MERGED: Questions for Catholics on how we got our Bible

[SonCatcher]

Thank you!

I have another Question.

Are there any Historical Inaccuracies in the books of the Apocrypha? I know the Bible is accurate. is the history in the Apocrypha accurate as well?

Some of the Deuterocanonicals seem to be works of “historical fiction” (Judith, Tobit). That doesn’t diminish their theological importance. Even Esther (which is in the Protestant canon, as well) is believed by many to be a fictional account. Others (Maccabees) seem to be accurate histories.

 

[Publisher]

Thank you!

I have another Question.

Are there any Historical Inaccuracies in the books of the Apocrypha? I know the Bible is accurate. is the history in the Apocrypha accurate as well?

The Bible isn’t a history book primarily…there are historical inaccuracies and exagerated listing of events…it’s a religious book…not history or science.

 

[jlhargus]

You are most welcome I hope also the following will be of help also.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

JL: There are basically four things I would like to point out in 2Tm3. First, Paul is speaking of the Old Testament. When Timothy was a child there was no New Testament. [2Tm3:15 and that FROM A CHILD thou hast known the holy scriptures,]

Second, two Timothy three sixteen thru seventeen doesn’t say SCRIPTURE ONLY. Its says scripture IS PROFITABLE FOR.

Third, Paul is instructing Timothy to use BOTH oral Tradition, LEARNED from Paul, as well as written Tradition= OT scripture.

[2Tm3:10 **BUT THOU HAST FULLY KNOWN MY DOCTRINE, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But CONTINUE THOU IN THE THINGS WHICH THOU HAST LEARNED AND HAST BEEN ASSURED OF, KNOWING OF WHOM THOU HAST LEARNED THEM; 15 AND that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 **ALL SCRIPTURE **is given by inspiration of God, and **IS PROFITABLE FOR **doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.]

Fourth, Paul tells us scripture IS PROFITABLE FOR doctrine, FOR reproof, FOR correction, FOR instruction in righteousness: THAT the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works .

Who is to teach doctrine, reprove, correct, instruct that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work? The following scriptures tell us it is, those ordained, whom God has called in His Church to teach.

2Tm4:1 ** I CHARGE THEE** therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 PREACH THE WORD; be instant in season, out of season; **REPROVE, REBUKE, EXHORT **WITH all long suffering and DOCTRINE. 3 For THE TIME WILL COME WHEN THEY WILL NOT ENDURE SOUND DOCTRINE; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 AND THEY SHALL TURN AWAY THEIR EARS FROM THE TRUTH, and shall be turned unto fables. 5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, MAKE FULL PROOF OF THY MINISTRY]

[Titus2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. 15 **THESE THINGS SPEAK, and EXHORT, and REBUKE WITH ALL AUTHORITY. Let no man despise thee.] It is a SENT ordained minister of the Church, by laying on of hands, who is to reprove, rebuke and exhort with all AUTHORITY. Making full use of their ministry.

[Hb13:7 REMEMBER THEM WHICH HAVE THE RULE OVER YOU, **who have SPOKEN unto you the word of God: WHOSE FAITH FOLLOW, considering the end of their conversation.]

[Hb13:17 **OBEY THEM THAT HAVE THE RULE OVER YOU, and submit yourselves: for THEY WATCH FOR YOUR SOULS, as THEY that MUST GIVE ACCOUNT, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.]

[Hb13:24 **SALUTE ALL THEM THAT HAVE THE RULE OVER YOU, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.]

 

[Makko52]

The Bible isn’t a history book primarily…there are historical inaccuracies and exagerated listing of events…it’s a religious book…not history or science.

I aggree with you, that the Bible is not a history book. I have not found historical inaccuracies in the bible…can you point them out?

 

[PRmerger]

I aggree with you, that the Bible is not a history book. I have not found historical inaccuracies in the bible…can you point them out?

Whether they have historical inaccuracies is irrelevant, don’t you think? It would not be a reason to regard something as inspired or not inspired. Unless there is a Bible verse that says that this is a criterion for discerning whether something is part of the Word of God?

