I believe the "few words" in Ephesians 3:3 are the few words that God uses to direct our passage through scriptures. And it strikes me as peculiar that the words, "wrote afore," rhymes with the number four.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The Bible is inerrant and inspired! But which Bible?
- Thread starter Steve Petersen
- Start date
Irrelevant. Just as we saw earlier, there have always been tons of different canons given by popes, saints, and others - and people later often ignore what others have done, proposing yet another canon. It's the fallacy of hindsight to take what your own Bible has now, look back until you see someone propose that canon, and then declare that they and only they are the ones who were right. That's exactly what most of your posts have consisted of.
Do you deny that the Clementine Vulgate had those books? If moving them to the end removed them from the canon already, then you have to agree that Luther removed three books from the New Testament in the 1500s.
Then stop denying the messy development of the canon, if you are aware of it.
Here is a useful overview, and even this is an oversimplification. Note that other canons are proposed well after Athanasius, so he didn't settle anything. :
Here is the source. It's a pretty useful article.
The Biblical Canon and Christian Tradition
Some do have 27, some have just 22. Again we are back to your hindsight fallacy: "Because these have the books I want, they are right - and the others are wrong and always have been wrong."
hindsight fallacy.
... exactly as the RCC moved 3 and 4th Edras and the prayer of Manasses to the back, before removing them in 1979.
Irrelevant - as we've seen, all kinds of different canons at different times have different books. One could just as well argue that the Epistle of Barnabus must be canonical because, after all, it's in the Constantine Bibles. It wasn't until 1870 that the RCC declared Mark 16 as canonical.
The additional books (Sinodos, the book of the covenant, the didascalia, and clement) in the broader New Testament canon are included because they are scripture. If they weren't, they wouldn't be in there, just like 3 Edras. Claiming that they somehow not part of the canon is just like the hindsight fallacy - "if they agree with my Bible, I'll call them scripture, otherwise I'll say they aren't scripture."
It's no coincidence that some of these book are the same ones that early church fathers included as part of the New Testament, as shown by the graph above.
Did you miss the big discussion above about the KJV and the KJV onlyists? The KJV has so much additional text that it adds up to be longer than some books, and include paragraphs at times.
So do we agree at least that their never was a canonical OT, even to today, that has been agreed upon?
So the Nova Vulgate never happened? Or did Luther not remove James, Jude and Rev from the New Testament?
Hold on here - so if there are differences, and you want to ignore them, you call them "relatively minor", but if we are talking about whether or not another church's Bible is correct, their differences become heretical?
The Jehovah's Witnesses are often called "not Christian" because their translation of John differs by two words. Yet, between the different Bibles you are calling "relatively minor" here, the differences are many dozens of words.
Can we agree that different Christians have different Bibles?
In Christ-
Papias
Upvote
0
You must first understand how Paul reveals the revelation before you can know how the KJV Bible is implicated. Nevertheless, all other versions are irrelevant to the hidden mystery in the KJV Bible.
To show how the same books make little difference; I will show a way the NIV has striped important information from the Word of God. Look at Genesis 1:2 in the NIV, and then look at Genesis 1:2 in the KJV Bible. Do you see the changes made in the NIV; those are the changes that strip information from the Word of God!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
And, "[he made] the stars also" in Genesis 1:16 KJV, is not the same as, "He also made the stars," in the NIV. This takes the emphasis of the word, "also," from, "stars," and to, "made;" changing things and no longer following the interpretation of the Lord. I believe that moving the word, "also" from behind, stars, to in front of, made, is wrong. The word, "also," seems to always appear after that which is included, unless used for other reason; like in Genesis 6:4 & Genesis 8:8 Genesis 14:7.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I've heard that the total amount of text that is in the KJV but absent in the NIV is more than the whole books of 1 and 2 peter. Do you know of a source for that? I did find this:
The NIV removes a total of 64,576 words, which is 8% of God’s word.
From: The Most Accurate Bible Translation Comparison KJV vs NIV Bible Study
-Papias
Upvote
0
Hebrews 5:5 appears to reference the stars in Genesis 1:16 for the first day and Hebrews 5:6 for the everlasting, which is; "the beginning."
