I've never been comfortable at parties but there is a game that some people play at parties that is noteworthy.
A group of people form a line, usually each person lined up so that they can speak into one ear of the person next to them.
The idea is the first person speaks in the ear of a second person and the second person speaks in the ear of a third person all the way until the second last person speaks into the ear of the last person.
The fun, of course, is when each person says out loud what they heard.
Everybody can see how the conversation changed from the first person to the next to last person.
My point: oral or verbal memory of events are less than trustworthy.
Especially, after a year, more so after a decade and definitely after decades.
So, studying how canon is developed is worthwhile in order to distinguish when God is actually speaking and when there is a redaction written to satisfy some human need.
So, accounts of events based strictly on memory, even when the first written accounts, preceded by a lengthily oral history requires close scrutiny.
Of course, knowing a lot about who is scrutinizing canon is also critical.
To my way of thinking, the only canon that is truly trustworthy is the canon that God writes on your heart because written canon is too easily redacted.
I'm not a scriptural scholar, just wary of narratives about all topics.
There are a wide range of topic narratives that interest me beyond religious narratives.
Plenty of evidence of religious leaders, over many millennia, writing and rewriting text, borrowing and reshaping ideas to suit their circumstances.
I'll illustrate one instance.
I'll discus Islamic canon to make my point but keep in mind that all scripture requires close scrutiny to determine when God is speaking and when it is some religious leader writing to serve themselves.
I choose Islam but Christianity's history has plenty of examples.
Consider Islamic scriptural content and why it was created.
Quron content must be read before it can be understood why it was written.
Some apologetics claim that Islamic canon was invented to support the Ottoman empire.
Their argument is convincing.
Every Christian should read an English translation of a few chapters of the Quron.
There is a difference in what is taught about Islam and the canon.
Otherwise, you won't understand what the canon's objective is.
Some apologetics say many Moslems don't have a clue of what is actually in the Quron.
That is, Quron written in Aramaic rather than what many Moslems are told.
Checkout Ottoman Empire in 600s CE and in700s CE.
Christian and Jewish scripture were handy models for Islamic canon.
However, the original content is interpreted differently.
When God is not inspiring canon, ask yourself: who is?
