The Bible vs. 'THE' bible.... (churches, protestant, quotes, Catholic)
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.
After reading this forum for a few years, I've read many a time, when someone quotes from "the Bible." Now," I put "Bible" in quotes and capitalize the "B" because of what I was taught..."
But I read about people talking about "THE" bible, as if the one in their possession is the ONLY one. The one with 66 books...
I've seen people debate back and forth about how something they're debating about "isn't in the bible".
Yet I think, WHOSE bible? I mean, I'm Catholic, so I have a Catholic Bible...which includes the other books that are often left out of the KJV...and then some.
And yet, the very things they argue about are THERE, in the Catholic books.
The content is to be more important than what's it's called. I doubt God would call it "bible" or "the Bible" or have any name in mind. The churches are the ones who continue to put their fingerprints on everything.
The content is to be more important than what's it's called. I doubt God would call it "bible" or "the Bible" or have any name in mind.
I agree. I mean, I think to myself, "Does God's word begin and end with what some have chosen to be what's written?" Just the way life is, it tells me 'no'.
Quote:
The churches are the ones who continue to put their fingerprints on everything.
After reading this forum for a few years, I've read many a time, when someone quotes from "the Bible." Now," I put "Bible" in quotes and capitalize the "B" because of what I was taught..."
But I read about people talking about "THE" bible, as if the one in their possession is the ONLY one. The one with 66 books...
I've seen people debate back and forth about how something they're debating about "isn't in the bible".
Yet I think, WHOSE bible? I mean, I'm Catholic, so I have a Catholic Bible...which includes the other books that are often left out of the KJV...and then some.
And yet, the very things they argue about are THERE, in the Catholic books.
I don't get it.
The books in the Catholic Bible that are not found in Protestant Bibles are Jewish works that the Jews did not consider to be canonical and are not found in the Hebrew Bible but are found in the Greek Septuagint. Those books are Baruch, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom. I suppose that the Roman Catholic Church included those books in their Bible because they were in the Septuagint. I don't know why else they would have included them and I don't know why they chose to include Jewish books that the Jews themselves didn't consider to be canonical.
Now, quite apart from that, there never was ''The Bible.'' There were different versions of the Hebrew Bible in existence, versions which are no longer extant but we know that they existed because sometimes the Septuagint agrees with the Masoretic Text against the Dead Sea Scrolls, at other times the Septuagint agrees with the Dead Sea Scrolls against the Masoretic Text, and at other times the Septuagint doesn't agree with either of them suggesting that some other version was used in the Septuagint. Also, the book of Jeremiah in the Septuagint is shorter than the version found in the Masoretic Text. Both the shorter and longer versions were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran meaning that both versions existed at the same time.
The books in the Catholic Bible that are not found in Protestant Bibles are Jewish works that the Jews did not consider to be canonical and are not found in the Hebrew Bible but are found in the Greek Septuagint. Those books are Baruch, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom. I suppose that the Roman Catholic Church included those books in their Bible because they were in the Septuagint. I don't know why else they would have included them and I don't know why they chose to include Jewish books that the Jews themselves didn't consider to be canonical.
Now, quite apart from that, there never was ''The Bible.'' There were different versions of the Hebrew Bible in existence, versions which are no longer extant but we know that they existed because sometimes the Septuagint agrees with the Masoretic Text against the Dead Sea Scrolls, at other times the Septuagint agrees with the Dead Sea Scrolls against the Masoretic Text, and at other times the Septuagint doesn't agree with either of them suggesting that some other version was used in the Septuagint. Also, the book of Jeremiah in the Septuagint is shorter than the version found in the Masoretic Text. Both the shorter and longer versions were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran meaning that both versions existed at the same time.
So . . .
I get what you're saying, Mike.
To a point.
We seem to be so focused on WHO said what instead of WHAT was said.
Jesus was the 'Who'. But does that take away from the "WHAT?"
The books in the Catholic Bible that are not found in Protestant Bibles are Jewish works that the Jews did not consider to be canonical and are not found in the Hebrew Bible but are found in the Greek Septuagint. Those books are Baruch, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom. I suppose that the Roman Catholic Church included those books in their Bible because they were in the Septuagint. I don't know why else they would have included them and I don't know why they chose to include Jewish books that the Jews themselves didn't consider to be canonical.
Now, quite apart from that, there never was ''The Bible.'' There were different versions of the Hebrew Bible in existence, versions which are no longer extant but we know that they existed because sometimes the Septuagint agrees with the Masoretic Text against the Dead Sea Scrolls, at other times the Septuagint agrees with the Dead Sea Scrolls against the Masoretic Text, and at other times the Septuagint doesn't agree with either of them suggesting that some other version was used in the Septuagint. Also, the book of Jeremiah in the Septuagint is shorter than the version found in the Masoretic Text. Both the shorter and longer versions were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran meaning that both versions existed at the same time.
So . . .
Jewish authorities decided the Apocrypha were not canonical after they had been decided to be canonical by the Catholic Church, and yes that was because of their inclusion within the Septuagint at the time. The Protestant exclusion, much like the Jewish exclusion, occurred after the original inclusion.
After reading this forum for a few years, I've read many a time, when someone quotes from "the Bible." Now," I put "Bible" in quotes and capitalize the "B" because of what I was taught..."
But I read about people talking about "THE" bible, as if the one in their possession is the ONLY one. The one with 66 books...
I've seen people debate back and forth about how something they're debating about "isn't in the bible".
Yet I think, WHOSE bible? I mean, I'm Catholic, so I have a Catholic Bible...which includes the other books that are often left out of the KJV...and then some.
And yet, the very things they argue about are THERE, in the Catholic books.
I don't get it.
Many have been mislead by Catholicism. Once people were allowed to read the bible themselves( not until the 1300,s,(Catholicism wouldnt let any one read the bible until then, that alone proves they are not Gods)-- Their own translating exposed them as false, it does to this day, as well their bloodguilt through the centuries have amassed to the heavens. I dont say it to be mean, i say it because its reality. And i have no desire to see a created brother or sister miss out on entering Gods kingdom.
Jewish authorities decided the Apocrypha were not canonical after they had been decided to be canonical by the Catholic Church,
Lee Martin McDonald in his book The Biblical Canon, It's Origin, Transmission, and Authority is less sure about that claim than you are, saying only that
The rapid growth within Judaism of the Christian movement, with its strong focus upon apocalyptic and messianic literature, may have influenced the Jewish religious community in Palestine to reject apocalyptic literature. In any case, such apocalyptic views coupled with messianic claimants, such as Bar Kokhba, probably had an impact on the literature that Jews focused on during the second century C.E. and following. [p. 174]
Quote:
and yes that was because of their inclusion within the Septuagint at the time. The Protestant exclusion, much like the Jewish exclusion, occurred after the original inclusion.
There will probably always be uncertainty concerning when the Hebrew canon was finalized and why certain books were included and other excluded.
Many have been mislead by Catholicism. Once people were allowed to read the bible themselves( not until the 1300,s,(Catholicism wouldnt let any one read the bible until then, that alone proves they are not Gods)-- Their own translating exposed them as false, it does to this day, as well their bloodguilt through the centuries have amassed to the heavens. I dont say it to be mean, i say it because its reality. And i have no desire to see a created brother or sister miss out on entering Gods kingdom.
I never heard any catholic say they were gods.
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.
