Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, there are many such cases where the underlying Greek text is the same, however the translations are quite different and in-fact do change how the reader will understand or interpret what they are reading. For example:
KJV, ASV, YLT:
Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
NASV and other modern translations that I don't read:
Luk 17:21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."
Another example:
KJV, YLT and most interlinears:
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
ASV, NASV and most modern translations:
Gal 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.
Clearly there are difference in what we read and how we understand the scriptures. And many of the differences, though perhaps appearing on the surface to be minor, do have a bearing on doctrines being taught. There are countless similar cases within the varying translations if you look hard enough. To believe that the various bible translations are 100% unerring is quite naive, to say the least.
Your hypocrisy knows no end Mike. The only place I have attacked the bible is were Jesus exposed the lying pen of the scribes for what it was.
Post #309 was intended to by my last post concerning the apocrypha, but since you think that the verses you list below are quoting the apocrypha, I will address that.
You say the the Bible is not the word of God. In so doing, you attack the entire Bible and therefore attack God who is the divine author of the Bible.
Your statement from post #300. 'True I attack the bible, but have never attacked God who is the author of the scriptures NOT the bible, get your facts straight about what I have said.'
Quote:
You on the other hand have attacked the bible in your rejection of the 15 books of the bible of Paul's day. The same bible that Paul was referring to when he said all scripture is inspired by God.
Quote:
Everything you have written in this thread becomes suspect because of your hypocrisy Mike.
The apocrypha is not and never was canonical. The Hebrew Old Testament was complete with the book of Malachi which was written about 425 B.C. or so. The apocrypha was written during the intertestamental period when there were on prophets to receive revelation from God. The apocrypha was added to the Septuagint which was translated from the Hebrew canon. They are only literature. They are not divinely inspired.
Quote:
And Paul's final answer to you is all scripture is inspired by God, and if everything in the bible is scripture as you claim then those 15 books you reject are scripture.
Maybe it is you that needs to do a little honest research on your own Mike instead of taking for things for granted because your so called experts tell you something is so.
The New Testament passages you list below were not quoted from the apocrypha. They are quotes of, or allusions to Old Testament pasages.
Quote:
Baruch 4:7
For ye provoked him that made you by sacrificing unto devils, and not to God.
1 Corinthians 10:20
20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
I Cor 10:20 alludes to Deut 32:17 '"They sacrificed to demons who were not God, To gods whom they have not known, New gods who came lately, Whom your fathers did not dread.'
Quote:
Sirach 2:1-5
2:1 My son, if thou come to serve the Lord, prepare thy soul for temptation. 2 Set thy heart aright, and constantly endure, and make not haste in time of trouble. 3 Cleave unto him, and depart not away, that thou mayest be increased at thy last end. 4 Whatsoever is brought upon thee take cheerfully, and be patient when thou art changed to a low estate. 5 For gold is tried in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of adversity.
James 1:2
2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
1 Peter 1:7
7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
James 1:2 and 1 Peter 1:7 allude to Job 23:10; Psalm 17:3; Psalm 66:10.
Job 23:10 "But He knows the way I take; When He has tried me, I shall come forth as gold.
Psalm 17:3 You have tried my heart; You have visited me by night; You have tested me and You find nothing; I have purposed that my mouth.
Psalm 66:10 'For You have tried us, O God; You have refined us as silver is refined.
Quote:
Sirach 7:14
14 Use not many words in a multitude of elders, and make not much babbling when thou prayest.
Matthew 6:7
7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Matthew 6:7 alludes to Ecclesiates 5:2.
Ecclesiates 5:2 Do not be hasty in word or impulsive in thought to bring up a matter in the presence of God. For God is in heaven and you are on the earth; therefore let your words be few.
Quote:
Sirach 9:8
8 Turn away thine eye from a beautiful woman, and look not upon another’s beauty; for many have been deceived by the beauty of a woman; for herewith love is kindled as a fire.
Matthew 5:28
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Matthew 5:28 alludes to Ex 20:17; Lev 18:20; ; Job 31:1.
Lev 18:20 'You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor's wife, to be defiled with her.
Job 31:1 "I have made a covenant with my eyes; How then could I gaze at a virgin?