Upvote
0
- Jul 12, 2016
- 5,417
- 5,524
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Their is a bundle of stuff that goes into a translations of Scripture. The KJV published in 1611 using the best texts and the best scholarship that were available to them at that stage. In the 400 years since that time the world of biblical academic scholarship has advanced, we have better and older texts and manuscripts, we have better scholarship and a better grip on the text.
Our use of the English Language has changed (not to mention what the Americans or the Australians have done with it), and normal English sentences often use fewer words that in days gone by, and some words we no longer use, and some words we use with an entirely different meaning.
The argument for gender inclusive language, which really in Australia was settled 30 years ago still seems to be a concern in the USA. In normal language the word men today refers to the male of the species, where as there was a time when it was seen to be referring to people.
My take on it is that rather than construe some mischievous intent, we should work on the assumption that most reputable translations have been undertaken in faith and discipline to render as best as can be construed the true meaning that was intended by the author in contemporary language. It is not about word counts, but about meaning. Neither here nor there, for the most part I use the NRSV, as it is the version promoted in the Diocese of which I am a member, and the grounds for that are given as 1) a good translation of the original texts, 2) plain English as may be reasonably understood by anyone in high school or beyond, 3) formal enough English to be read decently within the context of Anglican liturgy. In all honesty I have found it a worthwhile tool and whilst there will always be odd things you may wonder about, and anyone who has done some NT Greek will wonder about, I generally feel I am pretty safe using it.
Bible Versions and Translations Online
A few of my friends have recommended I look at the ESV and I intend to do so at some stage. It certainly seems to have some good right ups.
When I was growing up I used to use Proverbs 17:17 (KJV) as the Biblical justification for fighting with my brother. Having gained some seniority I would now confess that was a misuse of the text, however it is also true that the translation did not help me get to the true meaning.
K J V Proverbs 17:17 A friend loveth at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.
E S V Proverbs 17:17 A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.
NRSV Proverbs 17:17 A friend loves at all times, and kinsfolk are born to share adversity.
E S V Proverbs 17:17 A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.
NRSV Proverbs 17:17 A friend loves at all times, and kinsfolk are born to share adversity.
Upvote
0
Don't worry about it, one thread wrong is enough to invalidate the book. And actually, one wrong word can invalidate the entire thread. Do you need more?
Upvote
0
Yes, the 66 book cannon in the original language.
That being said, I see threads like this being very detremental in Christians thinking there is a problem with any Bible. This is a major problem in Christianity perpetuated by some people a lot.
Upvote
0
- Jul 12, 2016
- 5,417
- 5,524
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
There is a little difference between a canon and a cannon. One of the problems I have found is those who use the canon as a cannon.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Paul Yohannan
Well-Known Member
- Mar 24, 2016
- 3,886
- 1,587
- 43
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Republican
In the case of the Tridentine canon, this was entirely consistent with earlier RC synodical decisions concerning canonicity, indeed going back to St. Augustine. This is also by the way rather a red herring, because the Roman church it has been shown did not "remove" from the canon any books in 1979; the books in question were never in the canon to begin with.
No, actually. Where a given church father has put forward a definition of the canon that has been universally accepted, and we can trace the spread of influence of that canon (and all of this applies to the Athanasian), we can trace the NT canon to that point. St. Athanasius was the most revered father of the fourth century, and it should come as no surprise that his views concerning the canon would be adopted.
This is of course not my point. As I have said, St. Jerome himself indicated a strong doubt as to the validity of those books and only translated them into Latin "lest they perish entirely." They were never canonical, a fact confirmed by synodical decrees of the Roman Church at, for example, the Council of Trent.
There seems to be a pervasive error in your argument that somehow canonicity is derived from the specific books included in a given translation, when in fact from the beginning various extracanonical works commended by ecclesiastical authorities, yet never regarded as canonical, have often been included.
The only reliable definitions of the canon are those expressed through the decrees of a specific church in consensus with other churches.
Here is a useful overview, and even this is an oversimplification. Note that other canons are proposed well after Athanasius, so he didn't settle anything. :
Here is the source. It's a pretty useful article.
The Biblical Canon and Christian Tradition
If you take a look at that graph in later detail, you will note that every canon produced after St. Athanasius is identical to it. And if we examine the writings of, for example, St. Augustine, it becomes evident they regarded St. Athanasius with extreme importance and were inclined to accept his considered opinion on the matter.
No, all complete West Syriac copies have twenty-seven books.
