Adding to the Bible and Taking away from the Bible

[wmscott]

Some of those books; the ones with geographical, historical and other errors cannot be of divine origin; since God does not make error. Maybe the reason the books were added to canon much later because of an agenda that is not divine in origin. The original use of the books were profitable for some devotional use, but were recognized as not divine in origin. the Jews did not recognize them as divine and they would know better than the Church wouldn’t they since they were written between Malachi and Matthew. Let assume what I say is true; then what would that say about the folks that added to the canon? What were their motivations for adding to the canon that which was known not to be divine? $$$? control? to support added doctrines not prescribed in the 66 books? other reasons? I don’t know except it was not from God.

You obviously need to take a course on Biblical history. You state “What were their motivations for adding to the canon that which was known not to be divine? $$$? control?” this is a totally absurd statement and frankly lacks any intelligent basis in fact.

What you and those like minded as yourself lack is a solid foundation in Christian history. The following was taken from the Catholic.com library if you want to read more, however I really do not think you will read any of this with any kind of discerning mind, because you already have an anti-Catholic cut and paste response ready.

However, just in case you really want to learn something read on.

There was a constant history of faithful people from Paul’s time through the Apostolic and Post Apostolic Church.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum, which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today.

Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.
Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

So, as you can see the Canon of the Bible stood pretty much as it is today for over 1300 years until the Reformers decided to take them out to support their own fallible interprtations.

 

[PRmerger]

BibleAnswer,

Can you tell me where in Scripture it says we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order for us to determine its veracity?

 

[Tanner9188]

Originally Posted by Tanner9188 View Post
Some of those books; the ones with geographical, historical and other errors cannot be of divine origin; since God does not make error. Maybe the reason the books were added to canon much later because of an agenda that is not divine in origin. The original use of the books were profitable for some devotional use, but were recognized as not divine in origin. the Jews did not recognize them as divine and they would know better than the Church wouldn’t they since they were written between Malachi and Matthew. Let assume what I say is true; then what would that say about the folks that added to the canon? What were their motivations for adding to the canon that which was known not to be divine? $$$? control? to support added doctrines not prescribed in the 66 books? other reasons? I don’t know except it was not from God.

You obviously need to take a course on Biblical history. You state “What were their motivations for adding to the canon that which was known not to be divine? $$$? control?” this is a totally absurd statement and frankly lacks any intelligent basis in fact.

You have taken me out of context; therefore I brought the entire post over because I said I don’t know, but generally people are motivated add things to Gods word for their specific agenda; nothing new under the sun as Solomon would say. I reference a general list and follow by “I don’t know”. Any honest person who looks at the litmus test for the original canon; these extra books do not fit the test, but they do support praying to the dead and some other traditions that were under attack by the reformers.

What you and those like minded as yourself lack is a solid foundation in Christian history. The following was taken from the Catholic.com library if you want to read more, however I really do not think you will read any of this with any kind of discerning mind, because you already have an anti-Catholic cut and paste response ready.
However, just in case you really want to learn something read on.
There was a constant history of faithful people from Paul’s time through the Apostolic and Post Apostolic Church.

If you read your history from bias source, the same unreliable source that added books that clearly are not divine, then you will get the same bias and more; right?

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.
Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.
The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum, which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.
Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.
The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.
The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today.
Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.
Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.
The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

**The errors are in the books; therefore the council errored.

The name “pope” is the English form of the Latin “papa” which means “father” and was a form of address for bishops in the early church (contra Matthew 23:9). By about 500 AD the term was being applied mainly to the Bishop of Rome until, in 1073, Gregory forbade Catholics to call anyone “papa” except the bishop of Rome. At this stage one can speak of a single “pope” as we know today albeit in a much different form as many powers and privileges were bestowed as time progressed.
theopedia.com/Pope source**

So, as you can see the Canon of the Bible stood pretty much as it is today for over 1300 years until the Reformers decided to take them out to support their own fallible interprtations.

Read my signature below if you want to know truth of how the Bible is correctly interpreted; if you let someone other than the Holy Spirit; one will never come to the truth and will be like babes tossed to and fro or apostates with no chance of redemption.

