So many bibles! Which one to believe?

blue stone yellow powder · #51 7th October 2009, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by Neriah

Firstly St. John was specifically talking about the book of Revelation.
Even though I think we can apply it to the all the books.

Revelation 22 (ESV)
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

I embrace the canon that was established by the Council of Carthage in 397 AD.
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kingdoms, 2 books of Paralipomenon, Job, Psalter of David, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Esdras, 2 books of Machabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 of him to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John.
The Canon was reaffirmed at the Council of Trent

I am glad that Martin Luther who determined which books he wanted in his canon, didn't removed the other books he wanted to remove. He fought hard to remove them, but wasn't successful
Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.
BTW in his German tranlation of the Bible those four books were put into an appendix because he felt them not on the same footing as the rest of the New Testament.

He especially did not like James calling it an epistle of straw.

The books that were removed from the Old Testament and the books in the New Testament that he tried to remove, didn't jive with his view of Christianity.

There is alot of information online about this subject. You can decide for yourself after some thoughtful research.

Peace and blessings,
Neriah

That dang blasted Martin Luther! Imagine him thinking OF dear innocent and perfect sinless James that way.
surly you are not confused by James letter are ya? you propably also understand just like that dang blasted Luther that it is not God that justifies people by what he sees .

but as the James letter clearly points out it is only us people that justify people by what we see.
for poor innocent James clerly points out it is his eyes not Gods that justify people by what he sees them do.

Luther AND IAM SURE YOU TO found
that it is only God that REALLY messes things up by justifying those ungodly------- good for nothings like DR Luther.

6.Romans 5:6
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.
Romans 5:5-7

every one just not that low down good for nothing martin luther knows one must bear real and true sins to be saved Since God does not save imagenary sinner's!
so let our sins be strong but our faith in christ his complete and full and free forgivness be stronger still.

PilgrimToChrist · #52 19th October 2009, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by bbbbbbb

I am impressed that despite the many differences of Tradition among the various branches of Christianity, there are no fundamental differences of doctrine as understood from the Bible, whether or not it contains the disputed books. Those other books neither add nor detract from other doctrines found in the Bible.

I am a convert and this summer, my family came to visit and my 10 year old sister asked me if Catholics use the same Bible as Methodists. I was like "Well... mostly..."

We dispute about seven of the Old Testament books (and parts of books) between the Catholics and Protestants. However, there was still some debate over those books which are called "deuterocanonical" (due to their distinction from the Jewish canon) or "apocryphal" (though the "apocrypha" also includes books that neither of us accept, such as the Book of Enoch). The Jews had an open canon until they decided to close it after the destruction of the Temple to try to unify the Jewish people.

There were various councils that declared slightly different canons but it wasn't defined dogmatically until Trent, in response to the Protestants. Luther doubted the authenticity of some books (antilegomena - "spoken against") but these are not topics that are not discussed by the Church fathers. Lutherans today cast doubt on Hebrews, James, Jude, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, and Revelation, in addition to not including the seven deuterocanonical books. They were trying to simplify the religion. So even though the Catholic canon was common, you can't honestly say that Luther removed them if the canon wasn't dogmatically defined and Luther split before it was.

In another thread, someone asked if there were any denominations that didn't use Paul because the poster objected to the idea of Christ as a sacrifice. Well, I told him, you could pick any one of the Gospels and you're going to get the same basic message as Paul expounds upon.

I have also heard it said that every Psalm is about Jesus, that you could just live on that book. The Psalms are amazing, the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer has a schedule for a 7 week cycle, monks and nuns (Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican) sing the Psalms every week and it is said that the Desert Fathers used to know all 150 by heart and repeat them every day! The Psalms are a treasury of wisdom, the Gospel was written long before Jesus came.

We don't all have the same canon, it's true. But it's not as though crucial elements to the Gospel message are included in those seven books. Does it really matter if Daniel poisoned a dragon? If St. Raphael didn't give Tobit his eyesight back? If Judas Maccabeus didn't conquer half the known world? I'm not saying those things didn't happen, or that there aren't things to learn from those stories, but are they crucial? It's not like trying to take out Romans or Luke or Genesis or something. Certain books are more critical than others but all are good.

When I was an Anglican (Episcopalian), I used to do Morning and Evening Prayer from the Book of Common Prayer with my friends. The lectionary gives readings from all the books, including the deuterocanonical/apocryphal ones, but if those are scheduled, alternative readings from the usual canon are given for those who don't want to use them (or don't have an "unabridged Bible" as my friend calls it). I think people then miss out and we used to always read from those books because we weren't as familiar with them. But I think a balanced approach is best.

So if you're a Protestant, learn those stories you've missed out on. If you're a Catholic, don't freak out that the Protestants have a shorter Bible. And most of all, none of it does any good if you don't actually read it.

bbbbbbb · #53 22nd October 2009, 09:53 PM

That was an excellent post, PtC! I was puzzled by your statement concerning Lutherans holding particular canonical NT books in doubt. I have never encountered any Lutherans that hold those views. Can you give some references for your statement?