This is of course inaccurate. Rather, I am informing you as to the canon accepted by the Syriac Orthodox Church, and of the Assyrian Church of the East, a statement which can be verified by contacting any of their clergy.
Once again, you accuse me of a fallacy which I have not committed, owing to a curious misinterpretation of my point. My point is that 3 Corinthians has never been viewed by the Armenian church as being on a par with other epistles; the Armenian Bible continues to include it, but only for completeness (like the Vulgate inclusion of the equally spurious Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans).
No, these books were considered uncanonical as even a cursory example of the Tridentine canon, the Florentine canon, and the canons of the earlier Roman and Carthaginian councils would indicate.
No, one could not argue that, because as I have pointed out repeatedly the contents of a given bible do not define what a canon is. Otherwise you might take the liturgical Evangelions, or Gospel Books, in use in the traditional churches, which contain only those pericopes appointed to be read in the lectionary, ordered according to the lectionary, and then claim on that basis that portions not appointed to be read in the lectionary are not canonical.
Which brings us to the next point:
This is greatly inaccurate. The Roman Church believed in the canonicity of the Gospel of St. Mark from the earliest times. There is a textual variance concerning the longer or shorter ending of Mark, however, in either case we get as far as Mark 16:9. Until the 19th century, there was no doubt as to the legitimacy of the longer ending; the question was raised by the investigations of textual criticism into the minority text, which in turn prompted the Roman Church to, in my view, very correctly, decree the canonicity of Mark 16:9.
This is untrue. I can assure you as a member of the Oriental Orthodox Church that they are not Scripture. They are attached documents of church order, in the Ethiopian bibles only, and at that, only in a minority of them. They have never been present in those bibles used by the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt, which I assume is what you meant when referring to the otherwise non-extant "Coptic Arabic Church."
Untrue. As has been pointed out, editions of the Bible have historically included supplemental texts not regarded as canon. We see this practice endorsed even in the 39th Paschal Encyclical, which permits the Shepherd of Hermas to be used for catechesis while rejecting its canonical status.
No, rather, it is stating what the Oriental Orthodox Church believes, as a member of that Church, who is aware of the internal canonical decrees of the Church concerning the canon of scripture. It is incredibly tiresome when people insist on our faith being something other than what it actually is. For example, the Ethiopian church is widely held up by liturgical modernists as providing some sort of justification for the use of drums and dancing within the sacred liturgy, when in fact, the famed drumming and dancing that occurs in Ethiopian parishes happens outside of the liturgy, and is accepted by the church only on the basis of oikonomia.
The books in question are conspicuously absent from that graph.
On the contrary, in a private conversation I suggested to @thecolorsblend that he raise the point.
It would be more accurate to ascribe this to the Majority Text, or to say that the Minority text is missing this content. In the event, it is not greatly relevant, given that many people use Bibles produced from textual criticism which lack this materiel and yet have not developed divergent doctrinal ideas as a result.
No, because the contents of the OT canon has been agreed upon within individual churches. All Eastern Orthodox churches accept a standard canon, all Oriental Orthodox churches accept the same books as what amounts to a protocanon, and this definition is more or less shared with Rome and with the Church of England. Other Protestants use the Masoretic Canon. So within individual communions, there is a defined canon, and these mostly agree with the canons of other communions.
The Nova Vulgate includes all of the books defined as part of the canon of the Roman Rite at the Council of Trent, so the change you allege did not in fact occur. In the event, the old Vulgate has neither been prohibited or precluded, and many Catholics still use it.
He tried to, but this alteration was a bridge too far for the Lutheran church.
It is ironic however that you wish to make this claim despite the Antilegomenna remaining within the Luther Bible, while concurrently insisting that the inclusion of extra-canonical books in the old Vulgate, and in the Ethiopian and Armenian bibles somehow proves their canonicity in spite of formal conciliar statements of those churches declaring the works in question to be extracanonical. Thus, special pleading.
No. Where the differences could have a material effect on doctrine, I do not regard them as relatively minor. The differences between the Minority and Majority Text do not pose a threat to any major doctrine of my church (indeed the only group I am aware of that might realistically be threatened by the Minority Text are the Pentecostal snake-handlers of the Appalachians).
The basis of their heresy stems not from their attempt to modify the Gospel of John to support their error, but rather from the error itself, which is Arianism.