 

[PRmerger]

Any honest person who looks at the litmus test for the original canon; these extra books do not fit the test,

What litumus test, Tanner? Who decided what criteria fits this litmus test? Does Scripture say that books with geographical or historical errors are non-inspired?

 

[Tanner9188]

BibleAnswer,

Can you tell me where in Scripture it says we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order for us to determine its veracity?

**I don’t think you will see it implicitly, but through out the NT and OT you see references to “it is written” or so it would be “fulfilled as it is written”; this is implicit that Scripture interprets itself. And in case you have doubts see the phrases below taken from Scripture.

“in order to fulfill the word of the LORD”
“to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets”
“to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord”
“to fulfill what was spoken”
“you have heard that the ancients were told”
“to fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets”
“to fulfill the Scriptures”
“to fulfill the word that is written in their Law”

What you will not find is that Scripture is to be interpreted by the “Roman Catholic Church” Implicitly or explicitly, but you will find how we are to know - see my signature section.**

 

[Tanner9188]

What litumus test, Tanner? Who decided what criteria fits this litmus test? Does Scripture say that books with geographical or historical errors are non-inspired?

If I must teach the history scholar the basics that he claims his Church gave to us; wouldn’t that be the student teaching the teacher? It is easily answered; so I will leave it to you to find on your own if you don’t already know; which I suspect you do.

 

[PRmerger]

If I must teach the history scholar the basics that he claims his Church gave to us; wouldn’t that be the student teaching the teacher? It is easily answered; so I will leave it to you to find on your own if you don’t already know; which I suspect you do.

What? Who says I’m a history scholar? Certainly not me! History class made my eyes glaze over.

I’m asking how you determined that a book must be historically and geographically correct in order for it to be inspired. You certainly did not get that from Scripture! In fact, you ought to throw out Genesis as it’s definitely not scientifically accurate–unless, of course, you believe that the world is flat and covered with a dome.

What you’re using as criteria for Scripture is not Scriptural, Tanner.

 

[PRmerger]

**I don’t think you will see it implicitly, but through out the NT and OT you see references to “it is written” or so it would be “fulfilled as it is written”; this is implicit that Scripture interprets itself. And in case you have doubts see the phrases below taken from Scripture.

“in order to fulfill the word of the LORD”
“to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets”
“to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord”
“to fulfill what was spoken”
“you have heard that the ancients were told”
“to fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets”
“to fulfill the Scriptures”
“to fulfill the word that is written in their Law”**

I do not see either explicitly, nor implicitly, where it says that Scripture interprets itself. I do, however, see that certain events did fulfill Scripture–like the Incarnation.

However, if you want to use “implicit” applications to Scripture interpetation, then you ought to be consistent and agree that Scripture does state that Mary was immaculately conceived, that she was assumed into heaven, and that the Magisterium of the CC has been given the task of offering an authentic interpetation of the Word of God.

 

[Tanner9188]

What? Who says I’m a history scholar? Certainly not me! History class made my eyes glaze over.

I’m asking how you determined that a book must be historically and geographically correct in order for it to be inspired. You certainly did not get that from Scripture! In fact, you ought to throw out Genesis as it’s definitely not scientifically accurate–unless, of course, you believe that the world is flat and covered with a dome.

What you’re using as criteria for Scripture is not Scriptural, Tanner.

**The world is flat and covered with a dome??? Scripture says the earth is a sphere and spins as the clay to the seal. Scripture is not a science book, but when it speaks of things that are scientific it is accurate from the perspective of the writers.

“I’m asking how you determined that a book must be historically and geographically correct in order for it to be inspired.” Everything from God is truth and in Him there is no lie, nor can He lie; therefore if something is God breathed; it will not contain error. That is Scripture. **

 

[Tanner9188]

I do not see either explicitly, nor implicitly, where it says that Scripture interprets itself. I do, however, see that certain events did fulfill Scripture–like the Incarnation.

