-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Scripture
- Thread starter truebluefan24
- Start date
- Status
a_ntv
Ens Liturgicum
truebluefan24 said:
Bc you follow the canon decided by the Jewishs (most of them acept it), while other churches keep the canon of the LXX, the greek OT used by the very early church.
But this is not a very easy matter. There are lots of threads on this, like http://www.christianforums.com/t3140206-why-is-your-bible-missing-7-books.html.
These seven books are:
Tobit: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/tobit/intro.htm
Judit: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/judith/intro.htm
Wisdom of Solomon: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/wisdom/intro.htm
Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach): http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/wisdom/intro.htm
Baruch: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/baruch/intro.htm
1 Maccabees: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/1maccabees/intro.htm
2 Maccabees: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/2maccabees/intro.htm
In fact there are also some addictions to Daniel (Susanna, Bel, and the Dragon): http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/daniel/intro.htm
Upvote
0
Cajun Huguenot
Cajun's for Christ
- Aug 18, 2004
- 3,055
- 293
- 65
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
truebluefan24 said:
TBF,
I wrote an article on this subject here: Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical?
I hope you will check it out.
Coram Deo,
Kenith
Upvote
0
a_ntv
Ens Liturgicum
[SIZE=-1]The Catholic perspective on this issue is widely misunderstood. Protestants accuse Catholics of "adding" books to the Bible, while Catholics retort that Protestants have "booted out" part of Scripture. Catholics are able to offer very solid and reasonable arguments in defense of the scriptural status of the deuterocanonical books. These can be summarized as follows:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]1) They were included in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament from the third century B.C.), which was the "Bible" of the Apostles. They usually quoted the Old Testament scriptures (in the text of the New Testament) from the Septuagint.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]2) Almost all of the Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. The deuterocanonical books were in no way differentiated from the other books in the Septuagint, and were generally regarded as canonical. St. Augustine thought the Septuagint was apostolically-sanctioned and inspired, and this was the consensus in the early Church.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]3) Many Church Fathers (such as St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Tertullian) cite these books as Scripture without distinction. Others, mostly from the east (for example, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzus) recognized some distinction but nevertheless still customarily cited the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. St. Jerome, who translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin (the Vulgate, early fifth century), was an exception to the rule (the Church has never held that individual Fathers are infallible).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]4) The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), influenced heavily by St. Augustine, listed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, which was simply an endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the west and most of the east. Thus, the Council of Trent merely reiterated in stronger terms what had already been decided eleven and a half centuries earlier, and which had never been seriously challenged until the onset of Protestantism.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]5) Since these Councils also finalized the 66 canonical books which all Christians accept, it is quite arbitrary for Protestants to selectively delete seven books from this authoritative Canon. This is all the more curious when the complicated, controversial history of the New Testament Canon is understood.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]6) Pope Innocent I concurred with and sanctioned the canonical ruling of the above Councils (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse) in 405.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]7) The earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, such as Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), and Codex Alexandrinus (c.450) include all of the deuterocanonical books mixed in with the others and not separated.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]8) The practice of collecting these books into a separate unit dates back no further than 1520 (in other words, it was a novel innovation of Protestantism). This is admitted by, for example, the Protestant New English Bible (Oxford University Press, 1976), in its "Introduction to the Apocrypha," (p.iii).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]9) Protestantism, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles due to their clear teaching of doctrines which had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 ff.; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 6:9-10), and intermediary intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other Reformers.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]10) Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) "did not exist," and wanted to "toss it into the Elbe" river.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]11) The New Testament fared scarcely better under Luther's gaze. He rejected from the New Testament Canon ("chief books") Hebrews, James ("epistle of straw"), Jude and Revelation, and placed them at the end of his translation, as a New Testament "Apocrypha." He regarded them as non-apostolic. Of the book of Revelation he said, "Christ is not taught or known in it." These opinions are found in Luther's Prefaces to biblical books, in his German translation of 1522.