|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 24, 2009 22:08:38 GMT -5
Why did Protestants take 7 books out of the King James Bible? The original King James Bible had 73 books for the first 100 years of its existence. Why did they change their minds 100 years after they created the King James Bible? Were they right to edit the KJV 100 years later?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jul 25, 2009 0:08:35 GMT -5
Why did Protestants take 7 books out of the King James Bible? The original King James Bible had 73 books for the first 100 years of its existence. Why did they change their minds 100 years after they created the King James Bible? Were they right to edit the KJV 100 years later? Actually, the Eastern Churches (excluding Eastern Catholics) has more books in the Holy Bible than the Roman/Eastern Catholic Churches or Protestant Churches. And the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has more books in the OT and NT then any other Church. So it's not a question of 73 vs 66. In my OSB, I have 76 books (the Epistle of Jeremiah is counted as a separate book in Orthodoxy). The Russian Orthodox Church accept 2 Esdras (4 Esdras in the Vuglate) as canonical. 4 Maccabees is consider canonical by the Gregorian Orthodox Church; appendix in the Greek Bible. Anyway, the books were removed entirely from the Protestant Bible purely for economical reasons (it was much cheaper to print Bible without them). Although they were included in the original KJB, they was placed between the OT and NT. It is safe to say that it was there purely for historical reasons, not that the translators considers them genuine parts of Holy Scriptures. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 28, 2009 8:20:13 GMT -5
Why did Protestants take 7 books out of the King James Bible? The original King James Bible had 73 books for the first 100 years of its existence. Why did they change their minds 100 years after they created the King James Bible? Were they right to edit the KJV 100 years later? Yeah! I never get an answer to that one myself! |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Aug 10, 2009 7:09:59 GMT -5
The OT canon was sealed according to Daniel any thing written between 395 bc and Christ should not be taken as scripture
much love----------knuckle
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 11, 2009 8:56:14 GMT -5
The OT canon was sealed according to Daniel any thing written between 395 bc and Christ should not be taken as scripture much love----------knuckle  What? That's a first for me! Where'd you get that from?  |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Aug 11, 2009 10:28:19 GMT -5
the seven weeks prophecy in Daniel the first seven seals prophecy until Christ
last prophet was Malachi 395 BC --- Maccabees though history is part of no biblical prophecy
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 11, 2009 10:59:05 GMT -5
the seven weeks prophecy in Daniel the first seven seals prophecy until Christ last prophet was Malachi 395 BC --- Maccabees though history is part of no biblical prophecy So, is the basis for you belief that a book has to be prophetic in order to be included in The Bible? You do understand that no Old Testament Canon ever existed before the time of Christ right? That The Jews didn't canonize their version of The Old Testament until long after Jesus died right? (Council of Jamnia 90 A.D.). Does the Bible list an Old Testament Canon or the requirements for a canon? |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Aug 11, 2009 17:46:50 GMT -5
Why did Protestants take 7 books out of the King James Bible? The original King James Bible had 73 books for the first 100 years of its existence. Why did they change their minds 100 years after they created the King James Bible? Were they right to edit the KJV 100 years later? A better question is why do Catholics claim the Apocrypha should be part of the Bible when it wasn't inspired by the Holy Spirit? All protestant bibles contained the apocrypha until the Puritains removed it. After that other protestants began to follow suit. I personally could care less if a Bible has the apocrpha in it or not. The apocrypha describes what Jewish culture was like back in Jesus' time and it doesn't hurt to know that. |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Aug 11, 2009 17:53:24 GMT -5
the seven weeks prophecy in Daniel the first seven seals prophecy until Christ last prophet was Malachi 395 BC --- Maccabees though history is part of no biblical prophecy So, is the basis for you belief that a book has to be prophetic in order to be included in The Bible? You do understand that no Old Testament Canon ever existed before the time of Christ right? That The Jews didn't canonize their version of The Old Testament until long after Jesus died right? (Council of Jamnia 90 A.D.). Does the Bible list an Old Testament Canon or the requirements for a canon? Jesus quoted scripture from the Old Testament even though it wasn't called the Old Testament. |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Aug 11, 2009 19:27:18 GMT -5
