Protestant Bible Incorporates the ONLY inspired books

[Subrosa]

I would like to point out that the Orthodox study bible uses the New Testament text from the New King James Version … which could be called the protestant Bible

I use the KJV- It’s a good bible, actually.

The New Testament books are not in dispute, however. And the Orthodox use the KJV for the NT. Thier official OT is the Septuagint.

Sub

 

[Subrosa]

The views of the 30th president of the United States are irrelevant to this discussion!

Hi BL -

Calvin College is named for John Calvin the Reformer.

So, what do you say about the page I linked to at the Calvin website?

Sub

 

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

They must have at least one thing in common - the book Wisdom of Sirach, which is listed, along with the NT scriptures, in the Muratorian canon. It is also known simply as the Book of Wisdom.

Have another look.

We may also start looking at Early Church fathers who quoted scripture. Chapter III of Ignatius letter to the Magnesians contains a quote from what you would consider and apocryphal book - Suzanna. He lists it right along side other biblical quotes.

Sub

 

[JTBT]

I use the KJV- It’s a good bible, actually.

The New Testament books are not in dispute, however. And the Orthodox use the KJV for the NT. Thier official OT is the Septuagint.

Sub

I know, I was really just making a point for those that may have not known that.
so if the Orthodox have the right Bible does that mean that they are the right Church???

 

[beeliner]

1. Hi BL -
2. Calvin College is named for John Calvin the Reformer.
3. So, what do you say about the page I linked to at the Calvin website?

Sub

1. Howdy!
2. I know that, Sub, it was just my warped sense of humor getting the better of me.
3. Excellent article.

Subrosa:

They must have at least one thing in common - the book Wisdom of Sirach, which is listed, along with the NT scriptures, in the Muratorian canon. It is also known simply as the Book of Wisdom.

Actually, Wisdom of Solomon is also known simply as Wisdom; Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, but this name is now usually avoided to prevent confusion with Ecclesiastes.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

In the Canon Debate

I’m having a little trouble - unless I’m misunderstanding you, you said this book was by Daniel Harrington. I found this at Amazon, but it has a different author. I then searched for his name as the author but none of his books had that title. Help?

 

[Rightlydivide]

I’m having a little trouble - unless I’m misunderstanding you, you said this book was by Daniel Harrington. I found this at Amazon, but it has a different author. I then searched for his name as the author but none of his books had that title. Help?

Correct book. Numerous writers.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Correct book. Numerous writers.

Thank you! I’ll have to beg my library to I-L-L it because they don’t have it in stock.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Thank you! I’ll have to beg my library to I-L-L it because they don’t have it in stock.

Good for you. It is an incredible book. Enjoy. The author cited is a Catholic theologian at a Jesuit school.

 

[Subrosa]

I know, I was really just making a point for those that may have not known that.
so if the Orthodox have the right Bible does that mean that they are the right Church???

I’ll bet that if you ask one of them they’ll say yes to that question!

But, really, is there a “right church?” We Catholics believe that the Catholic Church contains the “fullness of the faith.” This means that everything that is true in Christianity is contained within the visible boundaries of the CC.

This does not mean, however, that other churches do not contain truth. Nor does it mean that salvation is unobtainable outside the visible boundaries of the CC. To the contrary, we recognize God’s work in christian communities everywhere.

When it comes to the question of “the right bible,” the fact is that since the beginning of christianity churches have used different writings as scripture.

The Catholics and Reformation/postReformation communities have a different canon than the Orthodox. The Ethiopian church has by far the largest. They even have a larger New Testament.

It is something we all must accept from one another (which is the point of my discussions on this thread!)

What the Reformation churches call “apocrypha” the Catholic Church has used since the beginning, as well as all the other churches firmly established by the Apostles. This is simply a fact of history, even though some people refuse to accept it.

As far as which is “the right bible,” it is all the Word of God, every bit of it.

Sub

 

[Subrosa]

1. Howdy!

Yo! Wattup, G?

1. I know that, Sub, it was just my warped sense of humor getting the better of me.

Oh, I get it! HA! LOL!

1. Excellent article.Actually, Wisdom of Solomon is also known simply as Wisdom; Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, but this name is now usually avoided to prevent confusion with Ecclesiastes.

I like a man (I assume you are a man! Please correct me if I’m wrong) who knows what he’s talking about!

So what say ye concerning the above mentioned book herein and in the future to be called and mentioned as Wisdom, only Wisdom and with no further mention of any additional wording which would enlarge or detract from the proper naming of the above mentioned book, namely Wisdom? Eh? Huh?

Subdoser

 

[beeliner]

The New Testament books are not in dispute, however. And the Orthodox use the KJV for the NT.

Well, actually the NKJV. Did they use the KJV before the NKJV? I don’t know.

The overwhelming majority of Eastern Orthodox, however, are non-English-speaking. I’m not sure that which NT translation the English-speaking few use is of primary concern.

Are there different Orthodox-approved translations from which to choose in Greek? In Russian?

 

[Subrosa]

Well, actually the NKJV. Did they use the KJV before the NKJV? I don’t know.

The overwhelming majority of Eastern Orthodox, however, are non-English-speaking. I’m not sure that which NT translation the English-speaking few use is of primary concern.

Are there different Orthodox-approved translations from which to choose in Greek? In Russian?

Hi BL -

All I can say is that from the english speaking Orthodox websites I’ve seen, they use the KJV, or as you say the NKJV. But, if you wish, you can get an official Orthodox study bible here.

