Your logic fails now Please try answering the question that was asked.
Are you starting to recall dodging this question so many times previously?
What is the use of the chain-letter repetitious badgering which you have been putting metmom through?
Though the "question" posed to her was a bit different then the ones which she had posed to another, they are nearly identical in most all ways --- I for one can see the intent (and the speciousness) which is most likely behind them, for it the same reasoning we saw in the article (blech) and then came to fruition in yourself, verga, having then went to the inevitable non sequiter;
DO you think of metmom as a "prot" as you use that term?
If so, then you yourself displayed a degree of ill-logic (among other flaws of reasoning and question begging) in then going on to this line of questioning at #113;
one aspect of ill-logic being your having previously also identified her as "a prot" and then right afterwards also said;
If metmom is "a prot" and according to you "prots" believe in the Palestinian canon as you termed it, then "prots" obviously must accept "the bible" (though minus the disputed OT books, those same which Jerome termed Apocrypha when he wrote of those in his prologues) for otherwise I do not believe there are any honest grounds for anyone to try and say of other-than-Roman Catholic Christians ---who are usually on these pages criticized for being adherents to Solo Scriptura, that they "refuse to accept the bible".
This type of discourse (which you are engaging in) is reminiscent to me of when those tormenting Christ would strike Him and then demand "prophecy! who hit you?" by it's spirit and tone.
These so-called "prots" must obviously be accepting of NT canon as it is -- or else there would have been nothing there to have badgered her (and Christians whom are not Roman Catholics) with.
All of which results in not adding up to metmom not accepting the bible.
But geez louise, such ill-logical, ill-mannered discourse -- again -- is entirely unbecoming for one who has publicly fancied himself on these pages as "a theologian".
You had also said;
WHere do you get the information that the OT canon was set "several hundred years BC"?
Do you not know what Jerome (that would be St, Jerome, the one who translated much of the Scripture into Latin) said about the LXX?
Not only himself, but others also have written that the original LXX, which I believe is what you were referring to when you said the OT canon was "set" "...several hundred years BC" was Greek language translation of the books of Moses, known as Torah (although some use that term to refer to entire Hebrew Tanakh and did not then encompass the remainder of OT as that is known.
If that be when the canon of the OT was "set", then that would result in the OT canon being limited to the Torah -- which again would render your statement made against her in your if this, then that display of ill-logic based upon faulty premises, be even more FUBAR, thus undoing your very own words, by the inherent inner conflict of them, when one statement or pair of sentences are then examined in light of other statements made in the same comment.
But I've got to hand it to you, you really can pack in and compound errors -- one on top of another.