Secret Books of the King James Bible - Wow!

  • Thread starter Thread starter dcrowmik
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dcrowmik

Guest
I have from time to time come across those who claim Sola Scriptura - we should do ONLY what the Bible tells us and nothing more. Arguments on each side end up being circular as one side will claim the definition and concept of sola scriptura is in the Bible and the other side says no.

In this article you will find that the original Protestant King James versions of the Bible included all the apocrypha which our Catholic Bibles contain, but then over time they disappeared.
In 1615, George Abbott, the Archbishop of Canterbury, went so far as to employ the power of law to censure any publisher who did not produce the Bible in its entirety (i.e. including the “Apocrypha”) as prescribed by the Thirty-nine Articles.
Click to expand...
“[W]hatever may be our personal opinions of the Apocrypha, it is a historical fact that they formed an integral part of the King James Version, and any Bible claiming to represent that version should either include the Apocrypha, or state that it is omitting them. Otherwise a false impression is created.” [Story of the Apocrypha (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939, p. 7]
Click to expand...
A key chapter in the above quoted book is chapter 18.

So I guess the question becomes this: if, as some say, sola scriptura is a FACT, and if the Bible had those books ever since the Bible was compiled, and since those books eventually became a secret to Protestants who changed the Bible and removed them, how can anyone claim sola scriptura and claim sola scriptura as a fact when they themselves are the ones responsible for taking away from the Bible?

Please enlighten me if I am missing something. Thanks.
 
sounds good to me. i/m sure you will get some replies soon. thanks for sharing.
 
I can not answer your question, but you post some interesting information.

My question for Sola Scriptura believers is: When the Apostles went out and founded the very first Church’s, what did they say? I think this information would be invaluable to us as Christians, it is just too bad they did not write it down…(slight pause)…fortunately we do have Tradition which has been carried on through the Church. We have the writings of St. Irenaeus, who was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John. Surely, St. Irenaeus was able to record valuable information which was handed down by St. John.

If they did not want to agree with this, then:
If some one had asked Paul (or any Apostle, we just have more of his writings) to write down some of the most important teachings of Jesus or the most important things about Christianity, would Paul have submitted his letters we have in the NT or might he have written something different.

If they try to say he would have written the exact same thing, that would be interesting because all those letter were written to specific people for specific reasons. They were not intended to be all encompassing letters on Christianity, but written about specific areas those places were struggling with.

Anyway, I have not probably done these arguments justice, but they definitely make Sola Scriptura look very weak.
 
dcrowmik said:
I have from time to time come across those who claim Sola Scriptura - we should do ONLY what the Bible tells us and nothing more. Arguments on each side end up being circular as one side will claim the definition and concept of sola scriptura is in the Bible and the other side says no.

In this article you will find that the original Protestant King James versions of the Bible included all the apocrypha which our Catholic Bibles contain, but then over time they disappeared.

A key chapter in the above quoted book is chapter 18.

So I guess the question becomes this: if, as some say, sola scriptura is a FACT, and if the Bible had those books ever since the Bible was compiled, and since those books eventually became a secret to Protestants who changed the Bible and removed them, how can anyone claim sola scriptura and claim sola scriptura as a fact when they themselves are the ones responsible for taking away from the Bible?

Please enlighten me if I am missing something. Thanks.
Click to expand...
🍿 Just subbing to a very excellent question.
 
WOW, not one that blast us about the scriptures and the Bible alone, has replied!!!

Nice find, but I think we all knew at one point they had all the books in them anyway right? 😉
 
=dcrowmik;6142413]I have from time to time come across those who claim Sola Scriptura - we should do ONLY what the Bible tells us and nothing more.
Click to expand...
This is NOT sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura is the practice of placing scripture as the final norm, by which all teachings and teachers should be measured. Therefore, as Lutherans, we accept the three creeds, early councils, and our own Lutheran Confessions as rightly reflecting scripture. Your faulty definition would require the exclusion of these things.
So I guess the question becomes this: if, as some say, sola scriptura is a FACT, and if the Bible had those books ever since the Bible was compiled, and since those books eventually became a secret to Protestants who changed the Bible and removed them, how can anyone claim sola scriptura and claim sola scriptura as a fact when they themselves are the ones responsible for taking away from the Bible?
Click to expand...
I guess one could ask the same question about Scripture and Tradition, since the Catholic Bible lacks three books found in numerous Orthodox scriptures. That aside, the D-C books in question have always been in question, regarding their canonicity, and prior to Trent, many Catholics, including St. Jerome and Cr. Cajetan, did so with the permission of the Church. It is only since Trent that the issue has been closed - to Catholics.
Non-Catholics, on the other hand, be they Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican, are not held to Trent, as it is a Catholic document.
In closing, I think it is a mistake to not have the D-C’s in the Bible. Whether or not one thinks they should be used to set doctrine, Christians of all stripes would do well to be familiar with them.