Quote:
Sirach 10:14
14 The Lord hath cast down the thrones of proud princes, and set up the meek in their stead.
Luke 1:52
52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
Luke 1:52 is part of the Magnificat which is Luke 1:46-55. Mary recited a song which praised God's favor or her and her people. It consists almost entirely of Old Testament allusions and quotations. Luke 1:52 alludes to 1 Sam 2:6-8.
1 Sam 2:6 "The LORD kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up. 7] "The LORD makes poor and rich; He brings low, He also exalts. 8] "He raises the poor from the dust, He lifts the needy from the ash heap To make them sit with nobles, And inherit a seat of honor; For the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, And He set the world on them.
Quote:
Sirach 13:17
17 What fellowship hath the wolf with the lamb? so the sinner with the godly.
2 Corinthians 6:15
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
I didn't find the correlation of 2 Corinthians 6:15 with an Old Testament passage, but that doesn't mean that it was an allusion to a passage in the apocrypha.
Quote:
Still believe Jesus and the apostles never referenced the apocryphal books as your so called experts tell you?
Now, if you don't want to believe what I'm telling you, then go ask a Jewish Rabbi if the Jews ever recognized the Apocrypha as canonical. The Jews recognized the Old Testament canon and they did not include the Apocrypha in it. The apocryphal books which were inserted into the Septuagint did not even exist when the Jewish Old Testament had been completed.
I'll repeat a portion of what I said in post #309 about the way the apocrypha contradicts the Old Testament.
'The apocryphal books were written during the intertestamental period. They were not connected with any prophet. The apocryphal books so distorted and contradicted Old Testament narratives that in order to accept the apocrypha you have to reject the Old Testament. The apocrypha teaches doctrines and upholds practices which are contrary to the canon of Scripture.
For example, 2 Machabees 12:41-46 teaches prayers offered for the dead, and that monetary offerings are brought on their behalf.
Ecclesiasticus 3:33 speaks of atonement by almsgiving.
Tobias 4:11 states that salvation can be purchased; 'For alms deliver from all sin, and from death and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness.'
Following are the books and order of books in the Hebrew Canon from which the Septuagint was translated. There is no apocrypha in the Hebrew canon.
Prophets (Latter)
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Book of the Twelve
The Writings
Psalms
Proverbs
Job
Song of Songs
Ruth
Lamentations
Ecclesiastes
Esther
Daniel
Ezra
Nehemiah
1-2 Chronicles
These are also the books of the Protestant Bible. The Protestant Bible has the order of books arranged differently, and books such as Samuel for example are divided into two books (1st and 2nd Samuel). That means there are 39 books in the Protestant Bible as opposed to the 25 books of the Hebrew canon. But it is the same thing. The apocryphal books were not in the Hebrew Canon, and they rightfully are not in the Protestant Bible. They are not of divine origen.
Post #309 was intended to by my last post concerning the apocrypha, but since you think that the verses you list below are quoting the apocrypha, I will address that.
You say the the Bible is not the word of God. In so doing, you attack the entire Bible and therefore attack God who is the divine author of the Bible.
Your statement from post #300. 'True I attack the bible, but have never attacked God who is the author of the scriptures NOT the bible, get your facts straight about what I have said.'
The apocrypha is not and never was canonical. The Hebrew Old Testament was complete with the book of Malachi which was written about 425 B.C. or so. The apocrypha was written during the intertestamental period when there were on prophets to receive revelation from God. The apocrypha was added to the Septuagint which was translated from the Hebrew canon. They are only literature. They are not divinely inspired.
The New Testament passages you list below were not quoted from the apocrypha. They are quotes of, or allusions to Old Testament pasages.
I Cor 10:20 alludes to Deut 32:17 '"They sacrificed to demons who were not God, To gods whom they have not known, New gods who came lately, Whom your fathers did not dread.'
James 1:2 and 1 Peter 1:7 allude to Job 23:10; Psalm 17:3; Psalm 66:10.
Job 23:10 "But He knows the way I take; When He has tried me, I shall come forth as gold.
Psalm 17:3 You have tried my heart; You have visited me by night; You have tested me and You find nothing; I have purposed that my mouth.
Psalm 66:10 'For You have tried us, O God; You have refined us as silver is refined.
Matthew 6:7 alludes to Ecclesiates 5:2.
Ecclesiates 5:2 Do not be hasty in word or impulsive in thought to bring up a matter in the presence of God. For God is in heaven and you are on the earth; therefore let your words be few.
Matthew 5:28 alludes to Ex 20:17; Lev 18:20; ; Job 31:1.