Hi Cepha------------ I am not knocking history.I applaud the CC they are a great source for historical accounts,but history is not scripture.Daniel tells us that God would not talk to Israel after 395 BC until "messiah the Prince shall come" and speak to them directly--that is why the first of Daniel's sevens is separate from the others. So the account of the Maccabees though historical is not scripture.The Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)written in 2 BC is another As for the wisdom of Solomon,Bel and the Dragon,Judith,Tobit etc etc the argument does not apply so I didn't comment on them. good to see the forum is up and running again  last I had heard we were prompted by e-mail not to return because of a virus...I see you have sorted that out so I will drop in on a more regular basis. I am also interested if you have heard from Red Sox Fan he dropped off the radar on CUSA and hasn't answered my PMs as always,much love-----------knuckle |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 11, 2009 22:09:15 GMT -5
A better question is why do Catholics claim the Apocrypha should be part of the Bible when it wasn't inspired by the Holy Spirit? It was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Early Christians (1st-11th centuries) believed so. Of course, you and your Methodist Church reject them, since that is your tradition. That's cool. I can respect your Protestant tradition. Catholics? Oh dear my dear Sister, Latin/Eastern Catholics are not the only ones who believe the Bible does not contain 66 books. For the vast majority of Christians (Latin/Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, etc), the Bible does not contain 66 books. Only a small minority of Christians believe the Holy Bible contains 66 books. In fact, even the Ethiopian Jews still believe the OT "Apocrypha" are inspired and include them in there canon. All protestant bibles contained the apocrypha until the Puritains removed it. After that other protestants began to follow suit. I personally could care less if a Bible has the apocrpha in it or not. The apocrypha describes what Jewish culture was like back in Jesus' time and it doesn't hurt to know that. You are one of few Protestants that I have meet that share your attitude. Many of them speak of them as they are the Devil's work............no joke......  In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 11, 2009 23:13:55 GMT -5
Jesus quoted scripture from the Old Testament even though it wasn't called the Old Testament.[/quote] Yes, He quoted potions from the Old Testament, as we know it today. However, there was no OT canon in his time, as different Jews, even today, consider different books inspired. There is no way to reconstruct a canonical list of books in the Old Testament relying solely on Christ and the NT writers. Second, there are two version of the Old Testament. The Greek and Hebrew. Christ and the NT writers rely on the Greek Version (Septuagint) and favor it above the Hebrew in many cases. It is strange that modern Protestant Bible OT is based on the Masoretic Manuscript. And then we have "KJY Onlyist" claiming that the KJV is God inspired, where Christ and the NT writers didn't consider the Hebrew texts inspired...... ;D In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 12, 2009 12:00:13 GMT -5
A better question is why do Catholics claim the Apocrypha should be part of the Bible when it wasn't inspired by the Holy Spirit? How did you come to that assertion? For 15 centuries, Christians believed (and still do today) that they were inspired by The Holy Spirit. Jesus used them. The Apostles used them. And, they've always been in The OT that they (Jesus and The Apostles) used. We don't claim them to be part of The Bible...they were always there even before Christianity existed (see: Septuagint). In fact, they were in use even before Jesus was born as a man. Hundreds of years before Jesus. There are only two groups that reject them...The Pharisees and Protestants (and we all know who else the Pharisees rejected, so we know their wrong). Well, I'd care... Revelation 22:18-19For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book,
If any man shall add unto these things,
God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy,
God shall take away his part out of the book of life,
and out of the holy city,
and from the things which are written in this book. (In context of course) I believe The Holy Spirit inspired John to make sure that The Bible (not just that one letter John was writting in Patmos) was NOT to be touched by man at all, that it was to be left as written in it's entirety. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 12, 2009 12:09:44 GMT -5
So, is the basis for you belief that a book has to be prophetic in order to be included in The Bible? You do understand that no Old Testament Canon ever existed before the time of Christ right? That The Jews didn't canonize their version of The Old Testament until long after Jesus died right? (Council of Jamnia 90 A.D.). Does the Bible list an Old Testament Canon or the requirements for a canon? Jesus quoted scripture from the Old Testament even though it wasn't called the Old Testament. Actually, Jesus used The Septuagint which held the Deuterocanonical books (His old Testament is identical to universal Christianity's...the only OT's that differ from Jesus' OT are The Pharisees and The Protestants). |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 12, 2009 12:37:12 GMT -5
