So why do we believe...?

BBAS 64 · Aug 25, 2004

Lollard said:
Okay cool.

Well and obviously that goes along with what we think so we can quote that. EOC people have a plethora of writings in which this same man uses these "apocryphal" scriptures as gospel. Not arguing, just clarifying.

Good Day, Lollard

I do not understand you comment he tells us directly what the cannon is in the early days of the church. It is not a matter of what we think it is what he said.

The EOC would consider him a ECF. He was either telling the truth or he is lying, just because he may use some writtings to make is point is not suggesting that he views them in the same light of that which is devine. Paul quotes some early Greeks texts to make some points are those writings devine?

I quote some of Augustine,Spurgeon,Clement writings do I consider them devine, no they may be correct and usefull but not devine.

Peace to u,

Bill

SumTinWong · Aug 25, 2004

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, Lollard

I do not understand you comment he tells us directly what the cannon is in the early days of the church. It is not a matter of what we think it is what he said.

Sorry, once again let me try to explain. This same guy who said that these books were not part of the canon, used these same books in teaching and what not as if they were authorative. Besides the EOC and CC will tell you that one mans opinion does not a concensus make. Jerome, and even Josephus agreed with this guy but the church stuck with what Augustine said, and included them by council.

(From Anglican.com)Since Alexandria had the best astronomers, it was the duty of the Bishop of Alexandria to write to the other bishops every year and tell them the correct date for Easter. Naturally, his annual letter on this topic contained other material as well. One Easter Letter (or Paschal Letter) of Athanasius is well known for giving a list of the books that ought to be considered part of the canonical Scriptures, with a supplementary list of books suitable for devotional reading.

For the New Testament, he lists the 27 books that are recognized today. If you will look at your list of New Testament books, you may note that Matthew through 2 Thessalonians were never in dispute, that the next four were subject to relatively little dispute, and that the remaining books had more trouble being accepted. There were also a few books that looked as if they might make the list, but eventually did not, the most conspicuous being the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

For the Old Testament, his list is like that used by most Protestants, except that he omits Esther, and includes Baruch, with the letter of Jeremiah. His supplementary list is Wisdom, Sirach, Tobias, Judith, and Esther. He does not mention Maccabees.

The EOC would consider him a ECF. He was either telling the truth or he is lying, just because he may use some writtings to make is point is not suggesting that he views them in the same light of that which is devine. Paul quotes some early Greeks texts to make some points are those writings devine?

Well sure they would think that. In fact after he was kicked out of Alexandria for being a trouble maker he was brought back again because they liked him quite a bit. As far as him lying, I don't think so. He very well may have meant what he said when he said it. Perhaps he changed his mind at a later time.

In his great letter Athanasius On the Incarnation, available online here he says:
"By nature, of course, man is mortal, since he was made from nothing; but he bears also the Likeness of Him Who is, and if he preserves that Likeness through constant contemplation, then his nature is deprived of its power and he remains incorrupt. So is it affirmed in Wisdom: "The keeping of His laws is the assurance of incorruption."(Wisdom 6:18)
...
He says as much in Genesis: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth; and again through that most helpful book The Shepherd, "Believe thou first and foremost that there is One God Who created and arranged all things and brought them out of non-existence into being." Paul also indicates the same thing when he says, "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that the things which we see now did not come into being out of things which had previously appeared."The Shepard is the Shepard of Hermes.
...
That is to say, the presence of the Word with them shielded them even from natural corruption, as also Wisdom says: God created man for incorruption and as an image of His own eternity; but by envy of the devil death entered into the world." Wisdom 2:23
...
So he did pepper his writings with both what we refer to as scriptures and what some of the ECF saw as scriptures.

I quote some of Augustine,Spurgeon,Clement writings do I consider them devine, no they may be correct and usefull but not devine.

That was a bit unfair, as i never said you did consider them devine.