Lev 18:20 'You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor's wife, to be defiled with her.
Job 31:1 "I have made a covenant with my eyes; How then could I gaze at a virgin?
Luke 1:52 is part of the Magnificat which is Luke 1:46-55. Mary recited a song which praised God's favor or her and her people. It consists almost entirely of Old Testament allusions and quotations. Luke 1:52 alludes to 1 Sam 2:6-8.
1 Sam 2:6 "The LORD kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up. 7] "The LORD makes poor and rich; He brings low, He also exalts. 8] "He raises the poor from the dust, He lifts the needy from the ash heap To make them sit with nobles, And inherit a seat of honor; For the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, And He set the world on them.
I didn't find the correlation of 2 Corinthians 6:15 with an Old Testament passage, but that doesn't mean that it was an allusion to a passage in the apocrypha.
Now, if you don't want to believe what I'm telling you, then go ask a Jewish Rabbi if the Jews ever recognized the Apocrypha as canonical. The Jews recognized the Old Testament canon and they did not include the Apocrypha in it. The apocryphal books which were inserted into the Septuagint did not even exist when the Jewish Old Testament had been completed.
I'll repeat a portion of what I said in post #309 about the way the apocrypha contradicts the Old Testament.
'The apocryphal books were written during the intertestamental period. They were not connected with any prophet. The apocryphal books so distorted and contradicted Old Testament narratives that in order to accept the apocrypha you have to reject the Old Testament. The apocrypha teaches doctrines and upholds practices which are contrary to the canon of Scripture.
For example, 2 Machabees 12:41-46 teaches prayers offered for the dead, and that monetary offerings are brought on their behalf.
Ecclesiasticus 3:33 speaks of atonement by almsgiving.
Tobias 4:11 states that salvation can be purchased; 'For alms deliver from all sin, and from death and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness.'
Following are the books and order of books in the Hebrew Canon from which the Septuagint was translated. There is no apocrypha in the Hebrew canon.
Prophets (Latter)
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Book of the Twelve
The Writings
Psalms
Proverbs
Job
Song of Songs
Ruth
Lamentations
Ecclesiastes
Esther
Daniel
Ezra
Nehemiah
1-2 Chronicles
These are also the books of the Protestant Bible. The Protestant Bible has the order of books arranged differently, and books such as Samuel for example are divided into two books (1st and 2nd Samuel). That means there are 39 books in the Protestant Bible as opposed to the 25 books of the Hebrew canon. But it is the same thing. The apocryphal books were not in the Hebrew Canon, and they rightfully are not in the Protestant Bible. They are not of divine origen.
I'll refer readers back to post #309.
A few things here Mike
First, how do you know that the references were not from the Apocryphal?
Second, you said you could not find any OT passage that refers to 2Co.6:15, but that does not mean it is an allusion to a passage of the apocryphal. Yet Sirach 13:17 is a clear reference to 2Co.6:15.
Here it is again
Sirach 13:17
17 What fellowship hath the wolf with the lamb? so the sinner with the godly.
2 Corinthians 6:15
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
So if the reference did not come from Sirach 13:17 Mike, where did it come from?
Third, you did not even try to touch the scripture were Paul talks about the vessels of honour and dishonour coming from the same lump of clay.
Here it is again
Wisdom 15:7
7 For the potter, tempering soft earth, fashioneth every vessel with much labour for our service: yea, of the same clay he maketh both the vessels that serve for clean uses, and likewise also all such as serve to the contrary: but what is the use of either sort, the potter himself is the judge.
Romans 9:21
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
And you won't find the SAME LUMP reference in the OT either, so where did Paul get his reference from?
Forth, does it matter if the Jews believed them to be scripture or not? After all it was the Jewish scribes who added and took away scripture in order to hide the fact that Jesus was the Messiah.
Maybe they read these scriptures (below) that are clearly in reference to our suffering Lord and said we better get rid of these ones too.
Wisdom 2:12-20
12 Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our education. 13 He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord.14 He was made to reprove our thoughts. 15 He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men’s, his ways are of another fashion. 16 We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father.
17 Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him. 18 For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies. 19 Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience.20 Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected.
Fifth, attacking the bible or more correctly attacking what the lying pens of the scribes have added and taken away from the bible is NOT attacking God or the scriptures.
The bottom line, Mike, is that human beings decide what's inspired and what's not. And human beings are fallible.
