Protestant canon

[The Templar]

Who's lacking Wisdom?

Many.

 

[The Templar]

LOL
A 'Cliff's Notes' bible.
Other unused scripture to purge:
Jude
2 and 3 John
Leviticus
Numbers
Nehemiah

Firesale! We're reducing inventory!

Hey, I saw on Amazon a "Readers Digest Bible"!
I wonder what they took out to condense it...
Who needs all those blessings anyway?

So you don't forget...
Order yours before midnight tonight!
Operatore are standing by...
Have your Master card or Visa ready...

 

[Yarddog]

And the Septuagint wasn't fully translated until after 150BC.

I don't doubt that.

 

[SummaScriptura]

So, is it odd that the LXX (septuagent) was first translated c300bc, yet the deteros were all written after that?<snip>

How can that be?

Daniel, Esther and Baruch lived long before that time.

 

[SummaScriptura]

So, is it odd that the LXX (septuagent) was first translated c300bc, yet the deteros were all written after that?


As the work of translation progressed gradually, and new books were added to the collection, the compass of the Greek Bible came to be somewhat indefinite. The Pentateuch always maintained its pre-eminence as the basis of the canon; but the prophetic collection (out of which the Nevi'im were selected) changed its aspect by having various hagiographa incorporated into it. Some of the newer works, those called anagignoskomena in Greek, are not included in the Jewish canon. Among these books are Maccabees and the Wisdom of Ben Sira. Also, the Septuagint version of some works, like Daniel and Esther, are longer than those in the Masoretic Text.[10] Some of the later books (Wisdom of Solomon, 2 Maccabees, and others) apparently were not translated, but composed in Greek.
wiki-

Oh, I see the reason for the confusion, its a wiki leak.

About the original language of composition...

These theories are highly problematic.

For instance, all "scholars" were "sure" Psalm 151 was a Greek compostion... until a more complete older Hebrew version was discovered in the DSS.

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>Lutherans, and as I understand Anglicans (and RCs with a few exceptions) do not draw Doctrine from these books<snip>

Which I've heard many times and feel that is a bit misleading. I might just as well say, no one draws doctrine from Esther, Proverbs, Song of Songs. My point is, we don't place narrative or poetic books in a spaecial class and say "these should never be used to establish doctrine" because such a classification is unwarranted. As to RC's trying to prove doctrine from 2 Maccabees, well, that's just bad exegesis and hermeneutics, and over-reacting to it just adds error to error.

 

[SummaScriptura]

LOL
A 'Cliff's Notes' bible.
Other unused scripture to purge:
Jude
2 and 3 John
Leviticus
Numbers
Nehemiah

Firesale! We're reducing inventory!

True.

 

[11822]

Forgive me if this has been answered already, i didn't read every page of this thread. Does the Protestant canon contain books that the KJV of the Holy Bible doesn't?

 

[SummaScriptura]

There is no official Protestant canon. There is an informal pragmatic one. It is the typical 66-book Bible of the West. There never was an official council canonizing that 66-book list of books.

The KJV "contians" more books than the Protestant canon. Though many printed versions of the KJV do not contain those books, still, the KJV included them from day one and labels them the books of the "Apocrypha", (inaccurately so-called).

Protestants originally viewed the books of the "Apocrypha" as beneficial and helpful but not inspired. Today, many Protestants, adding prejudice to ignorance assume the books of the Apocrypha contain heresy.

 

[Standing Up]

Who's 'they'? I believe I've asked you many times who compiled the canon.

"They" are the ones who traced teachings back to Christ and apostles.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

"They" are the ones who traced teachings back to Christ and apostles.

"I'll take Landmarkism for 400, Alex."

 

[Polycarp1]

Who's lacking Wisdom?

Well, by definition, people who use the Protestant Canon Bible are lacking Wisdom. As well as Tobit and Judith, and the others.

 

[11822]

If the writing can be proved without doubt to be that of Christ or His apostles i agree its sound doctrine. If it come from any other man and says anything different i agree its wrong or at the very least unnecessary as scripture, and also a stumbling block. Not to say other writings are necessarily wrong, just that they can never trump that of Christ and His apostles because Jesus commanded them to teach us.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

If the writing can be proved without doubt to be that of Christ or His apostles i agree its sound doctrine. If it come from any other man and says anything different i agree its wrong or at the very least unnecessary as scripture, and also a stumbling block. Not to say other writings are necessarily wrong, just that they can never trump that of Christ and His apostles because Jesus commanded them to teach us.

How is this accomplished?

 

[MrPolo]

If the writing can be proved without doubt to be that of Christ or His apostles i agree its sound doctrine. If it come from any other man and says anything different i agree its wrong or at the very least unnecessary as scripture

That would apply to New Testament books. But the Old Testament Scriptures were written by neither Christ, nor the Apostles. And neither Christ, nor the Apostles left us with an official "list" of the OT (or NT for that matter) canon. Nor did there exist a closed "OT canon" in Judaism.

 

[11822]

That would apply to New Testament books. But the Old Testament Scriptures were written by neither Christ, nor the Apostles. And neither Christ, nor the Apostles left us with an official "list" of the OT (or NT for that matter) canon. Nor did there exist a closed "OT canon" in Judaism.

I admit that tradition does play a vital role in knowing what is written by whom. IMO, The Mormon theology outside that of the 4 Gospel, acts, and the epistles for instance isn't proven and unnecessary, its a good example of what im talking about.

 

[PaladinValer]

Mormonism is non-Christian, just like the Catholic Church and Mary worship. Don't even bring up Mormonism in this forum, please!

Vatican Catholicism is entirely Christian, more than most in fact. And they do not worship the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Take it from a loooong-time poster: if a group is Nicene, don't call them non-Christian or imply that they aren't in this forum.

 

[BloodyRachel]

Vatican Catholicism is entirely Christian, more than most in fact. And they do not worship the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Take it from a loooong-time poster: if a group is Nicene, don't call them non-Christian or imply that they aren't in this forum.

You're right, a lot of Catholics don't. This doesn't change the fact that most of them do. Are you a moderator? Can I say that in this forum?

 

[Erose]

You're right, a lot of Catholics don't. This doesn't change the fact that most of them do. Are you a moderator? Can I say that in this forum?

Last time I looked at the evidence of history it was Catholics that where first called Christians. You guys took advantage of there being no copyright laws in the middle ages and stole the term from us.

PS No Catholic worships Mary or any other saint. To be Catholic means that there is only one God we can worship and all people that worship someone/thing else besides God is guilty of idolatry.

 

[11822]

Last time I looked at the evidence of history it was Catholics that where first called Christians. You guys took advantage of there being no copyright laws in the middle ages and stole the term from us.

Last time i checked the first Christians didn't pray to mary. And Peter didn't have armed Guards and a bullet proof car, he was martyred. They also sold everything they owned and shared it, they were not capitalists or communists, or socialists. They didn't go on armed Holy Crusades and probably wouldn't have a problem with printing the written word in book format for people to read. So if they were called catholic, they don't exactly resemble Catholics since then. I'm not condemning, Just saying so false impressions wont be left.