Which Bible

[thepianist]

Listen people, does it really matter which Bible you read? Isn't it more important to read which ever version you chose and to be faithful to it? I'm like thepianist, I love my KJV bible but I wont put you down if like the NIV. The important thing is to read and study which ever version you chose daily. Right?

Thanks Deacon.....I needed that! Seems like I'm always being put down just because I love the KJV - after all, it is the Bible God uses and Satan hates! Books aren't what is important - the only thing that is going to matter is whether we know Jesus Christ as our personal Saviour....gee, that doesn't seem to get that much attention anymore. God Bless....

 

[Willtor]

Many people say they have faith in the processes or the people that have put our modern Bibles together. The early church had a different version to what we have today. They had problems with books that were not able to be confirmed as apostolic. They were closer to the action and I find it hard to understand how councils many years later were able to sort out those uncertainties and make them certainties. Certain councils including and omitted various books. Even today there are those who content that there are books missing.

So those who have that faith in the process are treading on shakey ground.

This isn't really a question of faith, though, is it? The data is there to be assimilated, right?

Take this line of reasoning for example: What is the value of the Bible to the Christian, anyway? It is to meet God, and learn about the mechanism of reconcilliation (typically). Different councils came up with different canons. But that statement is a little bit misleading. If you compare the canons, the overlap (which constitutes the bulk of any individual canon) is almost equivalent to the present canon. It's not like each council picked a disjoint set of books. The present canon was liberal, in that the heavily disputed books were kept. The reason they were kept was that they were consistent with theology (one of the most heavily weighted criteria).

So even if you decide to ignore the controversial books, you've still got a Testament (pun intended) to the written Word of God. I think you see a crisis where there is none.

 

[AgnosticMike]

Thanks Deacon.....I needed that! Seems like I'm always being put down just because I love the KJV - after all, it is the Bible God uses and Satan hates! Books aren't what is important - the only thing that is going to matter is whether we know Jesus Christ as our personal Saviour....gee, that doesn't seem to get that much attention anymore. God Bless....

Yeah if the KJV was good enough for Jesus and Paul it's good enough for me.

 

[AgnosticMike]

If you compare the canons, the overlap (which constitutes the bulk of any individual canon) is almost equivalent to the present canon. It's not like each council picked a disjoint set of books. The present canon was liberal, in that the heavily disputed books were kept. The reason they were kept was that they were consistent with theology (one of the most heavily weighted criteria).

So even if you decide to ignore the controversial books, you've still got a Testament (pun intended) to the written Word of God. I think you see a crisis where there is none.

So almost is good enough? I can tell you that the heavily disputed books were not kept. Why is Enoch quoted in James for example. I can give you other examples if you wish.

You are correct about consistent theology, in part. There was a deliberate attempt to purge any documents that conflicted with the "orthodox" opinions.

If I ignore the controversial books I am lift with zero, becasue they are all controversial.

I will folow this up with an example of what might have been left another perspective soon.

 

[manimal2878]

Actually, I have faith that God nudged men to include the books to be included and exclude those books which were excluded.

What if it was satan who prevailed in the nudging and we have been decieved ever since?

 

[Willtor]

So almost is good enough? I can tell you that the heavily disputed books were not kept. Why is Enoch quoted in James for example. I can give you other examples if you wish.

Okay, now we get into "what is Apocrypha?" Unfortunately, it's an overloaded word (for all you programming types out there). I'm going to make a distinction between deuterocanon, and apocrypha. Both of these sorts of books are often referred to as, Apocrypha. But I'm going to distinguish them, because I think this general reference is confusing.

Apocrypha-apocrypha are books which can hardly be called controversial. They are books like "the Gospel of Thomas the Twin," or "the Gospel of Jesus." These are books which enjoyed very limited circulation. If it helps, think of Gnosticism, Arianism, and Orthodoxy as different religions, all competing for the name, "Christianity." I'll talk more about these, in the next part of my response.

The deuterocanon includes books like Tobit, Maccabees (I - IV), Bel and the Dragon, etc. These books were written prior to the birth of Christ, and did not attest to the revelation of Christ. Why they were not included in the New Testament, therefore, should be obvious. Many of these, however, were still considered "useful for teaching," in much the same way as there is a "Joshua Harris" following, or "C.S. Lewis" following today. None of these were considered Scriptural within the Jewish religion, and Christianity, which began as a Jewish sect, could not include them in its Old Testament.