I know that some eastern christians use the Peshitta which is in Aramaic. It is supposed to be older than the Greek versions of the New Testament.

In the New American Bible, which is the official lectionary of the Catholic Church in America, “the Greek text followed in this translation is that of the third edition of The Greek New Testament, edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo Martini, Bruce Metzger, and Allen Wikgren, and published by the United Bible Societies in 1975. The same text, with a different critical apparatus and variations in punctuation and typography, was published as the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece in 1979 by the Deutsche Bibelstiftung, Stuttgart. This edition has also been consulted. When variant readings occur, the translation, with few exceptions, follows the reading that was placed in the text of these Greek editions, though the occurrence of the principal variants is pointed out in the notes.” NAB

But, again, when compared side by side, even with the different variations, it still remains the Word of God. It pretty much all says the same thing.

Sub

 

[tqualey]

Hi, thistle,

I had no idea there were so many references. Thank you for the post.

Best wishes,

 

[tqualey]

Dear Fundamentalist,

1. Can anyone show where Jesus referrenced any scitpture for the Apocrypha?

As Nan S said, “Check out posts #24 and #25 on this thread, posted by Thistle.”

1. If not, could I have an argument that he also didn’t quote from many other scriture both old and new. Can anyone give specifics on this if my statement is correct?

I am not sure I actually understand your question. There are numerous references when Christ quoted from the OT, For example, at the beginning of Chrst’s Public Ministry, He is tempted by the Devil. (Matt 4:4-11). Even the Devil quotes scripture here (Ps 91:11-12). But, Christ’s responses are all from Deuteronomy (Deut 8:3., 6:16 and 6:13)

How could Christ possibly quote the New Testament?

The issue that I have is not that OT is unimportant, but, the real issue for our salvation lies with Christ (in the NT) who founded His Chruch on Peter, gave Peter and his successors the aurhority to bind and lose, and then 40 days after His Resurrection (doing numerous unrecorded acts) Ascended into heaving, leaving Peter visibly in charge of Christ’s visible Church, and ten days afterwards, the Holy Spirit descended on those assembled and gave them many Gifts - BUT DID NOT DELIVER A BOOK - and the rest is history.

During this history, the Catholic Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, determined which Books were Divinely Inspired - and which weren’t. The Canon was closed less then 500 years after the birth of Christ. As I understand it, this means that there is nothing needed for our eternal salvation that is missing. Everthing needful is provided in both the Scripture and Tradition of the Catholic Church.

The integrity of the Scriptures were accepted by the Early Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church. The Authority of Peter and his successors was seen as the Authority of God guiding His Church. St. Agustine (accepted by the Protestant theologians) summed it up best by saying, “Rome has spoken, the cause is finished” (Sermons 131:10) in dealing with the heresy of Palegius. Here is a link you may find of interest: bringyou.to/apologetics/num16.htm

Hope this helps.

 

[beeliner]

I am not sure I actually understand your question.

tq, I think what he’s suggesting is that any quote from Christ Himself that can be claimed to have a deuterocanonical source might also have a protocanonical source, and there are several examples of this. In such cases, it might reasonably be presumed that the later (deuterocanonical) copied from the earlier.

I continue to believe, as I stated earlier, that Christ’s warning regarding the ‘unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit’ is a paraphrase of Wisdom 1:6. Some cross-reference sources list this and others do not.

There are, of course, many protocanonical books from which Christ is not reported as having quoted or referenced, and which were obviously available to Him, as were the deuterocanonicals.

So I am not sure I understand his point either.

 

[JTBT]

2 Things:

1. Can anyone show where Jesus referrenced any scitpture for the Apocrypha?
2. If not, could I have an argument that he also didn’t quote from many other scriture both old and new. Can anyone give specifics on this if my statement is correct?

My thinking is that if his statement about Jesus OR anything in the New Testament didn’t quote anything from the Apocrypha, then that would basically be saying that a great deal he already accepts is false by his own words. Pleas assist.

Is anyone going to address these questions? it seems if you could do this the issue would be settled.

 

[tnystrom]

Is anyone going to address these questions? it seems if you could do this the issue would be settled.

If you read the entire thread, that has been answered quite thoroughly. Problem is for the Protestant because the answer is not the one they want.

 

[tqualey]

Dear JTBT,

Not to sound self-serving … but look at item #114 from me where I did try to answer this question.

Now, you need to look at my post and then the posts that I reference in this thread, read these and then tell us what you think about them.

I think what you will find is that for the first 400 years, Christ, the Apostles, and the Early Church Fathers all quoted from what we would now call the Catholic Bible.

But, you know, just focus on the NT and see that the Sacraments, the Primacy of Peter and every item that Protestants argue about are included in both Catholic and Protestant Bibles. The issue to my way of thinking is how plain words can be stood on their head to mean something totally different.

Best wishes,

 

[juliamajor]

Don’t know anything about the Anchor Bible or the English Common Bible.

The language of the Good News Bible is very readable. It’s a great one for kids, particularly 5th through 9th graders. It’s also good for older readers who prefer an “easier to understand” version. I wouldn’t use it for serious study, tho.

Good News Bible may be great to read but not for studying. NIV is a very flawed version though very readable. Again for Study-not advisable. Anchor Bible is not a bible per say but a series of commentaries that go with each individual book- Each book of the bible- is commentated on by different writers. It’s a great series as is Anchor Biblical Dictionary-