. We mortals are mere worms’

Basically saying NO ONE is innocent, which has been said before but repeated here.

Job 26:
Job’s response
Job seems to basically agree here that God is awesome, powerful while not taking on board the argument that because of his immense power we have to basically just accept whatever punishment he gives due to us being ‘maggots’ which probably isn’t the nicest argument for ones self-image.

 

[Blade Runner]

It says, "They did what God's hand and purpose predestined them to do."

Hermeneutics is a tough point for inerrancy types.

Everybody can read for themselves what it clearly means, and it clearly means more than the Molinist, Jesuit-influenced interpretation of EO apologists.

You are not aware of what you are saying here, it is rife with presuppositions, thus my hermeneutics point.

There is a difference in the Greek of the New Testament and the Greek of Orthodox countries.

Yes there is. But there is no change in what we have always taught. That's obviously true for any literary work, and more important - there are thousands of levels on which interpretation occurs. Language is but 1, and even that can be misunderstood by even a classical Greek speaker/audience.

We can return to Job, though.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Hermeneutics is a tough point for inerrancy types.

"Innerancy types" (i.e, Bible believing Christians) are the only ones who actually do hermeneutics. Jesus was an innerancy type.

 

[Blade Runner]

"Innerancy types" (i.e, Bible believing Christians) are the only ones who actually do hermeneutics. Jesus was an innerancy type.

The weirdest part about this statement is the implication that the Church that wrote the Bible isn't a "believer" in it. It's a schizophrenic position. But, as a matter of fact, the Church came before the "Bible" the bible is appropriately used as a part of the church and its liturgy, and thus, it is understood in that context. It is islamic thinking, and you see the same aspects in protestantism, to act like the bible fell from the sky, you can interpret it "correctly", and thus we have 10,000 imams and preachers trying to do just that. Personality cults with a code that was immutable and given from heaven. Right? If so, then why can't you all agree on what it says and teaches? That's the good faith part that you can't answer, and won't be able to, since it is a fact of life and thus your answer can only be circular.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

But, as a matter of fact, the Church came before the "Bible" the bible is appropriately used as a part of the church and its liturgy, and thus, it is understood in that context. It is islamic thinking, and you see the same aspects in protestantism, to act like the bible fell from the sky, you can interpret it "correctly", and thus we have 10,000 imams and preachers trying to do just that.

No one thinks the Bible fell out of the sky. Everybody knows who the Prophets and Apostles are and that they wrote the Scriptures under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The idea that the Scriptures written in the first century should be interpreted according to liturgical traditions that came centuries later is anachronism at it's finest.

Comparing Protestants to Muslims for believing the Bible is inerrant would be like comparing Orthobros to pagans for having priests. That kind of rhetoric is only convincing to people who can't tell apples from oranges.

Personality cults with a code that was immutable and given from heaven. Right? If so, then why can't you all agree on what it says and teaches? That's the good faith part that you can't answer, and won't be able to, since it is a fact of life and thus your answer can only be circular.

For the same reason that none of the non-protestant churches can agree on what it says and teaches. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many of them either. The problem is human sin, not the Scriptures.

 

[Blade Runner]

The idea that the Scriptures written in the first century should be interpreted according to liturgical traditions that came centuries later is anachronism at it's finest.

That's not the idea, but the canon wasn't even formed until the church deemed it reliable. Something you don't bring up because the "scriptures" are entirely dependent on the "Church" to even exist in the first place, which defeats your arguments, so of course you don't bring that up. Otherwise, tell me why I shouldn't follow the gnostic gospels, or other writings, or why the didache isn't included, or the protoevangelion of James, etc. The scriptures are interpreted according to the Church, used as part of liturgical expression. These traditions came far before any compilation of the Holy Scriptures. We just know which are reliable, and you take our word for it, funny enough.

That kind of rhetoric is only convincing to people who can't tell apples from oranges.

No, it's just an example of category thinking. It's a logical expression of reality that is describing what's going on.

The problem is human sin, not the Scriptures.