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]12) Although the New Testament does not quote any of these books directly, it does closely reflect the thought of the deuterocanonical books in many passages. For example, Revelation 1:4 and 8:3-4 appear to make reference to Tobit 12:15:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]As a third example, Hebrews 11:35 mirrors the thought of 2 Maccabees 7:29:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]14) Despite this lowering of the status of the deuterocanonical books by Protestantism, they were still widely retained separately in Protestant Bibles for a long period of time (unlike the prevailing practice today). John Wycliffe, considered a forerunner of Protestantism, included them in his English translation. Luther himself kept them separately in his Bible, describing them generally as (although sub-scriptural) "useful and good to read." Zwingli and the Swiss Protestants, and the Anglicans maintained them in this secondary sense also. The English Geneva Bible (1560) and Bishop's Bible (1568) both included them as a unit. Even the Authorized, or King James Version of 1611 contained the "Apocrypha" as a matter of course. And up to the present time many Protestant Bibles continue this practice. The revision of the King James Bible (completed in 1895) included these books, as did the Revised Standard Version (1957), the New English Bible (1970), and the Goodspeed Bible (1939), among others.[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]15) The deuterocanonical books are read regularly in public worship in Anglicanism, and also among the Eastern Orthodox, and most Protestants and Jews fully accept their value as historical and religious documents, useful for teaching, even though they deny them full canonical status.[/SIZE]
From http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ110.HTM
[SIZE=-1]1) They were included in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament from the third century B.C.), which was the "Bible" of the Apostles. They usually quoted the Old Testament scriptures (in the text of the New Testament) from the Septuagint.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]2) Almost all of the Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. The deuterocanonical books were in no way differentiated from the other books in the Septuagint, and were generally regarded as canonical. St. Augustine thought the Septuagint was apostolically-sanctioned and inspired, and this was the consensus in the early Church.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]3) Many Church Fathers (such as St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Tertullian) cite these books as Scripture without distinction. Others, mostly from the east (for example, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzus) recognized some distinction but nevertheless still customarily cited the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. St. Jerome, who translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin (the Vulgate, early fifth century), was an exception to the rule (the Church has never held that individual Fathers are infallible).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]4) The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), influenced heavily by St. Augustine, listed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, which was simply an endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the west and most of the east. Thus, the Council of Trent merely reiterated in stronger terms what had already been decided eleven and a half centuries earlier, and which had never been seriously challenged until the onset of Protestantism.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]5) Since these Councils also finalized the 66 canonical books which all Christians accept, it is quite arbitrary for Protestants to selectively delete seven books from this authoritative Canon. This is all the more curious when the complicated, controversial history of the New Testament Canon is understood.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]6) Pope Innocent I concurred with and sanctioned the canonical ruling of the above Councils (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse) in 405.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]7) The earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, such as Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), and Codex Alexandrinus (c.450) include all of the deuterocanonical books mixed in with the others and not separated.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]8) The practice of collecting these books into a separate unit dates back no further than 1520 (in other words, it was a novel innovation of Protestantism). This is admitted by, for example, the Protestant New English Bible (Oxford University Press, 1976), in its "Introduction to the Apocrypha," (p.iii).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]9) Protestantism, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles due to their clear teaching of doctrines which had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 ff.; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 6:9-10), and intermediary intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other Reformers.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]10) Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) "did not exist," and wanted to "toss it into the Elbe" river.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]11) The New Testament fared scarcely better under Luther's gaze. He rejected from the New Testament Canon ("chief books") Hebrews, James ("epistle of straw"), Jude and Revelation, and placed them at the end of his translation, as a New Testament "Apocrypha." He regarded them as non-apostolic. Of the book of Revelation he said, "Christ is not taught or known in it." These opinions are found in Luther's Prefaces to biblical books, in his German translation of 1522.