**I figured you would not see what is so obvious; you rely on truth from men rather than the Holy Spirit; most people do on the Protestant and Catholic sides of the fence. **

However, if you want to use “implicit” applications to Scripture interpetation, then you ought to be consistent and agree that Scripture does state that Mary was immaculately conceived, that she was assumed into heaven, and that the Magisterium of the CC has been given the task of offering an authentic interpetation of the Word of God.

**What is explicit in Scripture is that Jesus had blood siblings, which erases all of the above except the assumption, which Scripture does not address; therefore we would assume she died the normal course as everyone else. There is no Magisterium in the church; only in the Church.
**

 

[wmscott]

You have taken me out of context; therefore I brought the entire post over because I said I don’t know, but generally people are motivated add things to Gods word for their specific agenda; nothing new under the sun as Solomon would say. I reference a general list and follow by “I don’t know”. Any honest person who looks at the litmus test for the original canon; these extra books do not fit the test, but they do support praying to the dead and some other traditions that were under attack by the reformers.
If you read your history from bias source, the same unreliable source that added books that clearly are not divine, then you will get the same bias and more; right?

**The errors are in the books; therefore the council errored.

The name “pope” is the English form of the Latin “papa” which means “father” and was a form of address for bishops in the early church (contra Matthew 23:9). By about 500 AD the term was being applied mainly to the Bishop of Rome until, in 1073, Gregory forbade Catholics to call anyone “papa” except the bishop of Rome. At this stage one can speak of a single “pope” as we know today albeit in a much different form as many powers and privileges were bestowed as time progressed. **
theopedia.com/Pope source
Read my signature below if you want to know truth of how the Bible is correctly interpreted; if you let someone other than the Holy Spirit; one will never come to the truth and will be like babes tossed to and fro or apostates with no chance of redemption.

From reading your post and several others following you are all over the board with anti-Catholic falsehoods. You are errant in so many things, but this is not your fault, you have no teaching authority that is guided by the Holy Spirit to correct you when you are wrong. You just parrot the things other errant people have taught you without any will of your own. So on to this post regarding the deuterocanonical books you seem to have an issue with. Basically you are saying that Christianity was wrong, got it wrong, and perpetuated error for 1500 plus years.
Again this is your fallible interpretation. You are saying that the entire Catholic Church, the Church that is the body of Christ, the Church that Christ established is wrong, that the Holy Spirit was in error in guiding Christ’s Church. Remember Jesus, in His own words, said in Matthew 16:18 “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it”. Did Christ say this to the Reformers, to you, or the thousands of other Protestant denomination (all of which hold differing doctrines)? Did Christ or the Holy Spirit lie to Christianity for 1500 plus years, waiting for the Reformers, the thousands of other Protestant denominations, and you to correct everything? Hardly.
What the issue is, is that during the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, (Faith Alone, Scripture Alone, or for various other reasons) Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical and divinely inspired since the beginning of Church history.
This group of books is called “deuterocanonical” not (as some imagine) because they are a “second rate” or inferior canon, but because their status as being part of the canon of Scripture was settled later in time than certain books that always and everywhere were regarded as Scripture, such as Genesis, Isaiah, and Psalms. Also with regards to Genesis, how do you explain two differing accounts of the Creation? I know Genesis is a part of your Bible, it is a contradiction by your standards. You cannot have it both ways.
Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament.
But I viewing your posts you have all the answers, so I guess that Jesus, in His own words, said to you in Matthew 16:18 “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it”. That you have been protected and guided by the Holy Spirit to come here and set right the Catholic Church and its followers. Wow, you have a very large task at hand.

 

[jlhargus]

From reading your post and several others following you are all over the board with anti-Catholic falsehoods.

JL: wmscott, I believe and am convinced Tanner belongs to one of the Calvary Chapel Outreach groups. I also think he is the person I knew as Kevin aka Smity on two other sites last year, his style is the same.

 

[wmscott]

JL: wmscott, I believe and am convinced Tanner belongs to one of the Calvary Chapel Outreach groups. I also think he is the person I knew as Kevin aka Smity on two other sites last year, his style is the same.

Could be, and if so, there is no amount of Scripture, doctrine, or reason that will convince him that the Catholic Church got something right (unless it fits his ideology). So chaning up names ensures that he does not get banned and presents the illusion of many followers holding the same beliefs as his.