Proving the point that you need the Church. Thank you.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

That's not the idea, but the canon wasn't even formed until the church deemed it reliable. Something you don't bring up because the "scriptures" are entirely dependent on the "Church" to even exist in the first place, which defeats your arguments, so of course you don't bring that up.

I love to bring the canon up because it's where the Orthodox position is the weakest. How did Peter know Paul's letters were Scripture without the Orthodox church telling him they were in some infallible council? Which council are you referring to anyway? Because there is no council in the first thousand years that has the modern Orthodox canon, if it can even be said to have an official canon.

Otherwise, tell me why I shouldn't follow the gnostic gospels, or other writings, or why the didache isn't included, or the protoevangelion of James, etc.

Because they are not inspired by the Holy Spirit and not written by Apostles, nor anyone directly connected to them. You already do follow the Protoevangelium of James inasmuch as it aligns with the cult of Mary that has also deeply influenced Eastern Orthodoxy. And you do follow the Didache according to some of its baptismal formula but not according to it's church polity that the only two offices in the Church are those of Bishops and Deacons, and that they should be elected by the church laity.

These traditions came far before any compilation of the Holy Scriptures. We just know which are reliable, and you take our word for it, funny enough.

I don't take your word for it at all. My Bible doesn't contain any of the Apocrypha that was added in later, nor do I believe the Scriptures are inspired because a group of men said they are. Nowhere in the Bible do any of the Apostles argue the way that you're arguing here. That should be your warning that your doctrine of the Bible is out of whack.

 

[Blade Runner]

I love to bring the canon up because it's where the Orthodox position is the weakest. How did Peter know Paul's letters were Scripture without the Orthodox church telling him they were in some infallible council? Which council are you referring to anyway? Because there is no council in the first thousand years that has the modern Orthodox canon, if it can even be said to have an official canon.

"know X were scripture" is your interpretation of your language and your presuppositions. We have a consensus of reliable books and don't have a completely formal canon (per our "dogmatic" seven councils) precisely for this reason - the liturgical one. It's also the reason we don't use Revelation in the Church.

Because they are not inspired by the Holy Spirit and not written by Apostles, nor anyone directly connected to them.

Says who? I know people that believe they are. On what basis do you claim this?

I don't take your word for it at all. My Bible doesn't contain any of the Apocrypha that was added in later, nor do I believe the Scriptures are inspired because a group of men said they are.

Again, this begs the question of where you claim authority, proving the point.

A good article, noting also that the Letter to Timothy talking about inspired scripture clearly happened when there was no "Bible". Even the jews changed it as they made their religiong increasingly defined as anti-Christian and you accept their Old Testament, which was altered and which you should know, as a Christian, that is proven by the Septuagint and other extant texts such as the dead sea scrolls.

Which Came First: New Testament or the Church?

by Fr. James Bernstein A convert to Christianity from Judaism, Fr. James was a teenage chess champion whose dramatic conversion experience at the age of 16 led him to Christianity, and is also one …

journeytoorthodoxy.com

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

We have a consensus of reliable books and don't have a completely formal canon (per our "dogmatic" seven councils) precisely for this reason - the liturgical one. It's also the reason we don't use Revelation in the Church.

So your entire argument against Protestants appealing to the Bible is toothless. You can't say Protestants need Orthodox authority to determine the canon then acknowledge in the next breath that the Orthodox church hasn't even authoritatively declared a canon.

A good article, noting also that the Letter to Timothy talking about inspired scripture clearly happened when there was no "Bible". Even the jews changed it as they made their religiong increasingly defined as anti-Christian and you accept their Old Testament, which was altered and which you should know, as a Christian, that is proven by the Septuagint and other extant texts such as the dead sea scrolls.]

Paul's statement in 2 Timothy is not nullified just because the New Testament had not been fully written yet. Paul's point that all Scripture is God-Breathed still stands.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are clearly more aligned with the Masoretic Text than the Septuagint and no serious scholar would say otherwise. Nevertheless, the Protestant Old Testament isn't held captive by the Masoretic Text but is informed by both the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls, which are not only the oldest copies of the Old Testament in the original language, but the oldest copies of the Old Testament period.