Protestant bible?

[concretecamper]

I think the DR is only available in English. And the one you are speaking to is fluent in Nederlanders.

really, her English seemed pretty good to me. Also, I thought Dutch was the language spoken in the Netherlands, not Netherland

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

sigh
Luther’s 1534 translation included not only all 73 of the books typically found in the western Bible (Orthodox Bibles have more), but also The Prayer of Manasseh. Please site a specific source where Luther claims he wanted to remove the Antilegomena of the NT.
I have heard this charge often, but have yet to see a source to document it.
Jon

The very fact that Luther questioned some books and denied that they were written by
the Apostles proves that he *wanted *to exclude them from the Bible. Luther might have
kept the Apocrypha in his Bible, but he dismissed them nonetheless as not being
Scripture. I provide a quote from Wikipedia which includes a link for source (8): “Since he questioned Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation,
these books are sometimes termed “Luther’s Antilegomena”.[8]”
And by whose authority did Luther add the Prayer of Manasseh in the Bible?!
I’ve read it, yes words are good and nice and all, but Luther had no authority
safe his own self-declared identity as “Doctor.”

Also, how can Lutherans trust their false prophet when he talked about the Book of Revelation AND I QUOTE: “About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold
his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or- jud-
gment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it
makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.”

 

[CarolNoel]

Einstein?..thanks for the compliment. It comes from many years of study.

Now that is a very gracious answer to that snarky comment.

 

[concretecamper]

Now that is a very gracious answer to that snarky comment.

I am learning…

 

[benjohnson]

The very fact that Luther questioned some books and denied that they were written by
the Apostles proves that he *wanted *to exclude them from the Bible. Luther might have

The more constructive argument should be “Why do you pesky american Lutherans still cling to those truncated Bibles? Luther himself would have all the books in the Bible!”

There is a possibility that Luther ‘wanted’ to do all sorts of stuff - but if we are to judge his bible translating intentions, it’s probably wisest to look at the actual evidence. His bible translation is complete.

This whole thought that “Luther is still a horrible translator for doing a great job” seems of wanting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

The more constructive argument should be “Why do you pesky american Lutherans still cling to those truncated Bibles? Luther himself would have all the books in the Bible!”
There is a possibility that Luther ‘wanted’ to do all sorts of stuff - but if we are to judge his bible translating intentions, it’s probably wisest to look at the actual evidence. His bible translation is complete.
This whole thought that “Luther is still a horrible translator for doing a great job” seems of wanting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Whether or not Luther would have kept all the books in the Bible, he still declared with full commitment that certain books should not be regarded as Scripture. He even denied the Book of Revelation, yet at the same time he allowed anybody to accept the book, demonstrating how undevoted Luther was to a strict canon of Scripture.

 

[benjohnson]

Whether or not Luther would have kept all the books in the Bible, he still declared with full commitment that certain books should not be regarded as Scripture. He even denied the Book of Revelation, yet at the same time he allowed anybody to accept the book, demonstrating how undevoted Luther was to a strict canon of Scripture.

I hope you realise that even if what you say is true, that it is of no consequence at all for us Evangelical Catholics (commonly called Lutherans).

Luther is just a man, and a rather funny looking one at that.

 

[JonNC]

=Judas Thaddeus;11096927]The very fact that Luther questioned some books and denied that they were written by
the Apostles proves that he *wanted *to exclude them from the Bible.

Interesting. This then must be applied to St. Jerome, Eusebius, Cardinal Cajetan, and numerous other Catholics through the centuries that exercised their Catholic privilege to question the canon. Just as Jerome included them, so did Luther.
Further, you have to sustain the idea that he wanted to remove them by including them, which clearly makes no sense.

Luther might have kept the Apocrypha in his Bible, but he dismissed them nonetheless as not being Scripture.

As did his contemporary Cardinal Cajetan. It was not something unusual to do so.

I provide a quote from Wikipedia which includes a link for source (8): “Since he questioned Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation,
these books are sometimes termed “Luther’s Antilegomena”.[8]”

They had been called Antilegomena for centuries before Luther.