The variation between, for example, the Minority Text and the Majority Text, cannot be exploited either way to promote Arianism; the essential texts refuting it are present in each.
Not with a capital B.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Sounds trivial. Unless you meant it as a lol. then it is funny.
There is a little difference between a canon and a cannon. One of the problems I have found is those who use the canon as a cannon.
Upvote
0
- Jul 12, 2016
- 5,417
- 5,524
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Sorry, I did mean to hit your funny bone. However I do find it distracting when the wrong word is used - and given the difference between a cannon and a canon this is one that gets me quite a lot.
You did say
"That being said, I see threads like this being very detrimental in Christians thinking there is a problem with any Bible. This is a major problem in Christianity perpetuated by some people a lot."
The serious point I was making was that I have much greater problems with the way some people use scripture as a weapon to hurt and suppress people, or to support their own preconceived ideas, rather that as the measure by which we might ascertain what God means for us to do today.
Upvote
0
So much of the conversation seems to be about what these various denomination have as their canon TODAY.
That is not the point. The point is, the fact that there has not been a universal Christian canon of the NT in the past argues against a single, inspired/inerrant canon.
That is not the point. The point is, the fact that there has not been a universal Christian canon of the NT in the past argues against a single, inspired/inerrant canon.
Upvote
0
- Jul 12, 2016
- 5,417
- 5,524
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
In a sense you say it is not the point, and then rephrase it as you description of the point with what you perceive is the logical extension of the point.
The canon of the New Testament, is, despite some odd variances, pretty settled and one area where, despite this thread there is a large amount of agreement amongst Christians. That it took some time to get to this reasonably settled point argues neither for or against inspiration. The New Testament did not fall out of the sky, bit testifies in many ways to the experience of the early Christians, including and record and reflection of the Life, Ministry, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, the history of the Church, some early letters to young churches, including some great reflections of Paul's internal dialogue, and the apocalypse of St John the Divine. That God the Holy Spirit provided strength inspiration and resources for these works is not doubted in the Church.
That then leaves you with a consideration of the inerrant nature of scripture, or not. I am well aware that there are numbers of Christians will hold this as a central doctrine of faith. My salvation rests on the eternal Son of God, the man Jesus, crucified and risen. Ultimately I find I have little use for the doctrine of inerrant scripture, devoid of the passion of Paul forgetting the rules of grammar to drive the point home. I neither reject nor embrace it, I am simply prepared to let scripture be scripture. If it is good enough, it will not need me to defend it, and if it is not good enough then I wonder if it deserves my defence.
I apologise to those who do not get what I am saying here, I mean no malice, I assure you that I understand scripture is one of the primary vessels that has carried the story and the experience of grace from one generation to another, and it is the measure by which we can establish that which is true and that which is false.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Paul Yohannan
Well-Known Member
- Mar 24, 2016
- 3,886
- 1,587
- 43
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Republican
How could there have been? The NT was not complete until the end of the first century, and due to the Gnostics, and the persecutions, a number of spurious texts were created, some of which are not entirely devoid of value, and others of which, like the Protoevangelion of Thomas, are toxic filth, and these texts had to be filtered through in order to ascertain what was legitimate.
There has been a universal canon since the fourth century.
Upvote
0
The NIV bible steals from the Word of the LORD in many ways; beginning with, “Knowing this first,” in 2 Peter 1:20 and, “Knowing this first,” in 2 Peter 3:3. The NIV uses the phrase, “Above all,” which removes the descriptive abilities of the phrase in 2 Peter 1:20, and severs the reference to the beginning of the creation in 2 Peter 3:3.
Upvote
0
And why does the NIV always have to change the sense of the word, "also"; as seen with 2 Peter 1:19 KJV and 2 Peter 1:19 NIV? I believe the NIV is trying to rationalize God out of the Scriptures. I believe the NIV also is an adulteration of the truth, and the truth should be told.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
All that is irrelevant! I use the Authorized Version, the KJV Bible because it is perfect through Paul's revelation; found in Ephesians 3:3. He “wrote afore in few words” in which those, "few words," may guide your passage through the scriptures. Therefore; whenever you change anything in the KJV Bible, there is loss and you can't know what all you've lost!
This feature cannot be found in other versions of the Bible. I realize that something like this could only be accomplished by an omnipotent, timeless God. But, there it is.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
