Coptic, Coptic, CopticAnna,
I have used this link and been criticized for this link…I think that Jimmy Akin does a better job because he explains it and the link you provide offers no explanation…I suppose the combination of both is a plus…
BrianH,
That is good…what I want is the English, The Greek, reference to a Concordance, reference to the Masoretic text…then I want it put into columns with English, Greek and then Latin…followed by tables that help the understanding and then a summary of what you are trying to say…that would work…here is the list… Now you might just listen to Jimmy Akin and tell me what you think he says…or do the list.
No he says…the Septuagint contains a few words that are not in the Catholic Bible…he then says…“What we can prove is that the inspired writers of the Gospels are quoting from the Septuagint”…“the gospel writers under the influence of the Holy Spirit did quote the Septuagint and never issued a warning”
You do realise that the Dead Sea scrolls which date from 2rd century BC to
It seems we are talking about different things and I am not sure why. The LXX contains a few words not in the Catholic Bible? What does that even mean? The writers of the NT use the LXX more than the MT but that is immaterial if we have not established the exact contents isn’t it?
The DSS have three of the DC and two are in Hebrew. One is in Greek. They also contain hundreds of other books. Around 800 to be exact. The DSS are not used to establish in arguments about the canon usually. Their is no way to establish the Essenes even had a concept of a canon is what I have read. Yes the DC existed around the time of Jesus but that says nothing about their canonical status.
The DSS have three of the DC and two are in Hebrew. One is in Greek. They also contain hundreds of other books. Around 800 to be exact. The DSS are not used to establish in arguments about the canon usually. Their is no way to establish the Essenes even had a concept of a canon is what I have read. **Yes the DC existed around the time of Jesus but that says nothing about their canonical status./**QUOTE]
please add, based on my experience, in my opinion, looking back 2000 years from today and compared to the use of the LXX by the OHCAC…in comparison I disagree…
BrianH;8821443:
of other books. Around 800 to be exact. The DSS are not used to establish in arguments about the canon usually. Their is no way to establish the Essenes even had a concept of a canon is what I have read. **Yes the DC existed around the time of Jesus but that says nothing about their canonical status./**QUOTE]
please add, based on my experience, in my opinion, looking back 2000 years from today and compared to the use of the LXX by the OHCAC…in comparison I disagree…
No it is not my opinion. Existance and being canonical are two different things. I have never said they did not exist around the time of Christ. It seems to me you are either dodging or perhaps really do not know that much about these things. Which is fine. I just would rather have a serious conversation with someone who knows enough to not make the kind of mistakes or assumptions people are making.
CopticChristian;8822256:
He said that the NT has DC allusions which I also agree with.
Then there was an attempt to state the DSS have anything to do with an Old Testament canon. Which they do not.
So I am clarifying and attempting to deal with what I see as misinformation. I did not deal with any of the three things you mentioned at all.
Jimmy Akin said that the gospel writers quote the DC. Jimmy Akin said that no one can know for sure what Jesus quoted since he spoke Aramaic and unless he did an on the spot translation…Everyone that listens to this will hear Jimmy Akin say this…
So here is what you said…
Jimmy Akins says that the Gospel writers do…This is incorrect
This is correct. You cannot determine this. What you can do is the following…
You can recognize that the canon of the entire Bible was essentially settled around the turn of the fourth century. Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains. Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405), and the Second Council of Carthage (419).
In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on, in practice Christians accepted the Catholic Church’s decision in this matter.
By the time of the Reformation, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)–and thus considering them inspired–for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.
You can look at the Patristic writings and I see that the Anti-Nicene, Nicene and Post Nicene Patristics include quotes from Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, 1 & 2 Mcabees…so I can conclude that prior to formulation of the canon that these books were quoted…
I can then look at the Dead sea scrolls and see that both Septuagint and MT are part and parcel of the find. I can then look at the oldest Bible we have and see that it contains the DC.
codexsinaiticus.org/en/
The 1611 King James and other English Translations had the DC. This was via the Church of England and under the direction of Parlaiment…The DC were removed because of the cost of printing…almost 100 years later…this is the rub…why?
I can conclude that the DC were part of every Greek, Latin, English speaking Bible and used as part of the Bible until they were removed by a Bible company because of the cost of printing. I can conclude that no singular Protestant Ecclesial body removed the DC books for any reason…
I can say that the DC are scripture and are part of the Bible based on historical use and Church authority…
One of the two “pillars” of the Protestant Reformation (sola scriptura or “the Bible alone”) in part states that nothing can be added to or taken away from God’s Word. History shows therefore that Protestants are guilty of violating their own doctrine.
So, do you agree or disagree that the DC are Scripture?
Do you agree that the DC should be in the Bible?
Tell me, and please do not do it in Greek…just plain English.
BrianH,
Brian, you are posting on a thread that asks, “How do they [Protestants] continue to use a shortened version of the Bible despite having the ancient manuscripts contradicting the Canon of their Bible?”
Peace,
:tsktsk:Coptic, Coptic, Coptic,
You still haven’t responded to Post #40 and Post #41.Post #41
**1 of 2: Sorting Out Quotes ** (The confusion is not helping my OCDThe quote buttons have “run amuck” again.
)please add, based on my experience, in my opinion, looking back 2000 years from today and compared to the use of the LXX by the OHCAC…in comparison I disagree…
Jimmy Akin said that the gospel writers quote the DC. Jimmy Akin said that no one can know for sure what Jesus quoted since he spoke Aramaic and unless he did an on the spot translation…Everyone that listens to this will hear Jimmy Akin say this…
So here is what you said…
Jimmy Akins says that the Gospel writers do…This is incorrect
This is correct. You cannot determine this. What you can do is the following…
You can recognize that the canon of the entire Bible was essentially settled around the turn of the fourth century. Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains. Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405), and the Second Council of Carthage (419).
In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on, in practice Christians accepted the Catholic Church’s decision in this matter.
By the time of the Reformation, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)–and thus considering them inspired–for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.
You can look at the Patristic writings and I see that the Anti-Nicene, Nicene and Post Nicene Patristics include quotes from Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, 1 & 2 Mcabees…so I can conclude that prior to formulation of the canon that these books were quoted…
I can then look at the Dead sea scrolls and see that both Septuagint and MT are part and parcel of the find. I can then look at the oldest Bible we have and see that it contains the DC.
codexsinaiticus.org/en/
The 1611 King James and other English Translations had the DC. This was via the Church of England and under the direction of Parlaiment…The DC were removed because of the cost of printing…almost 100 years later…this is the rub…why?
I can conclude that the DC were part of every Greek, Latin, English speaking Bible and used as part of the Bible until they were removed by a Bible company because of the cost of printing. I can conclude that no singular Protestant Ecclesial body removed the DC books for any reason…
I can say that the DC are scripture and are part of the Bible based on historical use and Church authority…
One of the two “pillars” of the Protestant Reformation (sola scriptura or “the Bible alone”) in part states that nothing can be added to or taken away from God’s Word. History shows therefore that Protestants are guilty of violating their own doctrine.
So, do you agree or disagree that the DC are Scripture?
Do you agree that the DC should be in the Bible?
Tell me, and please do not do it in Greek…just plain English.