BBAS 64 · Aug 25, 2004

Lollard said:
Sorry, once again let me try to explain. This same guy who said that these books were not part of the canon, used these same books in teaching and what not as if they were authorative. Besides the EOC and CC will tell you that one mans opinion does not a concensus make. Jerome, and even Josephus agreed with this guy but the church stuck with what Augustine said, and included them by council..

Good Day, Lollard

If a Tradition is "Traditions are things ataught by the church from the beginning of the church" then this tradition of the Cannon with the Aporcy. falls short of the mark and lacks historical merit, because it was not "allways" taught, unless he was not part of the church. If one will read one will see that many ECF agreed with him on this issue. There is major debate on Augustine with reguards to this matter.

What if I could prove that a man who attened a council, did not agree with said council, and wrote contray to the council in this reguard?

..

(From Anglican.com)Since Alexandria had the best astronomers, it was the duty of the Bishop of Alexandria to write to the other bishops every year and tell them the correct date for Easter. Naturally, his annual letter on this topic contained other material as well. One Easter Letter (or Paschal Letter) of Athanasius is well known for giving a list of the books that ought to be considered part of the canonical Scriptures, with a supplementary list of books suitable for devotional reading.

For the New Testament, he lists the 27 books that are recognized today. If you will look at your list of New Testament books, you may note that Matthew through 2 Thessalonians were never in dispute, that the next four were subject to relatively little dispute, and that the remaining books had more trouble being accepted. There were also a few books that looked as if they might make the list, but eventually did not, the most conspicuous being the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

For the Old Testament, his list is like that used by most Protestants, except that he omits Esther, and includes Baruch, with the letter of Jeremiah. His supplementary list is Wisdom, Sirach, Tobias, Judith, and Esther. He does not mention Maccabees.

Well sure they would think that. In fact after he was kicked out of Alexandria for being a trouble maker he was brought back again because they liked him quite a bit. As far as him lying, I don't think so. He very well may have meant what he said when he said it. Perhaps he changed his mind at a later time...

He was even excommunicated, I have not read of him changing his mind on this issue as some of his contemparies agreed with him and many after him.

..

In his great letter Athanasius On the Incarnation, available online here he says:
"By nature, of course, man is mortal, since he was made from nothing; but he bears also the Likeness of Him Who is, and if he preserves that Likeness through constant contemplation, then his nature is deprived of its power and he remains incorrupt. So is it affirmed in Wisdom: "The keeping of His laws is the assurance of incorruption."(Wisdom 6:18)
...
He says as much in Genesis: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth; and again through that most helpful book The Shepherd, "Believe thou first and foremost that there is One God Who created and arranged all things and brought them out of non-existence into being." Paul also indicates the same thing when he says, "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that the things which we see now did not come into being out of things which had previously appeared."The Shepard is the Shepard of Hermes.
...
That is to say, the presence of the Word with them shielded them even from natural corruption, as also Wisdom says: God created man for incorruption and as an image of His own eternity; but by envy of the devil death entered into the world." Wisdom 2:23
...
So he did pepper his writings with both what we refer to as scriptures and what some of the ECF saw as scriptures.

That was a bit unfair, as i never said you did consider them devine.

I said that as to draw a comparision, did not mean it in a attacking manner. Could you name me a couple of the ECF or historians around or before Athanasius who seen the Aporoc. as Scripture

"I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." (Melito of Sardis, cited in Eusebius, Church History, 4:26)"

Peace to u,

Bill

SumTinWong · Aug 25, 2004

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, Lollard

If a Tradition is "Traditions are things ataught by the church from the beginning of the church" then this tradition of the Cannon with the Aporcy. falls short of the mark and lacks historical merit, because it was not "allways" taught, unless he was not part of the church. If one will read one will see that many ECF agreed with him on this issue. There is major debate on Augustine with reguards to this matter.