No. The church could only recognize what already was canonical. The books of the Bible are canonical because they are God-breathed. Not because the church says they are. Some books such as the Shepherd of Hermes was considered by some to be canonical but it never was. God guided the process by which the determination of the canonicity of the books of the Bible was determined.
First, how do you know that the references were not from the Apocryphal?
I just gave you the Old Testament passages which were alluded to.
Quote:
Second, you said you could not find any OT passage that refers to 2Co.6:15, but that does not mean it is an allusion to a passage of the apocryphal. Yet Sirach 13:17 is a clear reference to 2Co.6:15.
Here it is again
Sirach 13:17
17 What fellowship hath the wolf with the lamb? so the sinner with the godly.
2 Corinthians 6:15
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
So if the reference did not come from Sirach 13:17 Mike, where did it come from?
I should not have used the word 'allusion,' as my point is that there are no quotations in the New Testment from the apocrypha. They are two different things. There are many direct quotations as well as allusions in the New Testament from the Old Testament. Jesus, when saying 'it is written' always referred to the Old Testament. He never once referred to the apocrypha when He said 'it is written'. Both Jesus and the apostles no doubt were familiar with the Apocryphal writings, and may have alluded to things which were written in them. But they never made direct quotations of anything in the apocrypha.
2 Corinthians 6:15 is not a quotation of Sirach 13:17. It is at most only an allusion. 2 Cor 6:15 is related to the rest of the passage which follows. 2 Cor 6:17 regarding 6:15 and the other verses says ''Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,'' says the Lord. Actually Paul had in mind Isaiah 52:11 which is a call to Israel to cleanse itself from pagan pollutions. He than applied it to believers not being bound together with unbelievers.
Quote:
Third, you did not even try to touch the scripture were Paul talks about the vessels of honour and dishonour coming from the same lump of clay.
Here it is again
Wisdom 15:7
7 For the potter, tempering soft earth, fashioneth every vessel with much labour for our service: yea, of the same clay he maketh both the vessels that serve for clean uses, and likewise also all such as serve to the contrary: but what is the use of either sort, the potter himself is the judge.
Romans 9:21
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
And you won't find the SAME LUMP reference in the OT either, so where did Paul get his reference from?
My reply was to post #319. You made no reference to that passage in that post. Romans 9:21 alludes to Isa 45:9 and Jeremiah 18:6.
Quote:
Forth, does it matter if the Jews believed them to be scripture or not? After all it was the Jewish scribes who added and took away scripture in order to hide the fact that Jesus was the Messiah.
Maybe they read these scriptures (below) that are clearly in reference to our suffering Lord and said we better get rid of these ones too.
Wisdom 2:12-20
12 Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our education. 13 He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord.14 He was made to reprove our thoughts. 15 He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men’s, his ways are of another fashion. 16 We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father.
17 Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him. 18 For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies. 19 Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience.20 Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected.
What I am trying to get you to understand is that the Jews who lived in the intertestamental period, that time between when the last of the Old Testament books were written around 425 B.C. or so, and the time of the coming of Christ, did not regard the apocryphal literature which was written at that time, as Canonical. Jesus hadn't come into the world yet. They therefore were not trying to hide the fact that Jesus was the Messiah. He hadn't even come as of that time.
Again, the apocryphal books were written AFTER the Old Testament had been completed. During the intertestamental period God had not appointed any prophets to receive His word. Therefore, since there were no prophets at that time, there could be no divinely inspired scripture. The apocrypha was not written by prophets and so are not canonical.
And also, once again, the apocrypha contains doctrines and practices which contradict the Old Testament. I have given examples in the previous post.
Quote:
Fifth, attacking the bible or more correctly attacking what the lying pens of the scribes have added and taken away from the bible is NOT attacking God or the scriptures.
Get your facts straight.
Jeremiah 8 is not about the Scriptures being altered. The law was being mishandled and the Scribes, priests, and false prophets were lying to the Jews, telling them that there was peace, when in fact they were about to be taken into captivity for 70 years by Babylon. They were not changing the content of the Scriptures. You need to understand that passage within its context.
From post #298, here is a quote of your attitude concerning the Bible.
'not everything in our bible is scripture. What I don't have faith in is the bible. The bible and scripture are NOT the same thing.'
You declare that not everything in the Bible is scripture. You declare that you have no faith in the Bible. That is an attack on the Bible.
