Isn't 66 an incomplete number of books in the (Protestant) Bible?

[WesleyF]

Most Protestants would agree that in the Bible, 7 is a considered to be a complete or perfect number, whereas 6 is not.

Some quotes (from Protestant and non-Catholic sites)-

"it (6) is 7 minus 1, i.e., man’s coming short of spiritual perfection. In any case, therefore, it has to do with man;** it is the number of imperfection**; the human number; the number of MAN as destitute of God, without God, without Christ. "
biblestudy.org/bibleref/meaning-of-numbers-in-bible/6.html

“Six and Seven together as combining and contrasting what is human and what is spiritual.”
biblestudy.org/bibleref/meaning-of-numbers-in-bible/6and7.html

“Six → **Man, beast, Satan **
Seven → Perfection, completeness”
christcenteredmall.com/teachings/symbolism/numbers.htm

“The most prevalent number in prophecy is the number seven. Its use is clearly related to time and a complete number of a set.”
teachinghearts.org/dre17httnumber.html

“6- represents the worship of man, and is the number of man, signifying his rebellion, imperfection, works, and disobedience.”
“7- represents perfection, and is the sign of God, divine worship, completions, obedience, and rest.”
mostamazingprophecies.com/Resources/KeysToBibleNumbers/tabid/132/Default.aspx

There are many other sites!

The point I want to make is this - Is it not bothersome to Protestants that their Bible contains 66 books? If 7 is a complete number and 6 isn’t, then 66 sounds like an incomplete number of books in the Bible.

I also read on some sites that 6 represents the works of man. As a Catholic, it seems to me that it is indeed a work of man that Protestants have 66 books in the Bible. After all, as a Catholic I would argue that Marin Luther took out 7 books from the Bible, so his “work” (Protestant Bible) had not one but two 6s in it (66 books), showing its incompleteness!

To me, it sounds reasonable that number of books in the Bible should be complete and therefore the number 73 (the number of books in the Catholic Bible) makes more sense to me, especially since 7 and 3 are both complete numbers!

I have already provided evidence for 7 being a complete number. Here’s some evidence for 3 being a complete number as well:

“Three, therefore, stands for that which is solid, real, substantial, complete, and entire.
All things that are specially complete are stamped with this number three.”
biblestudy.org/bibleref/meaning-of-numbers-in-bible/3.html

I like this one-
"The motif of the third day therefore reaches its climax in the fact of the resurrection on the third day. It is then that the emphasis of the** third day as one of spiritual activity and completeness** finds its culmination in Christ’s finished redemptive work. And yet, the motif suggests that there is still more to be seen. (Tradition? ) "
bible.org/seriespage/use-three-bible

Now before someone comes back at me and says that the number of Christ himself is 66, let me quote from that earlier cited website:

“Now the wonderful fact is that we have in the genealogy of Luke 3 exactly 77 names, with GOD at the one end, and JESUS at the other. This is indeed stamping it with the number of spiritual perfection… So that while Jesus is the 77th name in the line which comes through Nathan, it is the 66th name in the line which comes through Solomon. When we remember that six is the human number, and seven the Divine, can we doubt that we are thus pointed to the fact that Jesus was both Son of God and Son of Man?”
biblestudy.org/bibleref/meaning-of-numbers-in-bible/6and7.html

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Greetings Wesley;

Interesting concept you got going in the number of books;

I like the idea of Catholics having 73 books, for the fact that 7 is the number used in the divine Covenants with our Father in heaven. 3 represents the perfection of God in the blessed Trinity.

The protestant bible containing 66 books, using your analogy from the Hebrew science of gematria the first six is the day when God made man and beast. The second 6 lacks the third 6 which makes it fall short of containing full authority corrupted 666, which can reference your understanding that Luther never had the authority to remove 7 of the books from the original bible, leaving the protestant bible short of the fullness of God’s revealed Word in the 66 books which lack the fullness of authority (minus 7 books) and no covenant due to the first 6 and lacking fullness of authority in the second 6.

Numbers in scripture can be fascinating. This is all entertaining, but really the numbers can only symbolize what you want them to mean. Scripture does not neglect numbers to reveal and bring to a reality what God reveals to us.

 

[Benadam]

66 =Protestant bible + 6 = an individual man followed

 

[Nicea325]

Very interesting view of the Bible. Unfortunately many Protestants will argue that the Jews settled for a 39 OT canon. True to an extent,but Christians were not binded to a Jewish decision made long after the church had already been in existence. I find it very ironic Protestants accepted the 27 NT canon from the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage,but ignore the 46 OT canon?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Very interesting view of the Bible. Unfortunately many Protestants will argue that the Jews settled for a 39 OT canon. True to an extent,but Christians were not binded to a Jewish decision made long after the church had already been in existence. I find it very ironic Protestants accepted the 27 NT canon from the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage,but ignore the 46 OT canon?

