How Many Books Are in Your Bible? 66? 73? 81?

[prodromos]

Way too much information in your post for me to respond. If you want to repost a shorter version and ask one question at a time I would be glad to respond.

Doesn't "Got Answers" handle bulk texts?

 

[Radagast]

Have you ever wondered why the people that insist the Bible is the sole authority in doctrine have never ruled on a closed canon of scripture?

Articulating the (closed) canon was a key part of the Reformation.

The offshoot of this is that the Protestant Bible changed in the early 1800's with nary a peep of complaint.

Not true. Protestant Bibles of today are totally consistent with the Belgic Confession of 1561:

We believe that the Holy Scriptures are contained in two books, namely, the Old and New Testament, which are canonical, against which nothing can be alleged. These are thus named in the Church of God. The books of the Old Testament are, the five books of Moses, namely: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; the books of Joshua, Ruth, Judges, the two books of Samuel, the two of the Kings, two books of the Chronicles, commonly called Paralipomenon, the first of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, the Psalms of David, the three books of Solomon, namely, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; the four great prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel; and the twelve lesser prophets, namely, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

Those of the New Testament are the four evangelists, namely: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; the fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul, namely: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon, and one to the Hebrews; the seven epistles of the other apostles, namely, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; and the Revelation of the apostle John.

We distinguish those sacred books from the apocryphal, namely: the third book of Esdras, the books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Jesus Syrach, Baruch, the appendix to the book of Esther, the Song of the three Children in the Furnace, the history of Susannah, of Bell and the Dragon, the prayer of Manasses, and the two books of the Maccabees. All of which the Church may read and take instruction from, so far as they agree with the canonical books; but they are far from having such power and efficacy, as that we may from their testimony confirm any point of faith, or of the Christian religion; much less detract from the authority of the other sacred books.

 

[prodromos]

We distinguish those sacred books from the apocryphal

I'm curious as to how these books became misnamed as "apocryphal". In the East they have always been known as "deuterocanonical", that is canonical, but of a lesser status than what is considered "protocanonical". "Apocryphal" has historically referred to spurious books written by gnostics and were never considered part of any canon in the Church.

 

[Radagast]

In the East they have always been known as "deuterocanonical"

I had always understood that that term was coined in the 1500s. Who was the first person in the East to use it?

 

[prodromos]

I had always understood that that term was coined in the 1500s. Who was the first person in the East to use it?

I don't know. I have never seen those books referred to as Apocryphal in the East.

 

[Radagast]

I don't know. I have never seen those books referred to as Apocryphal in the East.

I'm not sure when the term "Apocrypha" for them was first used either.

In his famous Easter letter of 367, Athanasius clearly distinguishes Sirach, Tobit, etc. both from the true canon and from the truly apocryphal books (but he doesn't use the term "deuterocanonical").

 

[tz620q]

Articulating the (closed) canon was a key part of the Reformation.

Not true. Protestant Bibles of today are totally consistent with the Belgic Confession of 1561:

Good on you. I was hoping to get some blowback on this to more clearly articulate the positions of the main line Protestant churches. I find as I age I have to become a fool to seek wisdom. I read a little online about the origin of the Belgic Confession of the Reformed Churches. It was interesting how it came about. Guido de Bres seems to have written it by himself during a persecution by the Spanish Inquisition. Odd how history is dotted with people who find courage in duress and determine that there is a need for a clear statement of their faith. It seems that persecution is the crucible to distill our faith to a purer expression. Over the next few decades more and more Reformed churches adopted it and with it his statement of what the canon should include. That follows the pattern of adoption of most statements that the historical councils have made. It is rare for all humans to instantly agree on anything. Maybe now, so soon after Pentecost, we should remember how singular the first Christian Pentecost actually is.
Now for some thoughts on this. I find it telling that between declaring the Reformed canon and delineating the apocryphal works, he wrote the following:
Article 5: The Authority of Scripture
We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith.

And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them—
not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God.

For even the blind themselves are able to see that the things predicted in them do happen.

It is hard to know if Guido de Bres had heard of the canon declared in the Council of Trent (1545 - 1563) or not; but he clearly distinguishes his logic is not that of the church; but because he, individually, feels that the Holy Spirit has guided him to this wisdom. This, to me, shows the difference between the Protestant thought and that of the Catholic or Orthodox churches. Within Protestant thought the right of the individual to self determination in matters of faith is paramount. Within the older churches, the individual exists within the collective and draws wisdom from a collective thought. Individual thought is allowed; but is required to be tested against the collective. To some degree, this is what happened after de Bres' death with the adoption of his treatise as a statement of faith of the collective Reformed Church; but to a Catholic this seems like the arrow is backwards from individual statement to collective acceptance versus collective statement to individual acceptance.

