A question.

[jkoziel]

This is just a simple question why did the protestants remove the original seven books of the Holy bible?

 

[prodromos]

They followed the Masoretic Hebrew text for their Old Testament instead of the Greek Septuagint because they believed that the Jews were best qualified to determine what made up the Old Testament. The problem with this is that the Masoretic Hebrew Canon was determined not by christian Jews, but by Jews who were hostile to christian beliefs at the Council of Jamnia in 90AD. Some of the prophecies in the books they removed clearly identify Jesus as the Christ and so were an embarrassment to those who rejected Jesus as the Messiah.

It should be noted that the Greek Septuagint was translated by Jews for Jews before Christ had come so they had no anti-Christian bias (since Christianity did not yet exist) and Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint.

John.

 

[Eusebios]

John,
Well said, and it always makes me wonder why so many are so quick to defend a text that is so obviously replete with hapographical error.
Under His Mercy,
Eusebios.

 

[Eldest]

Dosent Septuagint mean some thing like "of questionable origin". I guess if that is true, then the Protestants just wanted a gospel to preach that wasn't as questionable?

 

[Iacobus]

Dosent Septuagint mean some thing like "of questionable origin". I guess if that is true, then the Protestants just wanted a gospel to preach that wasn't as questionable?

Septuagint means "of the seventy". It refers to the tradition that it was translated into Greek by 70 Jewish scholars in about 300 BC. Whoever told you it means "of questionable origin" gave you very questionable information.

James

 

[Servant of the Kingdom]

jkoziel, most protestants are just following what they were told at kids or by their pastors. Very few can read greek.

 

[Eldest]

My fault I was referring to the apocrypha, not the sepatuagint. I know that the protestants dont use the apocrypha, well at least us Lutherans don't!

 

[Lotar]

My fault I was referring to the apocrypha, not the sepatuagint. I know that the protestants dont use the apocrypha, well at least us Lutherans don't!

Well, we do and we don't, Lutherans don't have a set canon.

 

[herev]

My fault I was referring to the apocrypha, not the sepatuagint. I know that the protestants dont use the apocrypha, well at least us Lutherans don't!

I think it's sad that people in every congregation that I have served think there is something "evil" about those books in the apocrapha, repreating something the've heard so long, yet in every case, I walk up the huge Bible on the altar and there they are--the books of the apocrapha. I use them from time to time in sermons and once I explain to people the background of the books, they are usually quite OK with that. Not all protestants are alike!
Tommy

 

[Eldest]

I actually like the apocrypha, and have read it hundreds of times over. I just know of some protestants who dont even want to bother to read them, which I also think is a shame.

 

[PaladinValer]

Apocrypha doesn't mean "questionable" either...

 

[Jay2004]

Dosent Septuagint mean some thing like "of questionable origin". I guess if that is true, then the Protestants just wanted a gospel to preach that wasn't as questionable?

Actually Martin Luther had them removed because if you read the Apocrypha, it supports the catholic faith.
i.e.
Scripture and Tradition, Faith and Works etc..

Martin Luther also wanted to remove the book of James to support his sola fide doctrine.

 

[ClementofRome]

Speaking as a Protestant and only speaking for myself.....it is a shame that the very earliest Church history (late 1st-early 2nd century AD) is completely ignored by Protestants. Clement of Rome, writing ca. 96, was writing from a position of authority in the Christian community and he not only cites apocryphal material, but pseudepigraphial material as well in the same manner in which he cites Isaiah or Genesis. As Clement most likely knew Peter and Paul, or at least there were those in his congregation who were old enough to have known them, it seems to me that we ignore the example of a very knowledgable and godly Christian leader who was CLOSE to the action in terms of what is "canon" and what is not.

If anyone read Judith and tell me that it contains lesser scriptural value than say Esther or Ruth....sorry, I don't buy it. The Wisdom of Solomon is another beautiful and valuable writing of which Protestantism has not taken advantage.

As for the comment above by Servant of the Kingdom that most Protestants only believe what their pastors tell them from childhood and that most of us cannot read Greek.....please do not drag the discussion down to this level. All Christian children believe what they are told by their parents, pastors, priests, bishops, etc etc etc....this is not restricted to Protestants. Additionally, the great MASS of Christendom does not read Greek, be it Protestant, Roman Catholic or Orthodox. I am in the great minority of "Christians" in that I do read Greek, and it has nothing to do with whether I am a Protestant or not.

I am in agreement with the general tone and argument of this thread.

 

[Servant of the Kingdom]

Yes Clement, my point is that a lot of we believe is based in trust.

 

[Jay2004]

many protestants base their beliefs on the that of the Jews of the 1st or 2nd century ad and some believe the true bible is the peshitta.

The peshitta was copied from the septugint..

If we were to use the Jews of that time as an authority, then we would not believe in the teachings of Jesus..

Some say that if the early Jews rejected the deutronomical books then we should, but they forget one thing. The Jews rejected the entire new testament as well, so I prefer the Christian authority instead.....

 

[Filia Mariae]

There is also reference to Purgatory and a fair amount of Marian typology in the Deuterocanonicals, which is distasteful to most Protestants.

 

[peschitta_enthusiast]

There is no basis for Peshitta being translated from LXX. Peshitta NT is the original NT. All evidence at my free book on the website: http://www.peshitta.netfirms.com

Peshitta OT seems to be translated from older Hebrew original, not Massoretic, or LXX. LXX and POT are in many ways superior to the Massoretic HOT which is revised, late, and corrupt.

 

[SolomonVII]

This is just a simple question why did the protestants remove the original seven books of the Holy bible?

Mainly, the practice started more to save on paper for the printing presses than by anything else.

 

[Jay2004]

There is no basis for Peshitta being translated from LXX. Peshitta NT is the original NT. All evidence at my free book on the website: http://www.peshitta.netfirms.com

Peshitta OT seems to be translated from older Hebrew original, not Massoretic, or LXX. LXX and POT are in many ways superior to the Massoretic HOT which is revised, late, and corrupt.

This can really be debated...

History supports that the Peshitta came from a Greek translation..
The 3 oldest bibles in the world are written in Greek. There is not an older Syriac version in existence, though there are some very old copies of the Peshitta in existance...

 

[peschitta_enthusiast]

You are very mistaken. I have created the book for people like you, just take a look. As for ages, what does age matter when we believed in a Hebrew OT when our oldest OT was the greek LXX for so long?

Also, the oldest DATES mss is from Peshitta Pentateuch. Just interesting

As for Peshitta NT age, even the old-time Biblical scholars admitted an age as late as the second century.

There is also no linguistic proof for a Greek-Peshitta translation, while HEAPS of linguistic markers for Peshitta-Greek translations. 300pages worth in my free book.