The Palestinian canon always included only 39 books. That didn’t happen “long after the church was established.” I assume you refer to the council of Jamnia, which doesn’t have much evidence that it ever existed, let alone was it the official Jewish ruling on the canon.

 

[Nicea325]

The Palestinian canon always included only 39 books.

It did? Tell me the year it settled that it was always 39 books? Tell me what canon was Jesus using? If that is the case,then why did the Sadducees and Pahrisees differ on what books were scripture? The Sadducees only used the 5 Books of Moses and the Pahrisees also included the prophets and wisdom books.

**That didn’t happen “long after the church was established.” I assume you refer to the council of Jamnia, which doesn’t have much evidence that it ever existed, let alone was it the official Jewish ruling on the canon. **

Exactly! Then what with certitude can Protestants make it was always the 39 books?

 

[answermethis]

The Palestinian canon always included only 39 books. That didn’t happen “long after the church was established.” I assume you refer to the council of Jamnia, which doesn’t have much evidence that it ever existed, let alone was it the official Jewish ruling on the canon.

Can you link me to supportive, historical evidence of the OT canon being officially establish in this form prior to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem?
Thank you…

 

[TriuneUnity]

Can you link me to supportive, historical evidence of the OT canon being officially establish in this form prior to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem?
Thank you…

Being officially established? I wasn’t referencing when it was officially established. There was no official establishment. The Hebrew canon never included the Greek deuterocanonical books. They were only found within the Septuagint. The last Hebrew OT book, Malachi, was completed several hundred years before the Septuagint was written.

 

[Nicea325]

**Can you link me to supportive, historical evidence of the OT canon being officially establish in this form prior to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem?
Thank you… **

There is nothing conclusive for Protestants. Even my NIV Study Bible states that the Septuagint was the early church Bible. The whole issue of the OT really became a bigger issue with the Reformation. One reason? Protestants (Luther) did not like the books that conflicted with his novel doctrines. Solution? Yank them out.

Many will refer to St.Jerome who preferred the 39 OT canon,but his private judgment did not let him go against the decision of the ENTIRE church. Every time I ask Protestants why do accept the 27 NT canon,but reject the very same councils who gave us the 46 OT canon? Classical case of picking and choosing,

I even have books on the canon by Protestant scholars who agree with the councils of the CC.

 

[TriuneUnity]

**
It did? Tell me the year it settled that it was always 39 books? Tell me what canon was Jesus using? If that is the case,then why did the Sadducees and Pahrisees differ on what books were scripture? The Sadducees only used the 5 Books of Moses and the Pahrisees also included the prophets and wisdom books.**

Yes. At the time of Jesus, the Palestinian canon included the 39 OT books. The Septuagint included the deuterocanonical books. As for which Jesus was using, all we have to go on there is by which He referenced in His public ministry. When He was teaching in a synagogue, it’s unlikely He would have used anything other than the Hebrew texts. The likelihood of the Greek translations being present in a Jewish synagogue would be…about 0%.

Exactly! Then what with certitude can Protestants make it was always the 39 books?

 

[answermethis]

Being officially established? I wasn’t referencing when it was officially established. There was no official establishment. The Hebrew canon never included the Greek deuterocanonical books. They were only found within the Septuagint. The last Hebrew OT book, Malachi, was completed several hundred years before the Septuagint was written.

Oh, sorry. I was interested in the documentation that there was an official canon. As I understand, the Septuagint was a work that collected all scripture being used by the Jews at the time and translated them into Greek, the language being spoken in much of the area,( Hebrew no longer being the common language of the people of God…)?

 

[TriuneUnity]

**Can you link me to supportive, historical evidence of the OT canon being officially establish in this form prior to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem?
Thank you… **

There is nothing conclusive for Protestants. Even my NIV Study Bible states that the Septuagint was the early church Bible. The whole issue of the OT really became a bigger issue with the Reformation. One reason? Protestants (Luther) did not like the books that conflicted with his novel doctrines. Solution? Yank them out.

When were they yanked out?

 

[Nicea325]

**Can you link me to supportive, historical evidence of the OT canon being officially establish in this form prior to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem?
Thank you… **

There is nothing conclusive for Protestants. Even my NIV Study Bible states that the Septuagint was the early church Bible. The whole issue of the OT really became a bigger issue with the Reformation. One reason? Protestants (Luther) did not like the books that conflicted with his novel doctrines. Solution? Yank them out.