For Jesus himself gave a botanical inaccuracy, yet we still consider the book that records this as* theopneustos*, no?

 

[PRmerger]

IBut it is important to understand that i**f the Bible is not accurate in its depictions of the world, geographicaly and in other areas how could we prove that it was truely written by God? **The bible is the most accurate book that we have today. idk just a thougt. In the Book of Daniel Ch11 it tell about the future fall of Alexanders Empire even to how it woudl be split between four generals! Hundres of years before it ever even happend!

Where does the Bible say this?

That is just some of the many ways that the bible proves it is truely inspired by God. Amen?!

This is another man-made tradition, Makko. You heard a pastor say it, who heard another man say it, who heard another man say it, but no one ever read this in a single page of the Bible.

 

[Publisher]

I certainly agree with you, that that bible is about God and his dealing with people. But it is important to understand that if the Bible is not accurate in its depictions of the world, geographicaly and in other areas how could we prove that it was truely written by God? The bible is the most accurate book that we have today. idk just a thougt. In the Book of Daniel Ch11 it tell about the future fall of Alexanders Empire even to how it woudl be split between four generals! Hundres of years before it ever even happend! That is just some of the many ways that the bible proves it is truely inspired by God. Amen?!

Daniel relates some “court tales” of the Babylonian Captivity…and some apocalyptic writings…the “story” takes place in the 6th century BCE…it was written between the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE…400-500 years AFTER the events…not a good example of prophesy…I know many evangelicals and conservative believers like to have a much older date of writing…but the evidenc of modern scholarship points to a very late date.

 

[snarflemike]

AH ok thank you for clarifying that for me! i appreciate the The Catholic Chruch’s view on this. Very helpful for my studies.

Perhaps the most important thing you should take away from this is that no Pope or Church Council, ever, said that the Protestant Canon is the correct canon. The Protestant 66-book canon was unheard of until the Reformation.

The Catholic Church can point to multiple Councils that affirm the Catholic Canon. The Protestant world cannot point to a single Council that affirms the Protestant Canon.

 

[JustaServant]

Interesting point of view. Let me give some scriptures that i think show how i feel about the word

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John:

Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

I believe that everything that God wanted us to know is in the book, does everyone believe this? no, and i am ok with that.

Hbr 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Hbr 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
I believe that the apostles and disciples of Jesus did not teach anything that contradicted with the scripture, and God moved them through the Holy Spirit to write down everything we need to know.

But, this is how i feel about it, based on scripture. I do not expect everyone to feel that way nor do I condem them if they dont

The first thing you need to understand is the world the people who wrote various books collected into what we call ‘the Bible’. You are looking at the Bible with 21st century, post Enlightenment, post printing press eyes.
In order to understand the ancient world, we have to step out of our comfort zones and walk in their shoes.
Many times that means accepting things our age rejects. Other times we can see how fragile our ‘modern’ society is. Without our gagets and toys, we are no different than they were. Even in parts of the world today family structure is the bedrock of the culture. Things like covenants still exist in what we so arrogantly call the ‘third world’. African and native American tribes had no written language, yet they were steeped in the history of thier culture far more than our so-called ‘enlightened’ society.
I say all this because I suspect you are looking at these ancient people, as I used to, through 21st century western eyes. That is a grave error. Because we are far from being superior.
Not everything was ‘on paper’. It was timely and sometimes expensive to do that. It was a society far more steeped in oral tradition, and that included pagan societies as well. They had great auditory skills in those days. Communication was by listening. Even when something was put on paper. it was read ALOUD. Reading to oneself was unknown.
Repitition helped people remember. Look up some time the story of how Isaac got his wife in Genesis. The story is repeated three times.
Many Protestants assume if it is not in written form (a concept that did not arise until the post-printing press days of the Enlightenment) it must be discarded. Our anscestors would have laughed themselves silly at such a thought. Civilizations have existed for years on oral history alone. Many ancient civilizations have no written history, all they have is oral. So…should we discard what they say because no one tribe decided to sit down and write a book? Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would bring all things to our remembrance. He did, and in due time, the Apostles wrote it down.