Oh yes i agree there was debate, but as far as the councils which made the decisions were concerned the matter was indeed settled. I am not sure why they decided to put a final seal on it in 1543, but htey did.

What if I could prove that a man who attened a council, did not agree with said council, and wrote contray to the council in this reguard?

Not much really I guess. They made up their mind no matter what the outsider sources said.

..He was even excommunicated, I have not read of him changing his mind on this issue as some of his contemparies agreed with him and many after him.

Fives times in fact. Pretty funny. He sounds like a loose cannon (no pun intended). Sure many did agree but I did give you some idea why some believe he did change his mind, by giving you one of the examples that he did preface comments with the apocrypha.

..I said that as to draw a comparision, did not mean it in a attacking manner. Could you name me a couple of the ECF or historians around or before Athanasius who seen the Aporoc. as Scripture

Oh okay, no problem. I would have to do some digging but besides Augustine, I can't say that I have seen too many. I have seen some commentaries by Jerome that use the apocrypha as sources though. I will try to dig that information up and get back to you.

"I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." (Melito of Sardis, cited in Eusebius, Church History, 4:26)"

Peace to u,

Bill

I understand what you are saying that there are in fact people that disagreed with the inclusion of these books. But at the same time there were more who decided for them, as the vote would have it.

So far from what I have read on my own and what you have brought up I am convinced that the books are not valid as scriptures.

Peace to you as well.

GreenEyedLady · Aug 25, 2004

Lollard said:
Yeah I know that is one of the things that bothers me about the Baptist faith. There are descrepencies in the Bible and yet people just sluff them off. I think I read somewhere that there were between 33,000 & 50,000 errors in the Bible. Now granted most of them are clerical in nature, but they are errors just the same.
One error that could be pointed out is that there is no Esther among the roles of queens in history nor is any Mordechai, or Queen Vashti. Ahasuerus' Queen was not deposed, and outlived him.
Another: II Chronicles 36:9 says that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he became king. II Kings 24:8 says Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he became king.
Another:
II Samuel 10:18 talks about David slew the men of 700 chariots of the Syrians and 40,000 horsemen and Shobach the commander.
I Chronicles 1:18 says that David slew the men of 7000 chariots and 40,000 footmen
Another:
I Chronicles 9:25 says that Solomon had 4000 stalls for horses and chariots.
I Kings 4:26 says that he had 40,000 stalls for horses
Another:
Matthew 27:9 attributes a prophecy to Jeremiah; it is actually found in Zecheriah.
Take, for example, the popular story (John 7:53-8:11) in which Jesus saves a woman from being stoned as an adulteress. It is from this passage that we draw the phrase advice, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her. Interestingly enough, this entire story is missing from the earliest version of John. It is also missing from early Latin translations of the text, missing from older versions used in the Holy Land and in fact, according to the 12th century Byzantine scholar Euthymius Zigabenus, accurate copies of the Gospel of John do not and should not contain it. Furthermore, if one blocks out the entire little story, John 7:52 flows just fine into John 8:12, lending further credence to the idea that the passage was simply inserted after the fact. Who inserted it, and why, remains a mystery.

Where was that I missed that thread.

So you don't belive that the Bible is infallible or without error??
Maybe we should start another thread on this? But I am curious, as many might be about these "errors" and how they are classified as errors.
GEL

SumTinWong · Aug 26, 2004

GreenEyedLady said:
So you don't belive that the Bible is infallible or without error??
Maybe we should start another thread on this? But I am curious, as many might be about these "errors" and how they are classified as errors.
GEL

We can start a new thread on this if you like, but this is my take on the Bible. The form we have it now does have some translation errors, and does have some "added" text. I believe that as a whole this Bible, that I hold is the true word of God. But I do think that over the years it has been corrupted by human error. I can explain away any of those errors and say that they were transcribing errors.

They are errors. If one text says one thing and another says another, then one or both are in error.