Many will refer to St.Jerome who preferred the 39 OT canon,but his private judgment did not let him go against the decision of the ENTIRE church. Every time I ask Protestants why do accept the 27 NT canon,but reject the very same councils who gave us the 46 OT canon? I get the same: It always 39 books for the Jews? Nope! Because if one studies the history of the Bible,over the years the OT grew and grew and was never settled only at 39 books prior to Jesus.

Classical case of picking and choosing,

I even have books on the canon by Protestant scholars who agree with the councils of the CC.

 

[answermethis]

When were they yanked out?

My brother also agrees with you. For my own study…

Can you link me to any historical referenece of any Bible prior to Martin Luther, treating the Deuterocanonical scripture differently from the Protocanonical scripture?

and by what authority or scripture is the Church of God to determine which scriptures are profitable, inspired and infallible for christians???

 

[TriuneUnity]

Oh, sorry. I was interested in the documentation that there was an official canon. As I understand, the Septuagint was a work that collected all scripture being used by the Jews at the time and translated them into Greek, the language being spoken in much of the area,( Hebrew no longer being the common language of the people of God…)?

Sort of. The Septuagint was compiled for Jews living outside of the region of Palestine, many of whom were not trained in Hebrew to the same degree as those living in Israel. The Jews in Palestine did speak Greek, but never for religious purposes.

 

[Dokimas]

The Palestinian canon always included only 39 books.

It did? Tell me the year it settled that it was always 39 books? Tell me what canon was Jesus using? If that is the case,then why did the Sadducees and Pahrisees differ on what books were scripture? The Sadducees only used the 5 Books of Moses and the Pahrisees also included the prophets and wisdom books.

**That didn’t happen “long after the church was established.” I assume you refer to the council of Jamnia, which doesn’t have much evidence that it ever existed, let alone was it the official Jewish ruling on the canon. **

Exactly! Then what with certitude can Protestants make it was always the 39 books?

Which of the extra books did Jesus quote from? Which of the extra books did the writers of the 27 letters of the NT quote from?

 

[Nicea325]

Yes. At the time of Jesus, the Palestinian canon included the 39 OT books. The Septuagint included the deuterocanonical books. As for which Jesus was using, all we have to go on there is by which He referenced in His public ministry. When He was teaching in a synagogue, it’s unlikely He would have used anything other than the Hebrew texts. The likelihood of the Greek translations being present in a Jewish synagogue would be…about 0%.

You still did not answer me? What year PRIOR to Jesus was the 39 OT canon settled? And it is incorrect to claim by the time of Jesus the Jews only used the 39 OT canon. Provide historical evidence it was already settled before Jesus’ birth? Nope! Not true! You as so many Protestants say Jesus never quoted from the 7. Likewise, there is nothing conclusive Jesus only stuck to the 39 OT canon.

If Jesus only stuck to the 39 OT canon,don’t you think something so vital to our faith and instruction would have been at least mentioned once by Jesus or the Apostles?

Based on the fact that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God, and not Hellenists. That, and that neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quote from the additional 7.

Nope! Do some research and you will see the obvious Jesus and the Apostles did QUOTE from the 7. He used the Greek Septuagint to teach. Of approximately 350 references made to the Old Testament by the New Testament writers, over 300 refer to the Septuagint. For example, Jesus, when discussing “human traditions” (Mark 7:6-8), quotes a version of Isaiah 29:13 found only in the Septuagint.

 

[TriuneUnity]

My brother also agrees with you. For my own study…

Can you link me to any historical referenece of any Bible prior to Martin Luther, treating the Deuterocanonical scripture differently from the Protocanonical scripture?

Well, the only compilation of the OT that we know of prior to Luther’s German translation is the Palestinian canon, the Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate. The LXX and the Vulgate include the deuterocanonicals. The Palestinian does not. Luther’s German translation includes the deuterocanonicals, as well. The original KJV also includes them, but in a separate section labeled “Apocrypha.”

 

[answermethis]

Sort of. The Septuagint was compiled for Jews living outside of the region of Palestine, many of whom were not trained in Hebrew to the same degree as those living in Israel. The Jews in Palestine did speak Greek, but never for religious purposes.

Again, can you link me to the historical references that demonstrate this??

 

[answermethis]

Nope! Do some research and you will see the obvious Jesus and the Apostles did QUOTE from the 7. He used the Greek Septuagint to teach. Of approximately 350 references made to the Old Testament by the New Testament writers, over 300 refer to the Septuagint. For example, Jesus, when discussing “human traditions” (Mark 7:6-8), quotes a version of Isaiah 29:13 found only in the Septuagint.

Where is this documented or where did you find it??