We distinguish those sacred books from the apocryphal, namely: the third book of Esdras, the books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Jesus Syrach, Baruch, the appendix to the book of Esther, the Song of the three Children in the Furnace, the history of Susannah, of Bell and the Dragon, the prayer of Manasses, and the two books of the Maccabees. All of which the Church may read and take instruction from, so far as they agree with the canonical books; but they are far from having such power and efficacy, as that we may from their testimony confirm any point of faith, or of the Christian religion; much less detract from the authority of the other sacred books.

I am not sure Athanasius started out trying to close the canon. I take his letter as being intended to suppress the astrologers, not suppress what you would call apocryphal now. I base this on the purpose of the Festal letters. They were meant to establish the date that Easter would be celebrated that year. Since it was based on the date of the equinox, I can see why the astrologers would be particularly interested in this. Also Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria on and off during the Arian heresy. When he was in exile, he spent much time with the Coptic monks in Upper Egypt. This group maintains the largest canon of all. As Bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, who does not seem like a man that kept quiet when he felt others were compromising the faith, did not write a single condemnation of the Coptic canon. Furthermore, he was fluent in Greek; but lacking in knowledge of Hebrew. So his study of the Bible would have been from the Septuagint and hence the OT canon that it contained. I don't think his list in the Festal letter can be lightly dismissed; but I don't think that he intended it have the impact that we give it today.

 

[Major1]

Doesn't "Got Answers" handle bulk texts?

Good question. Why don't you ask them?

 

[Major1]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FROM THE BIBLE
Copyright © 2016 Robert Gobelet II
All rights reserved. Except for use in any review, the reproduction or utilization of this work in whole or in part in any form by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including xerography, photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, is forbidden without the written permission of the publisher, Robert Gobelet II, Denton Rd, Linden Tennessee 37096.​

https://www.christianforums.com/help/terms
Copyright Legalities, Spamming and Advertising, Signatures

• Quoted portions of any work should not exceed 20% of the total work. Materials owned by the Associated Press must be quoted using only one sentence. All quoted copyrighted material must be linked to the web page from which it was taken. Do not violate the copyrights of others or promote another work as your own.

Thank you for doing that for me and please forgive me for forgetting to post the link. Sometimes I get way ahead of my fingers.

Now, is there anything wrong with what was posted at that link?????

It is wonderful that you have the ability to point out where the comment came from, but you did not address whether or not it was a valid response.

 

[Major1]

Christ had not yet come, and alms giving does save. It brought salvation to the House of Cornelius.

Your response is not in any way Biblical. It may very well be your own personal opinion but it is certainly not correct.

I am sure you mean and understand that ALMS means to show "MERCY' to others and originally, when the word was used it meant that we are giving "Mercy" or goods or money to others.

To say that "Alms giving" saves which you clearly stated means that we can BUY Salvation as "Alms" means MONEY.

Whether it be money to others or goods or anything including mercy, That also has nothing to do with our salvation.

Also, when Jesus spoke about ALMS giving, He was clear that no one is to know what is done and it is only for God to know yet here you are placing the concept on WWW for all to see.

Adam Clarke Commentary
Acts 10:31 - and he said, `Cornelius,... - Verse-by-Verse Commentary
Thy prayer is heard - See the note on Acts 10:4. Cornelius prayed, fasted, and gave alms. It was in this way he looked for salvation; not to purchase it: a thought of this kind does not appear to have entered into his mind; but these were the means he used to get his soul brought to the knowledge of the truth. The reader must recollect that in the case of Cornelius there was no open vision; he used the light and power which God had already given; and behold how mightily God increased his gifts! He that hath, i.e., that uses what he has, shall receive; and no man can expect any increase of light or life, who does not improve the grace already given.

 

[Radagast]

I read a little online about the origin of the Belgic Confession of the Reformed Churches. It was interesting how it came about. Guido de Bres seems to have written it by himself during a persecution by the Spanish Inquisition.

Written it as a summary of what the Reformed Churches already believed.

I base this on the purpose of the Festal letters. They were meant to establish the date that Easter would be celebrated that year.

That was the main purpose of the Festal letters, but the bulk of each of them is general pastoral comments.

 

[prodromos]

Your response is not in any way Biblical. It may very well be your own personal opinion but it is certainly not correct.