 

[Makko52]

You all have pointed out some interesting views, i recieve it with a smile. Thank you.

 

[JonNC]

=davidmlamb;9287306]The Council of Trent only confirmed what every other Church Council confirmed. The canon of scripture was first codified at the council of Rome in 382 AD and then at subsequent councils, Hippo 392 AD, Carthage 397 AD, Florence 750 AD…and the list goes on.
Yet none of these are general councils of the Church, but local councils. That’s why the Orthodox canon(s) vary from the western canon.

This is all verifiable through Christian antiquities and records kept from the Church Councils. The truth is it was Luther and the Reformation that tore these books out of scripture. Luther did not even believe James was inspired and called it “an Epistle full of straws.” If it was not for Luther’s contemporaries Protestants would only have 25 books in the NT.

This is untrue. On a number of fronts.
Luther’s translation includes all of the 73 books of the western canon, plus the Prayer of Manasseh. So, if anything, Luther added to the western Bible.
Luther, in regards to both the New and Old Testament, reflects the history of dispute regarding the both the Deuterocanon and the Antilegomena of the NT. This dispute, regarding the Deuterocanon predates Luther by a fair bit, but runs right up to Trent. Cardinal Cajetan, a contemporary of Luther, writes the D-C’s out of the canon, and Luther says this about The Epistle of James:

“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, **I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. **

However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;
He here questions the authorship, not a novelty of Luther’s.

As others have pointed out Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint Scriptures which contained many more books considered scripture in which neither the Catholic nor Orthodox Church codified. A couple of these books are mentioned in the book of Jude and they are the Assumption of Moses and the book of Enoch. Jude cites these as scripture yet they cannot be found in any bible today. When I was a Protestant I read the book of Sirach and Wisdom and I fell in love with them both being convinced they were inspired. You should read these two books and ask yourself “Why they are not inspired?”

Perhaps you should ask St. Jerome. That said, it isn’t a matter of inspired or not, it is a matter of historic dispute regarding them. Luther and Lutherans respect the fact that they are disputed, but do not reject them. If Luther had rejected them, they certainly would not have been part of his 1534 Die Bibel. And James was in his 1522 NT.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

You all have pointed out some interesting views, i recieve it with a smile. Thank you.

It would be helpful if you could respond to some of the questions that were posed to you, Makko. Dialogue is can be quite fruitful here on the CAFs that offers a perspective that one may have never considered.

 

[Makko52]

The first thing you need to understand is the world the people who wrote various books collected into what we call ‘the Bible’. You are looking at the Bible with 21st century, post Enlightenment, post printing press eyes.
In order to understand the ancient world, we have to step out of our comfort zones and walk in their shoes.
Many times that means accepting things our age rejects. Other times we can see how fragile our ‘modern’ society is. Without our gagets and toys, we are no different than they were. Even in parts of the world today family structure is the bedrock of the culture. Things like covenants still exist in what we so arrogantly call the ‘third world’. African and native American tribes had no written language, yet they were steeped in the history of thier culture far more than our so-called ‘enlightened’ society.
I say all this because I suspect you are looking at these ancient people, as I used to, through 21st century western eyes. That is a grave error. Because we are far from being superior.
Not everything was ‘on paper’. It was timely and sometimes expensive to do that. It was a society far more steeped in oral tradition, and that included pagan societies as well. They had great auditory skills in those days. Communication was by listening. Even when something was put on paper. it was read ALOUD. Reading to oneself was unknown.
Repitition helped people remember. Look up some time the story of how Isaac got his wife in Genesis. The story is repeated three times.
Many Protestants assume if it is not in written form (a concept that did not arise until the post-printing press days of the Enlightenment) it must be discarded. Our anscestors would have laughed themselves silly at such a thought. Civilizations have existed for years on oral history alone. Many ancient civilizations have no written history, all they have is oral. So…should we discard what they say because no one tribe decided to sit down and write a book? Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would bring all things to our remembrance. He did, and in due time, the Apostles wrote it down.