GreenEyedLady · Aug 26, 2004

So what your saying is that there is no preserved word out there? None of us are reading a perfect bible? Is it possible that God preserved His word? I don't want to get this thread into a translation debate. I am just trying to understand your prespective.
How can the true Word of GOD have errors in it?
GEL

SumTinWong · Aug 26, 2004

GreenEyedLady said:
So what your saying is that there is no preserved word out there?

No I am not saying that what I am pointing out is some of the Bibles that we have today have glaring mistakes in them and perhaps it would be good to recognize them so when a sceptic says hey what about these? we can have an answer for them.

None of us are reading a perfect bible?

Many of the OT writings are revised versions of either the LXX, the Vulgate or the Masoretic texts. The more texts we find the more errors we see in modern translations. For instance. Jerome translated Luke 1:28 from the greek into Latin "et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus" for the vulgate. There are a few Bibles out there that use the vulgate to translate into English the same words which mean "And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." But what we have is really Jeromes slant on what the angel was trying to convey to Mary. Most protestant versions say found favor instead of full of grace and even the NAB (catholic Bible) now says found favor. So unless really we are reading the original language in which these things are written we are in fact getting someones interpretation of the words and depending on their slant... That is why I enjoy the NASB so much as it is almost word for word, whenever possible.

Is it possible that God preserved His word?

Yes and he is sitting at His right hand as we speak.

How can the true Word of GOD have errors in it?
GEL

To be blunt it can't. Any of those things that I mentioned above are in fact errors. You can look them for yourself. The errors that are in the Bible we have, are not from God, but from translators and people who tried to spice up the Bible a little. Like for instance most of the earliest of texts we have on the Lord's prayer end with "and keep us from the evil one." But todays Bible has stuff added in. From the NET Bible: The phrase was probably composed for the liturgy of the early church and most likely was based on 1 Chr 29:11-13; a scribe probably added the phrase at this point in the text for use in public scripture reading (see TCGNT 13-14). Both external and internal evidence argue for the shorter reading.

The true Word of God is Jesus the Christ ... John 1:14

BBAS 64 · Aug 27, 2004

Good Day, Lollard

Went back and did some reading of Vaticans works on this subject:

There are differences between the Jewish canon of Scripture30 Law, Nebi'im, Prophets, and Ketubim, other Writings. The number 24 was often reduced to 22, the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. In the Christian canon, to these 2422 books correspond 39 books, called protocanonical. The numerical difference is explained by the fact that the Jews regarded as one book several writings that are distinct in the Christian canon, the writings of the Twelve Prophets, for example.] and the Christian canon of the Old Testament.31 To explain these differences, it was generally thought that at the beginning of the Christian era, there existed two canons within Judaism: a Hebrew or Palestinian canon, and an extended Alexandrian canon in Greek called the Septuagint which was adopted by Christians.

Recent research and discoveries, however, have cast doubt on this opinion. It now seems more probable that at the time of Christianity's birth, closed collections of the Law and the Prophets existed in a textual form substantially identical with the Old Testament. The collection of Writings, on the other hand, was not as well defined either in Palestine or in the Jewish diaspora, with regard to the number of books and their textual form. Towards the end of the first century A.D., it seems that 2422 books were generally accepted by Jews as sacred,32 but it is only much later that the list became exclusive.33 When the limits of the Hebrew canon were fixed, the deuterocanonical books were not included.

Many of the books belonging to the third group of religious texts, not yet fixed, were regularly read in Jewish communities during the first century A.D. They were translated into Greek and circulated among Hellenistic Jews, both in Palestine and in the diaspora.

(33) The so-called Council of Jamnia was more in the nature of a school or an academy that sat in Jamnia between the years 75 and 117. There is no evidence of a decision drawing up a list of books. It seems that the canon of the Jewish Scriptures was not definitively fixed before the end of the second century. Scholarly discussion on the status of certain books continued into the third century.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html#1.%20In%20Judaism

Peace to u,

Bill

SumTinWong · Aug 27, 2004

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, Lollard

Went back and did some reading of Vaticans works on this subject:

[/left]

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html#1.%20In%20Judaism

Peace to u,

Bill

Hey now that is what I call digging. Thanks Bill!