There are books like Enoch, which don't really fit well into either category. But the obvious argument is that, just because a book is cited within Scripture, does not mean that it is also Scripture. You would have to make a positive argument as to why it should be. Besides, where were they going to put Enoch? Nobody thought it stemmed from Apostolic origin, considering it predates the apostles. There is no reference to the new revelation in Jesus Christ (again, it was written before Christ). What makes you think it was controversial?

James was controversial. It was kept.

You are correct about consistent theology, in part. There was a deliberate attempt to purge any documents that conflicted with the "orthodox" opinions.

I'd hardly call it an attempt. It was one of the criteria. The books that made it into the canon were not disputed by anyone (except within the Orthodoxy, ironically). Arius relied on what we use as the canon. The Gnostics relied on what we use as the canon. The Gnostics used additional books, and asserted that the canon had been corrupted from its original form, but (again, rather ironically) they never disputed any of the books now used as Scripture.

Well, let's talk about this view that the Scriptures had been corrupted, from their original Gnostic content. What if they had been shown to be authentic (or at least largely so)? What would their view become? We'll never know because from their perspective, it would have totally undermined their position. Augustine cites one of his reasons for leaving the Manichees. It was that he was always troubled by the lack of a search for the Scriptures in their original form.

One can only accept both the Orthodox canon and the additional Gnostic books if one accepts the Gnostic view that the Orthodox canon had originally been Gnostic. Thus, until such time as a single Gnostic copy of any canonical book is unearthed, it's difficult to be concerned about this assertion.

If I ignore the controversial books I am lift with zero, becasue they are all controversial.

I will folow this up with an example of what might have been left another perspective soon.

I thought you said that all of the controversial books were thrown out by the Orthodoxy? You're going to have to provide references of disjoint canons to make your point.

 

[Willtor]

What if it was satan who prevailed in the nudging and we have been decieved ever since?

Then one can only conclude that God does not wish to be known to men. In which case, Christianity is incorrect. But, then, it would be hard to hold this view because if it is so, there is no good reason to think Satan exists.

 

[Davis]

Listen people, does it really matter which Bible you read? Isn't it more important to read which ever version you chose and to be faithful to it? I'm like thepianist, I love my KJV bible but I wont put you down if like the NIV. The important thing is to read and study which ever version you chose daily. Right?

Right. Study the Word. It does not matter which version you read.
Although I do not read Bibles with the apocripha. They were left out for a reason and should stay that way IMO.

But you find salvation through Jesus Christ.

 

[Davis]

Yeah if the KJV was good enough for Jesus and Paul it's good enough for me.

The King James was written sometime in the 1600s off of the old scripture. But Jesus and Paul didnt read it in Old English lol. They read it in there native language.

 

[Willtor]

The King James was written sometime in the 1600s off of the old scripture. But Jesus and Paul didnt read it in Old English lol. They read it in there native language.

I think that's his point. Also, the KJV is not written in Old English. It's written in "Modern English." It's a confusing term because it's not our "contemporary English." Old English is like Chaucer and Beowulf.

 

[LilLamb219]

Right. He was being funny and it made me laugh out loud!

 

[AgnosticMike]

The King James was written sometime in the 1600s off of the old scripture. But Jesus and Paul didnt read it in Old English lol. They read it in there native language.

You've dashed all my hopes. Surely God has preserved the pure language of Middle English throughout human history. It is God's language and it is surely the pure form which God chose to communicate through even with Paul and Jesus. Haven't you heard of speaking in tongues. This form of English was obviously the holy spiritual language they were talking about.

 

[Loveable4ever]

At first I had thought you were referring to a verison (i.e KJV, NIV, etc) now I relized you meant books of the bible that other people sell, such as the Forgotten Books or something like that. I'm a little hesitate to accept anything that I couldn't find in an old KJV. I am catholic and do have a catholic bible that I've read and they do include several other books that the KJV doesn't include, but I read them as I would read a book. I don't really study them.

 

[AgnosticMike]

I think that's his point. Also, the KJV is not written in Old English. It's written in "Modern English." It's a confusing term because it's not our "contemporary English." Old English is like Chaucer and Beowulf.