My position is this, if oral tradition contradicts written scripture, which one is right?

Rom 3:4 “God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; …”

 

[PRmerger]

So the first thing i would like calification on is “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:53-54 Now if one were to take just that one verse it would almost seem that is teaching cannabilsm but if you read the versus before that i believe it clarifies it. …now i say that very humbley becuase i am quite ignorant when it come to Catholic Doctrine. I’d appreciate any repsonse on the following verses on cannabilsm.

Did you pose this to your priest friend? What was his response?

 

[PRmerger]

My position is this, if oral tradition contradicts written scripture, which one is right?

Rom 3:4 “God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; …”

There* is* no oral tradition (and here we mean the Word of God transmitted orally) that contradicts written Scripture.

 

[Publisher]

Yet none of these are general councils of the Church, but local councils. That’s why the Orthodox canon(s) vary from the western canon.

This is untrue. On a number of fronts.
Luther’s translation includes all of the 73 books of the western canon, plus the Prayer of Manasseh. So, if anything, Luther added to the western Bible.
Luther, in regards to both the New and Old Testament, reflects the history of dispute regarding the both the Deuterocanon and the Antilegomena of the NT. This dispute, regarding the Deuterocanon predates Luther by a fair bit, but runs right up to Trent. Cardinal Cajetan, a contemporary of Luther, writes the D-C’s out of the canon, and Luther says this about The Epistle of James:

He here questions the authorship, not a novelty of Luther’s.

Perhaps you should ask St. Jerome. That said, it isn’t a matter of inspired or not, it is a matter of historic dispute regarding them. Luther and Lutherans respect the fact that they are disputed, but do not reject them. If Luther had rejected them, they certainly would not have been part of his 1534 Die Bibel. And James was in his 1522 NT.

Jon

But the facts you present don’t sound as “convincing” as “Luther took the DC’s out of the canon”.

 

[PRmerger]

I believe the Bible interprets itself.

This is a man-made tradition, Makko.

You believe it because you heard a man preach it, who heard another man preach it, who heard another man preach it…

But not a single soul ever read “The Bible interprets itself” in a single page of Scripture.

 

[jlhargus]

My position is this, if oral tradition contradicts written scripture, which one is right? Rom 3:4 “God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; …”

JL: If an oral tradition contradicts scripture then it isn’t Apostolic Tradition but a tradition of men. A perfect example of a tradition of men, held by many, as a doctrine, that contradicts scripture is SCRIPTURE ALONE. It isn’t found in scripture anywhere. Amen to Rms3:4. Even the scripture can be distorted. Many say, and I agree, the Watch Tower New World Translation is changed to fit their doctrine.

If God can preserve, thru the Church, the written Word by the Holy Spirit He certainly can preserve Apostolic Tradition by the same Holy Spirit.

2Tim1:13 HOLD FAST the form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 THAT GOOD THING which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST which dwelleth IN US.
All faith groups have traditions handed down, by which they see and interpret scripture. That’s why a Baptist interprets the SAME scripture differently than a Presbyterian or a Presbyterian differently than a Methodist a Methodist differently than your faith group. Yet they will ALL deny they hold traditions.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

There* is* **no oral tradition **(and here we mean the Word of God transmitted orally) that contradicts written Scripture.

Perhaps this due to the fact there are no verifiable “words of God transmitted orally” that exist outside of Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps this due to the fact there are no verifiable “words of God transmitted orally” that exist outside of Scripture.

I don’t think so. “Verifiable words” are not required when evaluating Sacred Tradition.

Who declared that to be a criterion for discerning whether something is true or not? That’s a very peculiar paradigm, to be sure!

Both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture come from the same source, Jesus Christ, and therefore cannot contradict each other.