Hi Cepha------------ I am not knocking history.I applaud the CC they are a great source for historical accounts,but history is not scripture. But isn't scripture "history"? So, according to your belief, The Holy Spirit didn't guide The Church when it canonized The Holy Bible? How can you be sure that even Daniel was inspired by The Holy Spirit? Does Daniel say so? Also, who was it that put Daniel in The OT Canon of The Christian Bible? If they got Daniel right, why would The Holy Spirit "not" guide them to get the rest of The Bible right? Thanks! Yeah, it got handled! He's been MIA here too. Too bad! The Yankees just swept the Red Sox! I was thinking of him! I wish he was here so I could tease him! LOL! Great to have you back Knucks! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 12, 2009 12:43:40 GMT -5
A better question is why do Catholics claim the Apocrypha should be part of the Bible when it wasn't inspired by the Holy Spirit? It was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Early Christians (1st-11th centuries) believed so. Of course, you and your Methodist Church reject them, since that is your tradition. That's cool. I can respect your Protestant tradition. Catholics? Oh dear my dear Sister, Latin/Eastern Catholics are not the only ones who believe the Bible does not contain 66 books. For the vast majority of Christians (Latin/Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, etc), the Bible does not contain 66 books. Only a small minority of Christians believe the Holy Bible contains 66 books. In fact, even the Ethiopian Jews still believe the OT "Apocrypha" are inspired and include them in there canon. All protestant bibles contained the apocrypha until the Puritains removed it. After that other protestants began to follow suit. I personally could care less if a Bible has the apocrpha in it or not. The apocrypha describes what Jewish culture was like back in Jesus' time and it doesn't hurt to know that. You are one of few Protestants that I have meet that share your attitude. Many of them speak of them as they are the Devil's work............no joke...... In IC.XC, Ramon Ramon! What's up bro! Question: Is there any historical evidence that any Christian Bible ever existed before the 1500's with only 66 books in them? I know that the oldest Bible (the Vaticanus) have the full canon (i.e. "not" only 66). Plus, the oldest Christian OT found contained all the books (including the Deuterocanonicals). But, before the Protestant Reformation, was there ever a Bible that only contained 66 books? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 12, 2009 12:57:11 GMT -5
Jesus quoted scripture from the Old Testament even though it wasn't called the Old Testament. Yes, He quoted potions from the Old Testament, as we know it today. However, there was no OT canon in his time, as different Jews, even today, consider different books inspired. There is no way to reconstruct a canonical list of books in the Old Testament relying solely on Christ and the NT writers. In IC.XC, Ramon Very True! The OT wasn't canonized by the Jews until 90 AD. So, what does that mean about The Chrisitan OT? Did The Holy Spirit "inpsire" The Pharisees' Canon (those that outrightly rejected Christ and actively persecuted and martyred Christians)? |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 12, 2009 22:09:07 GMT -5
Hey Steven. I been good, just came back from a little vacation! Question: Is there any historical evidence that any Christian Bible ever existed before the 1500's with only 66 books in them? I know that the oldest Bible (the Vaticanus) have the full canon (i.e. "not" only 66). Plus, the oldest Christian OT found contained all the books (including the Deuterocanonicals). But, before the Protestant Reformation, was there ever a Bible that only contained 66 books? Nope, not that I am aware of. The Church (both West and East) in the first 1,000 years of Church History have never dogmatize the belief that the Bible contains only 66 books. Never. This issue arose during the Protestant Reformers. The Holy Early Church Fathers quoted from the Deuterocanonicals books as inspired Scriptures (attested by Protestant Historians/Scholars, such as Thomas C. Oden, Sir Brenton, etc). The very first canonical list of books ever published, The TaNaKh (the 39 books of the Jewish Bible and the Protestant O.T.) was published and enforced by people who rejected the books of the Apostles. Early local Church councils (such as the Council of Rome in 382AD, the Council of Cathage 397AD, Council of Hippo 393AD, etc) canonized the NT, as having 27 books (the list became official later), and in the OT, certain books Protestants reject was included in the canonical list. Besides this, The 7th Holy Ecumenical Council, Nicea II quoted from Sirach: Canon 16 (787) - Sirach 1:32 (scripture). In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 12, 2009 22:11:05 GMT -5
It is perhaps good to quote some Protestant sources:
Renowed Protestant Historian Philip Schaff says: History of the Christian Church vol. II
138. The Holy Scriptures and the Canon
The first express definition of the New Testament canon, in the form in which it has since been universally retained, comes from two African synods, held in 393 at Hippo, and 397 at Carthage, in the presence of Augustin, who exerted a commanding influence on all the theological questions of his age. By that time, at least, the whole church must have already become nearly unanimous as to the number of the canonical books; so that there seemed to be no need even of the sanction of a general council…
Soon after the middle of the fourth century, when the church became firmly settled in the Empire, all doubts as to the Apocrypha of the Old Testament and the Antilegomena of the New ceased, and the acceptance of the Canon in its Catholic shape, which includes both, became an article of faith.
