It is sophistry that we Protestants "accept the canon of the Jews"

[SummaScriptura]

We don't.

The Jews canonized their Bible before the Christians in order to exclude Jews from reading the works of the Apostles. And yet, Protestants include the works of the Apostles.

It is a dishonest position. We Protestants subscribe to a cut & paste canon but cannot admit to it.

 

[Philip_B]

Biblical canon - Wikipedia

This is a complex area. The exclusion of the Deutero-canonical texts from accepted Christian Scripture is a later development. Clearly the exclusion followed the decision of the Jewish community to exclude the deuterocanonical texts, largely because they were probably Greek only texts.

The Deutero-canonical texts were used by the Apostles and Jesus, and so the question of excluding them does seem at one level at least, problematical.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Biblical canon - Wikipedia

This is a complex area. The exclusion of the Deutero-canonical texts from accepted Christian Scripture is a later development. Clearly the exclusion followed the decision of the Jewish community to exclude the deuterocanonical texts, largely because they were probably Greek only texts.<snip>

Except we now know that at least Tobit and Ecclesiasticus were known in the first century AD in their Hebrew forms, being found in caves by the Dead Sea and Masada.

 

[BobRyan]

We don't.

The Jews canonized their Bible before the Christians in order to exclude Jews from reading the works of the Apostles. And yet, Protestants include the works of the Apostles.

It is a dishonest position. We Protestants subscribe to a cut & paste canon but cannot admit to it.

??? what??

We have 66 books and the 39 are the same as what the Jews had at the time of Christ a fixed canon of scripture for over 400 years according to the first century historian Josephus and according to Jerome who created the Vulgate translation

 

[BobRyan]

Except we now know that at least Tobit and Ecclesiasticus were known in the first century AD

"were known" is not the same thing as "kept in the temple as the Bible canon" as Josephus points out.

We also know of a lot of bogus writings - but do not insert them into our Bibles.

 

[SummaScriptura]

??? what??

We have 66 books and the 39 are the same as what the Jews had at the time of Christ a fixed canon of scripture for over 400 years according to the first century historian Josephus and according to Jerome who created the Vulgate translation

Just repeating an opinion that someone else has articulated is not research. Your sources are secondary sources. There are no primary source materials which corroborate your classic understanding on this issue.

 

[DamianWarS]

We don't.

The Jews canonized their Bible before the Christians in order to exclude Jews from reading the works of the Apostles. And yet, Protestants include the works of the Apostles.

It is a dishonest position. We Protestants subscribe to a cut & paste canon but cannot admit to it.

I don't see this as uniquely a protestant problem as no one rejects the books in the jewish canon, it's just some have more in it. None of Deuterocanonical books are works of the apostles or add any significance to the NT writings so I miss where the problem is? if the canonization of these text had a focus to exclude the works of the apostles from a jewish perspective how is valuing the book of Tobit for example valuing the works of the apostles or opposing this anti-christian philosophy? To me these are not the same problems. All Christians agree the "works of the Apostles" so at the very least adding NT writings to the jewish canon should be considered restoring the true word of God, after that that may be disputes as to what is considered part of the OT.

 

[FireDragon76]

At the time of Jesus there was no such thing as a "canon" in the modern sense that Protestants and Catholics understand it, so it's a bit anachronistic to suggest that such a thing existed in Judaism. Judaism at the time was not a singular, monolithic thing, but was highly variegated.

 

[tulipbee]

I read up on theomatics and Ivan Panin works. It talks about a new discovery on the bible. it states that many things in the bible are perfectly divisible by certain numbers . this pattern is in almost every letter in the 66 books except the extra books in the 73 or 76 book bible. this is a very big deal. the extras contains none of those patterns at all. like the certain number of words, Moses. I think its 700 and something. the total sum of the words, "Moses" are perfectly divisible by certain numbers. that is a big deal. why. it seals the 66 books to the point one can't add or subtract a single letter. if they did, all the numbers fall apart. So, to me, the protestant is the final bible even though the roman religious sects disrespects Luther for removing thier books. the thing about the divisibles, it's done in such a way that no man can write like that. that leave God being the author

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I read up on theomatics and Ivan Panin works. It talks about a new discovery on the bible. it states that many things in the bible are perfectly divisible by certain numbers . this pattern is in almost every letter in the 66 books except the extra books in the 73 or 76 book bible. this is a very big deal. the extras contains none of those patterns at all. like the certain number of words, Moses. I think its 700 and something. the total sum of the words, "Moses" are perfectly divisible by certain numbers. that is a big deal. why. it seals the 66 books to the point one can't add or subtract a single letter. if they did, all the numbers fall apart. So, to me, the protestant is the final bible even though the roman religious sects disrespects Luther for removing thier books. the thing about the divisibles, it's done in such a way that no man can write like that. that leave God being the author

Problem with that is there are no original Hebrew manuscripts of the Word.