G'day Wiltor

Think you mean Early Modern English don't you? King James English has many words and phrases which are quite foreign to our version of English. So loosely people often say old English and they are loosely correct.

Hope that helps

 

[Rafael]

Many people say they have faith in the processes or the people that have put our modern Bibles together. The early church had a different version to what we have today. They had problems with books that were not able to be confirmed as apostolic. They were closer to the action and I find it hard to understand how councils many years later were able to sort out those uncertainties and make them certainties. Certain councils including and omitted various books. Even today there are those who content that there are books missing.

So those who have that faith in the process are treading on shakey ground.

Not really. If God cannot do what He promises in His word through His own creation, then what kind of weak god would he be??? No, people believe and have faith that God is able to perform His word as He speaks to man with life and through His lving word. He controls life and the spirits. Those men who submit themselves to God and His spirit will never be led astray by the many counterfeits that the devil would throw out there, but those who have selfish or rebellious motives and ambition will always think God cannot do what He promises. Those who know Him and humble themselves as the meek of the earth, see Him perform His word all the time, and see it come true in daily life. They know it, live by it, and trust Him with no relgiousity or pretended show. God's word became flesh and is still a living within those who have been changed by its power.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Psalm 18:30 As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him.

Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

Psalm 33:4 For the word of the Lord is right and true; he is faithful in all he does.

2 Peter 1: 16-21 16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. 19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Joh 17:17 "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

 

[revmalone]

Greetings

All the scriptures have started off in different languages, Moses and the children of Israel were used to the egyptian writings being raised in egypt.

Hebrews translated into there language.

Greeks into theres

Germans into german.

english into english, so really there is no such thing as a set of originals, but there power of truth was confirmed by Jesus when he would quote them,the scriptures peter quoted the old testament, paul, luke but the form of language may not be the point, it's the faith in and obeying the copy we all have.

I'm not a sinner because I sin, I sin because I'm a sinner.

Obeying what we have, is hard enough for us all to handle-ha ha

God Bless ya

Bro Malone

 

[Willtor]

G'day Wiltor

Think you mean Early Modern English don't you? King James English has many words and phrases which are quite foreign to our version of English. So loosely people often say old English and they are loosely correct.

Hope that helps

You could call it "early Modern English." Maybe some scholars do. The point is, when you read old English, you know it. It's so different, you can't understand it unless you've studied it (as a "foreign" language).

 

[AgnosticMike]

2 Peter 1:21
2 Timothy 3:16
John 6:63
Psalm 18:30
Proverbs 30:5
2 Peter 1: 16-21 16
John 10:35
Joh 17:17
Luke 4:4

An interesting array of verses. But what if all the words of these people was all a load of bunkum, Every day people use the words "God said to me." If they were the words of a god then all those verses would mean something.

Even the verse "all scripture". So what do you think that refers to? The Bible as you and I know it. It couldn't be becasue they only had the Jewish Bible in those days. There are quite a few inherant problems also with those verses.

I suppose if Christianity was attractive as a life style the Bible might appear to be a relevant book. But since the fruit on the tree is a bit off I have to judge that the tree is not very good. Do you understand my analogy. I think even Jesus is reported to have said something similar.

 

[AgnosticMike]

You could call it "early Modern English." Maybe some scholars do. The point is, when you read old English, you know it. It's so different, you can't understand it unless you've studied it (as a "foreign" language).

Yes I understand and confer with your point. Most people are unaware that middle and old English differ so much. Even our modern version changes rapidly. Funny thing when I started high school (year 8) the annual fete or fair as it is called in the US was called Gay Day.

 

[Glenda]

Listen people, does it really matter which Bible you read? Isn't it more important to read which ever version you chose and to be faithful to it? I'm like thepianist, I love my KJV bible but I wont put you down if like the NIV. The important thing is to read and study which ever version you chose daily. Right?

I also believe in God.. and that He has inspired the books of the Bible & which books were included..

I read many versions of the Bible.. I have e-sword on my PC.. you can download it for free from e-sword.net.. for free.. there are many many translations that can be downloaded.. plus commentaries.. dictionaries.. devotionals.. maps... awesome software..

You can do comparisons of all the versions that you have downloaded to your computer.. it is a wonderful way to study.. oh and you can download in many different languages as well..