I found something for you all as well:

From The ECF: said:
A LETTER TO ORIGEN FROM AFRICANUS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF SUSANNA

GREETING, my lord and son, most worthy Origen, from Africanus.[1] In your sacred discussion with Agnomon you referred to that prophecy of Daniel which is related of his youth. This at that time, as was meet, I accepted as genuine. Now, however, I cannot understand how it escaped you that this part of the book is spurious. For, in sooth, this section, although apart from this it is elegantly written, is plainly a more modern forgery. There are many proofs of this. When Susanna is condemned to die, the prophet is seized by the Spirit, and cries out that the sentence is unjust. Now, in the first place, it is always in some other way that Daniel prophesies--by visions, and dreams, and an angel appearing to him, never by prophetic inspiration. Then, after crying out in this extraordinary fashion, he detects them in a way no less incredible, which not even Philistion the play-writer would have resorted to. For, not satisfied with rebuking them through the Spirit, he placed them apart, and asked them severally where they saw her committing adultery. And when the one said, "Under a holm-tree" (prinos), he answered that the angel would saw him asunder (prisein); and in a similar fashion menaced the other who said, "Under a mastich-tree" (schinos), with being rent asunder (schisthenai). Now, in Greek, it happens that "holm-tree" and "saw asunder," and "rend" and "mastich-tree" sound alike; but in Hebrew they are quite distinct. But all the books of the Old Testament have been translated from Hebrew into Greek.

2. Moreover, how is it that they who were captives among the Chaldaeans, lost and won at play? thrown out unburied on the streets, as was prophesied of the former captivity, their sons torn from them to be eunuchs, and their daughters to be concubines, as had been prophesied; how is it that such could pass sentence of death, and that on the wife of their king Joakim, whom the king of the Babylonians had made partner of his throne? Then if it was not this Joakim, but some other from the common people, whence had a captive such a mansion and spacious garden? But a more fatal objection is, that this section, along with the other two at the end of it, is not contained in the Daniel received among the Jews. And add that, among all the many prophets who had been before, there is no one who has quoted from another word for word. For they had no need to go a-begging for words, since their own were true; but this one, in rebuking one of those men, quotes the words of the Lord: "The innocent and righteous shall thou not slay." From all this I infer that this section is a later addition. Moreover, the style is different. I have struck the blow; do you give the echo; answer, and instruct me. Salute all my masters. The learned all salute thee. With all my heart I pray for your and your circle's health.

BBAS 64 · Aug 27, 2004

Good Day, Lollard

More stuff for your reading pleasure,

http://www.christiantruth.com/apocryphaintroduction.html

Peace to u,

Bill

GreenEyedLady · Aug 27, 2004

Lollard said:
Yes and he is sitting at His right hand as we speak.

To be blunt it can't. Any of those things that I mentioned above are in fact errors. You can look them for yourself. The errors that are in the Bible we have, are not from God, but from translators and people who tried to spice up the Bible a little. Like for instance most of the earliest of texts we have on the Lord's prayer end with "and keep us from the evil one." But todays Bible has stuff added in. From the NET Bible: The phrase was probably composed for the liturgy of the early church and most likely was based on 1 Chr 29:11-13; a scribe probably added the phrase at this point in the text for use in public scripture reading (see TCGNT 13-14). Both external and internal evidence argue for the shorter reading.

The true Word of God is Jesus the Christ ... John 1:14

Lollard,
Are you saying that all the bibles have these errors in them? First you say that Some of the bibles have errors in them then at the end it sounds like all of the bibles have errors in them. Did God preserve His word or not?
I am confused.