Vol. III
118. Sources of Theology. Scripture and Tradition.
In the Western church the canon of both Testaments was closed at the end of the fourth century through the authority of Jerome (who wavered, however, between critical doubts and the principle of tradition), and more especially of Augustine, who firmly followed the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint, and the preponderant tradition in reference to the disputed Catholic Epistles and the Revelation; though he himself, in some places, inclines to consider the Old Testament Apocrypha as deutero-canonical books, bearing a subordinate authority.
The council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament…
This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned
by the council of Trent at its fourth session.
Another Protestant scholar F. F. Bruce in his book The Canon of Scripture (page 97) says:
"In 393, a church council held in Augustine’s see of Hippo laid down the limits of the canonical books along the lines approved by Augustine himself. The proceedings of this council have been lost but they were summarized in the proceedings of the Third Council of Carthage (397) a provincial council. These appear to have been the first Church Councils to make a formal pronouncement on the canon. When they did so they did not impose any innovation on the churches; they simply endorsed what had become the general consensus of the churches of the west and the greater part of the east.
Still another Protestant, Harry Y. Gamble, says the following in his book The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (page 55-56) –
The final resolution of the many variations [in the New Testament canon] we have noted began to take place in the late fourth century, primarily through the actions of ecclesiastical councils… In the west, two North African synods of the late fourth century promulgated lists of authoritative books. The Council of Hippo (393) and the Council of Carthage (397) both named the 27 books of our New Testament….
A broad uniformity of usage which closely approximates our [New Testament] canon cannot therefore be dated before the close of the fourth century… The canons of Hippo were recognized in later Church history for their orthodoxy and importance."
Canon II of the Quinisext (Trullan) Council included explicit affirmation for all of the canons from Council of Carthage in 418 AD including the one on the Canon of Scripture from Hippo. So in short, the Early Church didn't believe the Holy Bible contains 66 books or affirm the Protestant OT canon.
In IC.XC,
Ramon
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 12, 2009 22:21:18 GMT -5
Very True! The OT wasn't canonized by the Jews until 90 AD. So, what does that mean about The Chrisitan OT? Did The Holy Spirit "inpsire" The Pharisees' Canon (those that outrightly rejected Christ and actively persecuted and martyred Christians)? The most extraordinarily fact of all this, and many Protestants are unaware, is that the decision of the Jewish Council of 90AD was NOT binding to the entire Jewish or Christian communities. The Ethiopian Jews, to this day, regard the Deuterocanonical books as Holy Scripture and include them in there canon. The Early Christians did not regard this council as binding, otherwise they would have rejected the NT! To this day, Jews are not in agreement in the OT canon (the majority accept only 39 books of the OT), let alone there interpretation of the texts! Why Protestants always mention the Jews when dealing with this discussion is beyond my understanding. The Jews had no authority to dictate to the Church the canonical list of the OT. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
last I had heard we were prompted by e-mail not to return because of a virus...I see you have sorted that out so I will drop in on a more regular basis.