Thank you for your opinion, but the Scriptures I posted in post #27 suggest otherwise.

I am sure you mean and understand that ALMS means to show "MERCY' to others and originally, when the word was used it meant that we are giving "Mercy" or goods or money to others.

Not sure why you feel the need to say this. It's pretty apparent in the parable I quoted earlier.

To say that "Alms giving" saves which you clearly stated means that we can BUY Salvation as "Alms" means MONEY.

No, but its a lovely strawman.

Whether it be money to others or goods or anything including mercy, That also has nothing to do with our salvation.

The parable and other Scriptures I quoted earlier suggest otherwise.

Also, when Jesus spoke about ALMS giving, He was clear that no one is to know what is done and it is only for God to know yet here you are placing the concept on WWW for all to see.

You don't want me quoting Scripture now?

Adam Clarke Commentary
Acts 10:31 - and he said, `Cornelius,... - Verse-by-Verse Commentary
Thy prayer is heard - See the note on Acts 10:4. Cornelius prayed, fasted, and gave alms. It was in this way he looked for salvation; not to purchase it: a thought of this kind does not appear to have entered into his mind; but these were the means he used to get his soul brought to the knowledge of the truth. The reader must recollect that in the case of Cornelius there was no open vision; he used the light and power which God had already given; and behold how mightily God increased his gifts! He that hath, i.e., that uses what he has, shall receive; and no man can expect any increase of light or life, who does not improve the grace already given.

I don't disagree, and it clearly shows your straw man for what it is.

 

[Major1]

Thank you for your opinion, but the Scriptures I posted in post #27 suggest otherwise.

Not sure why you feel the need to say this. It's pretty apparent in the parable I quoted earlier.

No, but its a lovely strawman.

The parable and other Scriptures I quoted earlier suggest otherwise.

You don't want me quoting Scripture now?

I don't disagree, and it clearly shows your straw man for what it is.

The real strawman is how you continually evade a response.

You can quote all the Scripture you want to post. However, there is not one single Scripture that says a man was saved by doing good works or giving money to any church or person.

There is nothing wrong with Alms giving and it is very Biblical and Christian to do so.

However, "YOU" said that salvation could be obtained through Alms giving and that is absurd. That is a actually nothing in that comment that needs to be debated as it is a none Bible issue.

Your actual words were...…"Christ had not yet come, and alms giving does save."

 

[Philip_B]

You can quote all the Scripture you want to post. However, there is not one single Scripture that says a man was saved by doing good works or giving money to any church or person.

James 2:18-26
But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith without works is barren? Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’, and he was called the friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.​

I know we are going to exegete this in all sorts of ways, however fundamentally there is scripture that suggests that works are more that a nice tack on option 3.

 

[prodromos]

The real strawman is how you continually evade a response.

Silly comment. Aside from the fact that I haven't evaded a response, that isn't what a strawman argument consists of.

You can quote all the Scripture you want to post. However, there is not one single Scripture that says a man was saved by doing good works or giving money to any church or person.

Is this Scripture not in your Bible?

Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’​

 

[Major1]

Silly comment. Aside from the fact that I haven't evaded a response, that isn't what a strawman argument consists of.

Is this Scripture not in your Bible?

Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’​

Why, yes it is in my Bible.

Speaking of silly. The Scriptures you quoted from Matthew is where Jesus tells the parable of the sheep and goats as a description and prediction of the judgment of all people. The CONTEXT has nothing to do with ALMS giving for salvation.

And as we all can see......not one single word is stated which says that we are saved by doing good deeds or the giving of Alms. NOT ONE SINGLE WORD.

 

[prodromos]

And as we all can see

Nice use of synecdoche, the whole representing the small minority.

 

[Major1]

Nice use of synecdoche, the whole representing the small minority.

Then would you feel more comfortable if I say...…."I can see" ?

OK by me...…the statement still stands as the truth and....
"Now I can see that not one single word is stated in the Scripture you posted which says that we are saved by doing good deeds or the giving of Alms. NOT ONE SINGLE WORD. "

Feel better now?

 

[prodromos]

Then would you feel more comfortable if I say...…."I can see" ?

OK by me...…"Now I can see."

Feel better now?

Doesn't bother me either way, but at least you a making a true statement now. I don't think it benefits you to make false claims.

 

[Major1]

Doesn't bother me either way, but at least you a making a true statement now. I don't think it benefits you to make false claims.

Then it seems to me that you are wanting to be politically correct rather than theologically correct.