GEL

bleechers · Aug 27, 2004

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, Lollard

More stuff for your reading pleasure,

http://www.christiantruth.com/apocryphaintroduction.html

Peace to u,

Bill

B64, thanks for the link! That's a keeper. Good stuff there.

SumTinWong · Aug 28, 2004

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, Lollard

More stuff for your reading pleasure,

http://www.christiantruth.com/apocryphaintroduction.html

Peace to u,

Bill

Hey that looks pretty good, I will spend way too much time reading that today!!! Anymore resources, send them along!

SumTinWong · Aug 28, 2004

GreenEyedLady said:
Lollard,
Are you saying that all the bibles have these errors in them? First you say that Some of the bibles have errors in them then at the end it sounds like all of the bibles have errors in them. Did God preserve His word or not?
I am confused.

GEL

I think I have answered your question to the best of my ability. There are plainly errors in the texts which we read from. I did not assert that all of the texts were invalid. I didn't even assert that the ones with the mistakes are invalid. All I have said was there are errors.

Unless you can deny that, I guess I have answered that question.

GreenEyedLady · Aug 28, 2004

No you did not insert that these bibles were invalid however, you are claiming that God did not preserve his words in the english language, only in the Hebrew and Greek.
If this is the case, what is your final authority? If you are reading a bible that has errors in them, how do you have faith in what it says?
GEL

Gold Dragon · Aug 28, 2004

GreenEyedLady said:
No you did not insert that these bibles were invalid however, you are claiming that God did not preserve his words in the english language, only in the Hebrew and Greek.
If this is the case, what is your final authority? If you are reading a bible that has errors in them, how do you have faith in what it says?
GEL

My faith is not in the infalliability of our versions of the bible but the infalliability of the God who inspired the words contained in those versions. His words have authority but our versions of the bible are not infalliable reflections of that word but they are getting closer to being accurate reflections of the original authors because of older manuscripts available to biblical scholars.

bleechers · Aug 28, 2004

Gold Dragon said:
My faith is not in the infalliability of our versions of the bible but the infalliability of the God who inspired the words contained in those versions. His words have authority but our versions of the bible are not infalliable reflections of that word but they are getting closer to being accurate reflections of the original authors because of older manuscripts available to biblical scholars.

OK, since you believe that none of the Bible is "to" you (I assume that would have to mean not only that the commands of the Bible are not "to" you, but also the promises of the Bible are not "to" you) on what do base your eternal future? Where is the security of your faith?

If you cannot trust the texts of the Bible (where one word change can completely change an eternal truth) where is your security?

Jesus said that every jot and tittle was eternally important (and indestructable). Paul noted that an entire doctrine of NT truth is built on one letter in the OT... how do you know Paul did not just have a copy with a "copyist's error"?

Galatians 3
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

An entire messianic truth built on one letter (or possibly two in hebew).

The examples of where one word or even letter change would change an eternal doctrine are legion.

SumTinWong · Aug 28, 2004

GreenEyedLady said:
No you did not insert that these bibles were invalid however, you are claiming that God did not preserve his words in the english language, only in the Hebrew and Greek.
If this is the case, what is your final authority? If you are reading a bible that has errors in them, how do you have faith in what it says?
GEL

Do you deny the errors (typographical or otherwise) that are in the Bible?

GreenEyedLady · Aug 28, 2004

Lollard said:
Do you deny the errors (typographical or otherwise) that are in the Bible?

You are turning the tables here Lollard.
You have not answered my question.
GEL

So why do we believe...?

Contributor

Living with BPD

Contributor

Living with BPD

My little Dinky Doo

Living with BPD

My little Dinky Doo

Living with BPD

Contributor

Living with BPD

Contributor

My little Dinky Doo

Christ Our Passover!

Living with BPD

Living with BPD

My little Dinky Doo

Senior Veteran

Christ Our Passover!

Living with BPD

My little Dinky Doo

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency