So many bibles! Which one to believe?

bbbbbbb · #31 2nd June 2009, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by rockytriton

my guess is that it's not an omission, it most likely uses different sources than the KJV. The KJV is not the definitive source of Christian scripture, it was translated from different manuscripts. The NIV wasn't a different translation of KJV, it's a different translation of the other manuscripts. Also, the oldest surviving manuscript of John doesn't have the "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" section in it, the whole part is just not there. It's not missing, it's just skipped. Some think it was a later addition. So it depends on the manuscripts that are used. Saying that the KJV is the inspired version by God and that the originals are not the true sources is like saying that a Britney Spears remake of Beethoven's 5th is the truely inspired version and the original is meaningless.

I loved that last analogy.

Turkleton · #32 5th June 2009, 12:57 AM

Originally Posted by Meelahd

So who is right? The council's of Christians who came after Christ and were his devout followers. Or the Jews who denied Christ after his coming and thought of him as a heretic. You can decide who had the holy spirit in their hearts.

^^ exactly. The the books removed by Martin Luther were all books used during the time of Jesus and only taken out by the Jews who denied him

bbbbbbb · #33 5th June 2009, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Turkleton

^^ exactly. The the books removed by Martin Luther were all books used during the time of Jesus and only taken out by the Jews who denied him

There have been many threads on this topic. Suffice it to say that any Jew will tell you that they did not "remove" books from their Bible any more than the Christians at the Council of Nicea "removed" apocryphal books of the New Testament. What both groups did was to recognize (canonize) those books which they all agreed with authentic and inspired.

The charge that the Jews eliminated the deuterocanonical books because of their Christological content is absurd on two points. First, is that the New Testament authors did not quote them in reference to prophecies concerning the Christ, but chose to quote freely from other Old Testament books. So, if the Jews were motivated to do so, they would have eliminated such passages as Psalms 22 and 112 and Isaiah 53. The second is that the deuterocanonical books contain virtually nothing in reference to Messianic prophecies.

rockytriton · #34 5th June 2009, 08:22 PM

of course they left in Chronicles, which directly contradicts the lineage of Jesus in Matthew.

papist1 · #35 20th June 2009, 11:50 AM

Every Bible had 73 books in it previous to Martin Luther taking 7 books from the old test canon.

I would go with the Bible that God canonized through His one Church, with everything He wanted in it.

peace papist

BigNorsk · #36 20th June 2009, 01:42 PM

The only books missing from Martin Luther's Bible that would have typically been in Bibles at the time, was what are called 1 and 2 Esdras in the Protestant Apocrypha and the Letter to the Laodiceans (sp?).

He did move the normal order of two New Testament books, and he followed the practice of setting the apocryphal books in a separate section. Some of the other translations made a note about them not being scripture, but since the translation was intended for those of not a lot of learning, setting them in a separate section was a good idea in order to not confuse people.

And Luther continued to use the Apochrypha books.

Catholics tend to say he removed them, but he didn't.

Marv

papist1 · #37 20th June 2009, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by BigNorsk

The only books missing from Martin Luther's Bible that would have typically been in Bibles at the time, was what are called 1 and 2 Esdras in the Protestant Apocrypha and the Letter to the Laodiceans (sp?).

He did move the normal order of two New Testament books, and he followed the practice of setting the apocryphal books in a separate section. Some of the other translations made a note about them not being scripture, but since the translation was intended for those of not a lot of learning, setting them in a separate section was a good idea in order to not confuse people.

And Luther continued to use the Apochrypha books.

Catholics tend to say he removed them, but he didn't.

Marv

That is a nice and fluffy thought. In reality, Luther not only disgarded them from being anything near inspired, and also wante dto remove James, Revelation and Ruth. Philip Melanchton would not let him. This is why we do not see the deuterocanonicals in protestant Bibles today.

By what authority did Luther have the power to decide anything concerning the canon? I have not found no evidence of any.

To take the canon, which was decided by the Chuirch Christ gave the Power and authority to to canonize, and then virtually disgard the parts he doesn't agree with for doctrinal reasons, is ludicrous. I guess the fact that no one sto what Luther taught is evidence enough of the power that was working through Luther. Not to mention the chaos and division which are the main fruits of his false doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura.

peace, papist

Epiphoskei · #38 21st June 2009, 12:11 AM

Catholic apologists have been doing hit pieces on Luther for centuries. Very little of what they've argued has ever resembled the source material.

Luther stuck opinions in his prefaces to his Bible. Only opinions. If he had removed books from the Canon, you would not find these statements in his prefaces to the books inside his Bible.

You will find the first line of this introduction reads "Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God." You never hear that, of course, because it doesn't further the cause of making Luther into a Bible dismembering heretic.

Luther had a view of the Canon wherein certain books were more central and important based on the centrality of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection. James doesn't speak often about this, so he writes that by comparison it is a gospel of straw. That's a statement of comparison only.

http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm

papist1 · #39 21st June 2009, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Epiphoskei

Catholic apologists have been doing hit pieces on Luther for centuries. Very little of what they've argued has ever resembled the source material.

Luther stuck opinions in his prefaces to his Bible. Only opinions. If he had removed books from the Canon, you would not find these statements in his prefaces to the books inside his Bible.

You will find the first line of this introduction reads "Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God." You never hear that, of course, because it doesn't further the cause of making Luther into a Bible dismembering heretic.

Luther had a view of the Canon wherein certain books were more central and important based on the centrality of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection. James doesn't speak often about this, so he writes that by comparison it is a gospel of straw. That's a statement of comparison only.

http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%2...0canon%202.htm

and so who then took the 7 books from the protestant bible OT and left it less than a real Bible?

peace, papist

Epiphoskei · #40 21st June 2009, 04:45 PM

We don't believe they were ever there. Binding in the same volume does not mean admittance into the canon.