And by whose authority did Luther add the Prayer of Manasseh in the Bible?!
I’ve read it, yes words are good and nice and all, but Luther had no authority
safe his own self-declared identity as “Doctor.”

You are the first Catholic I have run into to criticize Luther for this. Kudos for being consistent. By the way, should Orthodoxy be criticized in the same way for having more books in the canon than Rome?

Also, how can Lutherans trust their false prophet when he talked about the Book of Revelation AND I QUOTE: “About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold
his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or- jud-
gment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it
makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.”

First, he was not a prophet, but a theologian. Regardless, he was allowed his opinion. This was not prohibited.

Jon

 

[JustaServant]

Luther is just a man, and a rather funny looking one at that.

They all looked like that back then.
Musta been their diet.
I heard they ate worms.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Interesting. This then must be applied to St. Jerome, Eusebius, Cardinal Cajetan, and numerous other Catholics through the centuries that exercised their Catholic privilege to question the canon. Just as Jerome included them, so did Luther.
Further, you have to sustain the idea that he wanted to remove them by including them, which clearly makes no sense.

But those people never denounced the books. They questioned them, but
they never spoke of the books as though to say " I KNOW THEY’RE NOT
SCRIPTURE! " St. Jerome, for example, did question the Deuterocanonical
books, but he later yielded to the authority of the Catholic Church.

You are the first Catholic I have run into to criticize Luther for this. Kudos for being consistent. By the way, should Orthodoxy be criticized in the same way for having more books in the canon than Rome?

Should the Orthodoxy be criticized for that? I think so yes. Perhaps you can be more clear about that, because I’m thinking of Churches like the Ethiopian Orthodox Church which accept the Book of Enoch. Definitely should criticize them on that account.

First, he was not a prophet, but a theologian. Regardless, he was allowed his opinion. This was not prohibited.

That’s the thing! No Opinions, just do what the Roman Catholic Church ordained.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

They all looked like that back then.
Musta been their diet.
I heard they ate worms.

LOL

Wasn’t their nutritionist named: Eck?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

But those people never denounced the books. They questioned them, but
they never spoke of the books as though to say " I KNOW THEY’RE NOT
SCRIPTURE! " St. Jerome, for example, did question the Deuterocanonical
books, but he later yielded to the authority of the Catholic Church.

Should the Orthodoxy be criticized for that? I think so yes. Perhaps you can be more clear about that, because I’m thinking of Churches like the Ethiopian Orthodox Church which accept the Book of Enoch. Definitely should criticize them on that account.

That’s the thing! No Opinions, just do what the Roman Catholic Church ordained.

Actually, if I’m not mistaken - St. Jerome had to be ordered by the Pope to include the DC’s. Difference was - St. Jerome obeyed.

But regardless of what Luther said or not said - he had a really big mouth if you didn’t know - the fact that the books were included in his translation is enough.

 

[benjohnson]

They all looked like that back then.
Musta been their diet.
I heard they ate worms.

:clapping:

Well played, good Sir!

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Actually, if I’m not mistaken - St. Jerome had to be ordered by the Pope to include the DC’s. Difference was - St. Jerome obeyed.

I’m…pretty sure that’s what I said, he questioned the books, but had to yield
by Church Authority, ie the Pope, and he obeyed. Perhaps I misspoke?

But regardless of what Luther said or not said - he had a really big mouth if you didn’t know - the fact that the books were included in his translation is enough.

I don’t know, even though Luther did include Deuterocanon, he did also (going back to what
you said about him having a big mouth) inscribe in his translation that such books were not
to be held on par with Scripture.

 

[andrewstx]

really, her English seemed pretty good to me. Also, I thought Dutch was the language spoken in the Netherlands, not Netherland

Technically NeDerlanders is the languague spoken in het Nederlands. Deutsch is the language spoken in Germany. Dutch is an English word commonly confused with Duetsch and so Pa. Germans are confused with Nederlanders, but they are two different peoples.
Americans unfortunately tend to be monolingual, but the countries in Europe are so near each other they tend to speak more than one language.