Concerning the Psalms, I find it a great pity that the majority of churches no longer sing them as part of their worship. I am very happy to have found a church that has all of them available for singing in worship and they are put to good use. As someone has said, if they were good enough for Christ and the apostles, they ought to be good enough for us.

Thanks again

Sarcalogos Deus · #54 5th January 2010, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by bbbbbbb

That was an excellent post, PtC! I was puzzled by your statement concerning Lutherans holding particular canonical NT books in doubt. I have never encountered any Lutherans that hold those views. Can you give some references for your statement?

Concerning the Psalms, I find it a great pity that the majority of churches no longer sing them as part of their worship. I am very happy to have found a church that has all of them available for singing in worship and they are put to good use. As someone has said, if they were good enough for Christ and the apostles, they ought to be good enough for us.

Thanks again

Thankfully every Catholic Church sings at least one Psalm at every mass along with the usual readings.

I read some of your posts earlier about how you think Catholics don't read their Bible and don't go to Mass anytime but Easter and Christmas. If this is true sir, then why is every Saturday and Sunday Mass at all the Catholic Churches in my town always packed to the rafters? Keep in mind i live in Oklahoma which is Baptist country. Now if you go to one Mass a week all year you would have had 40% of the OT and 80% of the NT read to you. Add to that the additional reading Catholics do at home and we certainly do appear to read our Bibles quite a lot.

jpr7 · #55 6th January 2010, 03:40 AM

Originally Posted by Ramon96

Sorry for misunderstanding you. Yes, I would agree that all books we have in common say virtually the same thing, but it's more a matter of interpretation than anything else.

In IC.XC,
Ramon

No problem. I would agree that there is an element of interpretation involved. As a side note, I am moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy.

bbbbbbb · #56 6th January 2010, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Sarcalogos Deus

Thankfully every Catholic Church sings at least one Psalm at every mass along with the usual readings.

I read some of your posts earlier about how you think Catholics don't read their Bible and don't go to Mass anytime but Easter and Christmas. If this is true sir, then why is every Saturday and Sunday Mass at all the Catholic Churches in my town always packed to the rafters? Keep in mind i live in Oklahoma which is Baptist country. Now if you go to one Mass a week all year you would have had 40% of the OT and 80% of the NT read to you. Add to that the additional reading Catholics do at home and we certainly do appear to read our Bibles quite a lot.

It has been my observation that religious commitment is inversely proportional to demographic strength. For example, where one religion such as the Baptists in the Deep South holds sway, the minority religions (RCC, EOC, etc.) have firmly committed and knowledgeable members. Here in the North where my neck of the woods is dominated by Catholics the minority religion (Baptists and other fundamental Protestants) are firmly committed and knowledgeable.

The net result here is that the majority religion is in marked decline as the Catholic Church has been closing and demolishing churches and its members are nominally committed, with many attending mass only on Easter and Christmas. Having been heavily discouraged from reading the Bible by priests here until the end of the twentieth century, their knowledge of the Bible has only been gleaned from the masses they have attended.

Concerning Bible knowledge of Catholics, I was frankly amazed when I went to the website, catholic.org, in order to download the deutercanonical books. I discovered that the other books of the Bible were there to download, but not those. I called them to ask the reason and they were quite unaware of the existence of the deutercanonical books, much less any significance they might have in the canon of the BIble.

Jpark · #57 7th January 2010, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by zac abraham

Orthodox, catholics and protestants have different bibles. But theres a curse in revelation about adding or removing scriptures from bible. Im greatly confused and afraid.

Hello,

If you like the KJV, then you should upgrade to NKJV for it is easier to read, but true to KJV.

If you want a accurate translation, consider the NASB. It is the concise translation.

While preserving the literal accuracy of the 1901 ASV, the NASB has sought to render grammar and terminology in contemporary English. Special attention has been given to the rendering of verb tenses to give the English reader a rendering as close as possible to the sense of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. In 1995, the text of the NASB was updated for greater understanding and smoother reading.

Unfortunately, I don't have the money to get this translation.

jpr7 · #58 9th January 2010, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by jpark43

Hello,

If you like the KJV, then you should upgrade to NKJV for it is easier to read, but true to KJV.

It even corrects the KJV in many places.

Originally Posted by jpark43

If you want a accurate translation, consider the NASB. It is the concise translation.

Concise doesn't always mean accurate. And while the NASB is a quite decent translation, it tends to be more literal in that it often seeks to keep the word order of the Greek text which will result in sacrifice of something in some way or another.

Jpark · #59 9th January 2010, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by jpr7

It even corrects the KJV in many places.

Concise doesn't always mean accurate. And while the NASB is a quite decent translation, it tends to be more literal in that it often seeks to keep the word order of the Greek text which will result in sacrifice of something in some way or another.

Yes, it does.

Then I don't have to get another Bible.

I already have at least five NKJV Bibles.