 

[tulipbee]

Problem with that is there are no original Hebrew manuscripts of the Word.

copies will work, right?
edit-will need to look for the Hebrew part but the Greek is here: Ivan Panin used the manuscripts collected by Westcott & Hort. From the alternative readings that Westcott & Hort left to the manuscripts, Ivan Panin was able to choose that one which maintained the seal intact by checking which one worked with the numeric system that God has knitted into the text. This corrected Greek manuscripts Ivan Panin published with name "Numeric Greek New Testament". It contains 514 pages and has been printed by Oxford University Press. "Numeric English New Testament" is his translation of "Numeric Greek New Testament". It is the most accurate available translation of the New Testament. Ivan Panin translated even those articles that do not have meaning in English. The Book Society of Canada published this book that contains 610 pages and that Oxford University Press printed. www.totta-on.fi/ivan-panin-e.html

 

[yeshuasavedme]

copies will work, right?...

Nope.
The Septuagint itself is a translation, and I don't think even the original manuscript of the translation to Greek exists.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Nope.
The Septuagint itself is a translation, and I don't think even the original manuscript of the translation to Greek exists.

Just checked...none exist. Just fragments of copies here and there, not original manuscript at all, and there are discrepencies.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I don't see this as uniquely a protestant problem as no one rejects the books in the jewish canon, it's just some have more in it. None of Deuterocanonical books are works of the apostles or add any significance to the NT writings so I miss where the problem is? if the canonization of these text had a focus to exclude the works of the apostles from a jewish perspective how is valuing the book of Tobit for example valuing the works of the apostles or opposing this anti-christian philosophy? To me these are not the same problems. All Christians agree the "works of the Apostles" so at the very least adding NT writings to the jewish canon should be considered restoring the true word of God, after that that may be disputes as to what is considered part of the OT.

At the time of Jesus there was no such thing as a "canon" in the modern sense that Protestants and Catholics understand it, so it's a bit anachronistic to suggest that such a thing existed in Judaism. Judaism at the time was not a singular, monolithic thing, but was highly variegated.

You are both missing the point. Protestants, (we came much later, no?) claim as a pillar of their defense of Biblical canon that "we accept the canon of the Jews" as if the religious leaders of the Jews a generation after Christ, and after the destruction of the temple has any relevancy to the question at all. It is a defense designed to obfuscate. It is a falsehood in that sense.

 

[tulipbee]

Nope.
The Septuagint itself is a translation, and I don't think even the original manuscript of the translation to Greek exists.

Septuagint isn't included in the 66 books

 

[JohnRabbit]

Just repeating an opinion that someone else has articulated is not research. Your sources are secondary sources. There are no primary source materials which corroborate your classic understanding on this issue.

what about God, Himself!

surely He counts for something!

it is His Word and He would be irresponsible if He did not afford us access to the same word from the beginning!

He gave the Jews the job of preserving His Word and most scholars agree that they have done just that, like BobRyan said! (see also rom 3:2 )

Jesus wondered if He'd find faith when He returns and this is one of those things of faith.

someone said it was "complicated"!

not so with God!

now do we believe that He has preserved the scriptures and we can count on what we have to be true!?

don't go for the banana in the tailpipe!

 

[yeshuasavedme]

what about God, Himself!

surely He counts for something!

it is His Word and He would be irresponsible if He did not afford us access to the same word from the beginning!

He gave the Jews the job of preserving His Word and most scholars agree that they have done just that, like BobRyan said! (see also rom 3:2 )

Jesus wondered if He'd find faith when He returns and this is one of those things of faith.

someone said it was "complicated"!

not so with God!

now do we believe that He has preserved the scriptures and we can count on what we have to be true!?

don't go for the banana in the tailpipe!

Jesus is the Word, not dead letters stamped on pages.
There is "Thus saith YHWH", which the prophets wrote, and there is history, and there is wisdom, but it is all about the One Way, which God gave as the Living Oracles to Israel, through Moses, to rehearse until every jot and tittle of them are fulfilled; and they are about the Person and the work of the Word who was to, and has, become flesh.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Septuagint isn't included in the 66 books

Hmmm

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>He gave the Jews the job of preserving His Word and most scholars agree that they have done just that, like BobRyan said! (see also rom 3:2 )<snip>

1. I agree they preserved the word.
2. I believe they ceased preserving some of the word
3. It then fell to the Church to preserve what of the word the Jews stopped preserving
4. The Church preserved the word but parts of the Church do not like parts of the word

 

[tulipbee]

Hmmm

even though lots of letters and books seems honest and faithful and could be inspired by God, but I think the 66 books has a plan in the future. something is going to be revealed. someone discovered something else. some parts of the bible isn't perfectly divisible by certain numbers. some have remainders, numbers left over. like there is 2 left over here and 1 leftover there, 4 here and 3 there. there's a wave pattern. like 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, -1, -2, -3, -4, 3, 2....... can men write like that? I don't think so especially when writers are scattered and lived at different times. The 66 books has to be breathe by God. This is PROOF! this will make Roman religious sects topple over like it's gonna hurt.