You have said in other threads, that the Scribes added things to the Mosaic law. That they changed the Mosaic law and that those added things were put into the Old Testament scriptures, and that Jesus refuted those changes.
You are saying that the Old Testament can't be trusted.
This thread is turning into a good place to compare bible translations that give different meanings to the texts they are translating.
Perhaps others could provide examples and also provide exegesis (including the Greek or Hebrew text, history of the particular translation, translation team, etc.) regarding how they differ. It's a fascinating area of study and sheds much light on the scriptures. It also reveals why translators, their translation committees, the publishers that support and pay them, etc., do what they do.
It's also turning into a good place to discuss the canon and the differences between the eastern and western church scriptures.
No. The church could only recognize what already was canonical. The books of the Bible are canonical because they are God-breathed. Not because the church says they are. Some books such as the Shepherd of Hermes was considered by some to be canonical but it never was. God guided the process by which the determination of the canonicity of the books of the Bible was determined.
Evidently, we're at an impasse. You've obviously made up your mind and nothing's going to change it. The fact of the matter is that the biblical canon has changed over the years.
In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.
Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.
The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?
If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all?
The Bible has been changed many, many times over the years. What you are saying, in effect, is that books go from being "God breathed" to "not God breathed" and sometimes back again.
Evidently, we're at an impasse. You've obviously made up your mind and nothing's going to change it. The fact of the matter is that the biblical canon has changed over the years. What you are saying, in effect, is that books go from being "God breathed" to "not God breathed" and sometimes back again.
katzpur, I'm not sure you understand what I am saying. What I am saying is that the books which are canonical have always been canonical because of the fact that they are God-breathed. The fact that some people may have regarded some non-canonical book as being canonical doesn't mean that it was canonical. The books of the Old Testament had to be written by a prophet. As for the New Testament, No book that was written after the death of the last of the apostles can ever be canonical because the books of the New Testament had to be written by an apostle, or someone closely associated with an apostle.
Just as God used human authors to record His word, He also used human agency, guiding the process by which the books of the Bible would be collected together under one cover.
I think that even today, there are probably those who object to certain books being included in the Bible. And there are those who believe that there are books which should have been included. But the matter is settled. Not in the minds of those who continue to believe that God was not capable of guiding which books went into the canon, but it IS settled.
Well, to cut this short, God guided the process by which the selection of which books belong in the Bible was accomplished. And we have today, God's preserved word, despite the variations and errors in individual manuscript copies.
Evidently, we're at an impasse. You've obviously made up your mind and nothing's going to change it. The fact of the matter is that the biblical canon has changed over the years. What you are saying, in effect, is that books go from being "God breathed" to "not God breathed" and sometimes back again.
That also brings up the question as to which branch of the church (eastern or western) is being guided by God concerning the canon. There is a vast difference between the OT canon of the western/protestant churches (Hebrew text) vs that of the eastern orthodox churches (Septuagint text), as shown here in this matrix:
Also, as pointed out by pneuma, the Septuagint Greek text, that text wherein the apocrypha is included and accepted as canon, was often the preferred scriptural text when quoted by the Apostles, even when the text differed from the Hebrew Text, as this data shows:
katzpur, I'm not sure you understand what I am saying. What I am saying is that the books which are canonical have always been canonical because of the fact that they are God-breathed. The fact that some people may have regarded some non-canonical book as being canonical doesn't mean that it was canonical. The books of the Old Testament had to be written by a prophet. As for the New Testament, No book that was written after the death of the last of the apostles can ever be canonical because the books of the New Testament had to be written by an apostle, or someone closely associated with an apostle.
Just as God used human authors to record His word, He also used human agency, guiding the process by which the books of the Bible would be collected together under one cover.
I think that even today, there are probably those who object to certain books being included in the Bible. And there are those who believe that there are books which should have been included. But the matter is settled. Not in the minds of those who continue to believe that God was not capable of guiding which books went into the canon, but it IS settled.
Well, to cut this short, God guided the process by which the selection of which books belong in the Bible was accomplished. And we have today, God's preserved word, despite the variations and errors in individual manuscript copies.
I refer readers to post #48.
I'm sorry, Mike, but you're not making one ounce of sense to me. You say the matter is settled. I'm saying it has been settled differently multiple times in the past. Give Christianity another thousand years and it may be settled yet again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