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]12) Although the New Testament does not quote any of these books directly, it does closely reflect the thought of the deuterocanonical books in many passages. For example, Revelation 1:4 and 8:3-4 appear to make reference to Tobit 12:15:[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=-1]Revelation 1:4 Grace to you . . . from the seven spirits who are before his throne. {see also 3:1, 4:5, 5:6}[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Revelation 8:3-4 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]{see also Revelation 5:8}[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Tobit 12:15 I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One.[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=-1]1 Corinthians 15:29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]2 Maccabees 12:44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]As a third example, Hebrews 11:35 mirrors the thought of 2 Maccabees 7:29:[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=-1]Hebrews 11:35 Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]2 Maccabees 7:29 Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers.[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]{a mother speaking to her son: see 7:25-26}[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]14) Despite this lowering of the status of the deuterocanonical books by Protestantism, they were still widely retained separately in Protestant Bibles for a long period of time (unlike the prevailing practice today). John Wycliffe, considered a forerunner of Protestantism, included them in his English translation. Luther himself kept them separately in his Bible, describing them generally as (although sub-scriptural) "useful and good to read." Zwingli and the Swiss Protestants, and the Anglicans maintained them in this secondary sense also. The English Geneva Bible (1560) and Bishop's Bible (1568) both included them as a unit. Even the Authorized, or King James Version of 1611 contained the "Apocrypha" as a matter of course. And up to the present time many Protestant Bibles continue this practice. The revision of the King James Bible (completed in 1895) included these books, as did the Revised Standard Version (1957), the New English Bible (1970), and the Goodspeed Bible (1939), among others.[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]15) The deuterocanonical books are read regularly in public worship in Anglicanism, and also among the Eastern Orthodox, and most Protestants and Jews fully accept their value as historical and religious documents, useful for teaching, even though they deny them full canonical status.[/SIZE]
From http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ110.HTM
Upvote
0
I'm definetly taking a Catholic stance on this when i say that Luther was wrong. In the New Testament the authors and christ quote the scriptures some 350 times. 300 of those came from the Alexandrian Canon (the septuagint). I think if we want to follow christ we should follow the scriptures christ followed. Another arguement i hear is that there was no Hebrew version, but since the discovery of the dead sea scrolls that has proved to be an unreasonable complaint. I also hear the complaint that the ECFs didn't agree with the Alexandrian Canon.
1) I have seen no proof of this, only half-brained accusations.
2) The ECFs quoted the Alexandrian Canon.
I think there is much to be gained from the traditional Bible.
P.S. Cajun Huguenot, I did read your article and it is a very well thought out article with many well documented and proved points. However, I do not agree with everything you stated because if you read the New Testament Jesus and the authors are clearly using the Alexandrian Canon. While I respect your article and your opinion and i thank God for people like you that actually take the time to learn their faith anf live it, I do not agree on some very key points. Bless you however, and please continue on the quest for truth.
Besides, If it wasn't for people like me that disagree with stuff like that you might not have a reason for writing your articles. God Bless
1) I have seen no proof of this, only half-brained accusations.
2) The ECFs quoted the Alexandrian Canon.
I think there is much to be gained from the traditional Bible.
P.S. Cajun Huguenot, I did read your article and it is a very well thought out article with many well documented and proved points. However, I do not agree with everything you stated because if you read the New Testament Jesus and the authors are clearly using the Alexandrian Canon. While I respect your article and your opinion and i thank God for people like you that actually take the time to learn their faith anf live it, I do not agree on some very key points. Bless you however, and please continue on the quest for truth.
Besides, If it wasn't for people like me that disagree with stuff like that you might not have a reason for writing your articles. God Bless
Upvote
0
Cajun Huguenot
Cajun's for Christ
- Aug 18, 2004
- 3,055
- 293
- 65
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
TBF,truebluefan24 said:
Thanks so much for your kind words. THere have been far better men than us on both sides of this discussion. St. Augustine and St. Jerome disagreed. They are both giants of the faith. I think it is good to not hammer those who hold the opposite view on this matter, because if I condemn a modern brother with whom I disagree, than I condemn St Augustine as well, and who am I to do that.
In Christ,
Kenith
Upvote
0
A "HOLY ROMAN PAGAN EMPORER DID"
And that is exactly what God allowed because God wanted his true and complete word to be the most widely distributed Book in the world just before his return. Nothing added or taken away that was not the treue an dcomplete word of God
And that is exactly what God allowed because God wanted his true and complete word to be the most widely distributed Book in the world just before his return. Nothing added or taken away that was not the treue an dcomplete word of God
Upvote
0
Of KjV NIV NWT and many others that all are the same version but slightly
different wording with the same context so KJV would be partly right
different wording with the same context so KJV would be partly right
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