 

[PRmerger]

The world is flat and covered with a dome??? Scripture says the earth is a sphere and spins as the clay to the seal.

Where does Genesis say that, Tanner?

 

[juliamajor]

Added books? I don’t think so they were in place before the Canon was set- from**THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA-**It is not known when the other books of the Bible were rendered into Greek. The grandson of Ben Sira (132 B.C.), in the prologue to his translation of his grandfather’s work, speaks of the “Law, Prophets, and the rest of the books” as being already current in his day. A Greek Chronicles is mentioned by Eupolemus (middle of second century B.C.); Aristeas, the historian, quotes Job; a foot-note to the Greek Esther seems to show that that book was in circulation before the end of the second century B.C.; and the Septuagint Psalter is quoted in I Macc. vii. 17. It is therefore more than probable that the whole of the Bible was translated into Greek before the beginning of the Christian era (Swete, “An Introduction to the O. T. in Greek,” ch. i.). The large number of Greek-speaking Jewish communities in Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and northern Africa must have facilitated its spread in all these regions. The quotations from the Old Testament found in the New are in the main taken from the Septuagint; and even where the citation is indirect the influence of this version is clearly seen. This will also explain in a measure the undoubted influence of the Septuagint upon the Syriac translation called the “Peshiṭta.”

 

[juliamajor]

---

My 2 cents; all Scripture is Revelation from God and therefore by adding or subtracting; you are in essence saying God you put too much here or God you did not put enough; either slice is telling God you know better than He.

Ah - here we have the wind-up.

 

[juliamajor]

Some of those books; the ones with geographical, historical and other errors cannot be of divine origin; since God does not make error. Maybe the reason the books were added to canon much later because of an agenda that is not divine in origin. The original use of the books were profitable for some devotional use, but were recognized as not divine in origin. the Jews did not recognize them as divine and they would know better than the Church wouldn’t they since they were written between Malachi and Matthew. Let assume what I say is true; then what would that say about the folks that added to the canon? What were their motivations for adding to the canon that which was known not to be divine? $$$? control? to support added doctrines not prescribed in the 66 books? other reasons? I don’t know except it was not from God.

And there is the standard pitch-very unoriginal.Think of something new-please!

 

[wmscott]

And there is the standard pitch-very unoriginal.Think of something new-please!

You are asking the impossible of Tanner; he cannot come up with anything original. He is relying on anti-Catholic canned responses. He has been fallible taught to use them in discussions with anyone who will listen to these lies.

Notice that he has made some very bold and inflammatory claims, but has provided no proof or Scriptural references. I actually find them offensive that he would believe that Christ and the Holy Spirit has been error for over 2000 years. It is all based on his own, fallible, personal interpretation based on lies and deceit.

 

[Omyo12]

And there is the standard pitch-very unoriginal.Think of something new-please!

Exactly… I love his inconsistency…
Tanner:

If you read your history from bias source, the same unreliable source that added books that clearly are not divine, then you will get the same bias and more; right?

Of course, wmscott could have also gotten this exact same information from any number of scholarly books on the history of Christianity…

I knew that too but I got it from Bible-Researcher which itself cites direct passages from the manuscripts of these same councils. (many from non-Catholic sources such as A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament by B.F. Westcott (an Anglican))
Tanner:

At this stage one can speak of a single “pope” as we know today albeit in a much different form as many powers and privileges were bestowed as time progressed.
theopedia.com/Pope source

… yet Tanner cites Theopedia: An Encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity… edited by anonymous laymen that are just as bias and unknowing of history as Tanner…



So in regards to the canon. History is a beautiful thing.

 

[SemperReformada]

Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament.

Quoting from the LXX does not demonstrate that the deuterocanonicals were thought to be inspired.

First, there is no way to prove or demonstrate that the LXX of the first century contained the deutero’s. Secondly, none of the deutero’s are quoted as authorative anywhere in the NT, not one single time.

In short, you are making a claim that you have no way of substantiating when you claim that Jesus and the apostles viewed the dc’s as part of the OT canon.