 

[JonNC]

They all looked like that back then.
Musta been their diet.
I heard they ate worms.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Judas Thaddeus;11097402]But those people never denounced the books. They questioned them, but they never spoke of the books as though to say " I KNOW THEY’RE NOT SCRIPTURE! " St. Jerome, for example, did question the Deuterocanonical
books, but he later yielded to the authority of the Catholic Church.

Read what Cajetan had to say.
How did St. Jerome yield? By including the books he questioned. So did Luther include the books he questioned.

Should the Orthodoxy be criticized for that? I think so yes. Perhaps you can be more clear about that, because I’m thinking of Churches like the Ethiopian Orthodox Church which accept the Book of Enoch. Definitely should criticize them on that account.

Actually, I don’t think the CC does.

That’s the thing! No Opinions, just do what the Roman Catholic Church ordained.

Until Trent, the Catholic Church “ordained” that one could question the canonicity of the books. I was permitted.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

LOL

Wasn’t their nutritionist named: Eck?

Oh, Jose. :nope::nope:

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Read what Cajetan had to say.
How did St. Jerome yield? By including the books he questioned. So did Luther include the books he questioned.

The Pope at the time ordered Jerome to include the books so he did, simple.
Luther included the books as well, but added a disclaimer to the section that
the books are good to read, but that they were not Scripture.
I stand corrected about this Cajetan, nevertheless that doesn’t prove anything,
as he was a scholar, not of any significant authority in the Catholic Church.

Actually, I don’t think the CC does [criticize the Orthodoxy on canon of Scripture].

Okay, now support that claim.

Until Trent, the Catholic Church “ordained” that one could question the canonicity of the books. I was permitted.

The Council of Trent in regards to the Canon was nothing more than a reaffirmation, as many other councils before that, and the Canon was closed far earlier than you claim.
Support your claim.

 

[pablope]

Interesting. This then must be applied to St. Jerome, Eusebius, Cardinal Cajetan, and numerous other Catholics through the centuries that exercised their Catholic privilege to question the canon. Just as Jerome included them, so did Luther.

As did his contemporary Cardinal Cajetan. It was not something unusual to do so.

They had been called Antilegomena for centuries before Luther.

You are the first Catholic I have run into to criticize Luther for this. Kudos for being consistent. By the way, should Orthodoxy be criticized in the same way for having more books in the canon than Rome?

First, he was not a prophet, but a theologian. Regardless, he was allowed his opinion. This was not prohibited.

Jon

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=809279&page=2

Randy Carson: I got the following in an email from Gary Michuta, who is an expert on these matters:

The Canon and the Council
Refuting the Argument that Canon was not established until the Council of Trent
By Gary Michuta

Today, some Protestants are arguing that Luther did not subtract books from the Canon of Scripture, because the canon was not officially adopted until the Council of Trent which began in 1545. Since the canon was not formally recognized prior to Luther’s rejection of the Deuterocanonicals, it is not correct to say that he subtracted books from the Bible.

This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to divert attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus instead on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.

The fact of the matter is that even if something like the definition given at Trent had happened before Luther’s day, Luther would have rejected it as being in error, and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of his position any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.

Probably the most important council to bring up is the Council of Florence, which promulgated a decreed on canon of Scripture on Feb. 4, 1441. Florence’s decree states that the Catholic canon is given by the Holy Spirit and the Church accepts and venerates them. In terms of solemnity, this decree is greater than the previous ones. However, in terms of authority it is just as authoritative as the rest.

In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:

“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [2 Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 251).

So, Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later; namely, that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.

Now what about Trent? Why do all these sources say that it wasn’t until Trent that we had a definitive decision on the canon? First, the fathers at Trent decided early on to adopt the canon of Florence without comment. For them, the issue was already closed in previous councils. However, since some otherwise solid Catholics have seem to adopted Jerome’s views on the Deuterocanonicals over and against these previous councils something more was necessary to drive the point home that the matter has already been closed hundreds of years early. So, Trent attached an anathema to its decree on the canon. Trent wasn’t the first council or Church authority to define the canon, but it was the first to anathematize those who did not follow the canon. In terms of the authority of the canon, nothing was really changed, but the solemnity of Trent’s definition was, because of the anathema, far greater than any previous council.