Jon
 
Non-Catholics, on the other hand, be they Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican, are not held to Trent, as it is a Catholic document.
Click to expand...
On that thought, they shouldn’t recognize anything Christian.
 
JonNC said:
This is NOT sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura is the practice of placing scripture as the final norm, by which all teachings and teachers should be measured. Therefore, as Lutherans, we accept the three creeds, early councils, and our own Lutheran Confessions as rightly reflecting scripture. Your faulty definition would require the exclusion of these things.
Jon
Click to expand...
Sola Scriptura is Latin for “by scripture alone”, so I am not sure what you are talking about. Maybe Lutheran’s have have a different definition or application.

I was curious though, does your bible contain the word “alone” as added by Martin Luther? I have always wondered which bibles contain this word and how different denominations handle the historic fact that it was Luther that added this word.
 
chessmane4e5 said:
Sola Scriptura is Latin for “by scripture alone”, so I am not sure what you are talking about. Maybe Lutheran’s have have a different definition or application.

I was curious though, does your bible contain the word “alone” as added by Martin Luther? I have always wondered which bibles contain this word and how different denominations handle the historic fact that it was Luther that added this word.
Click to expand...
With regard to your first point, the Lutheran use of sola scriptura is not similar to a Bible alone fundamentalist approach of scripture only, which typically excludes what JonNC mentioned.
 
PA650 said:
With regard to your first point, the Lutheran use of sola scriptura is not similar to a Bible alone fundamentalist approach of scripture only, which typically excludes what JonNC mentioned.
Click to expand...
This is an honest question, not a baited one, maybe you can open a thread to describe the differences in the now two versions of Sola Scriptura?

It will get out of hand fast, but would be interesting to see the differences anyway. 🙂
 
chessmane4e5 said:
Sola Scriptura is Latin for “by scripture alone”, so I am not sure what you are talking about. Maybe Lutheran’s have have a different definition or application.

I was curious though, does your bible contain the word “alone” as added by Martin Luther? I have always wondered which bibles contain this word and how different denominations handle the historic fact that it was Luther that added this word.
Click to expand...
Sola Scriptura is just a title. I personally prefer the title Prima Scriptura since I consider the title Sola Scriptura to be misleading.

See the thread that I started a while back on ‘What is Sola Scriptura’? There are 7-9 different versions of it (I forgot how many). There are moderate versions of it that I think I can go along with myself (with perhaps some minor nitpicks).

Only the most extreme version is “We should ONLY do what the Bible teaches and nothing more”. The only group that I think claims this is the Church of Christ, and I am sure they are not consistent in this.

As far as the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonicals or whatever you want to call them, they are a minor issue to me anyway. I just would observe that some Orthodox have an 80 book canon. Maybe you all removed books also.
 
AmateurPianist said:
Sola Scriptura is just a title. I personally prefer the title Prima Scriptura since I consider the title Sola Scriptura to be misleading.

See the thread that I started a while back on ‘What is Sola Scriptura’? There are 7-9 different versions of it (I forgot how many). There are moderate versions of it that I think I can go along with myself (with perhaps some minor nitpicks).

Only the most extreme version is “We should ONLY do what the Bible teaches and nothing more”. The only group that I think claims this is the Church of Christ, and I am sure they are not consistent in this.
Click to expand...
I would like to hear this from Protestants themselves. Why would there be 7-9 different versions of Sola Scriptura? (especially if all of you based your theology on the Bible alone). Thanks.
 
Teneas said:
This is an honest question, not a baited one, maybe you can open a thread to describe the differences in the now two versions of Sola Scriptura?

It will get out of hand fast, but would be interesting to see the differences anyway. 🙂
Click to expand...
I’ll refer you to the post of AmateurPianist. As you’re aware Teneas, Protestantism has evolved from traditional mainline Protestant churches to many “Bible only” churches with differing interpretations of course. Similarly, a Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, etc. will likely be familiar with, e.g. the Apostles and Nicene Creed while an non-denominational church goer may never have heard of them.
 
PA650 said:
I’ll refer you to the post of AmateurPianist. As you’re aware Teneas, Protestantism has evolved from traditional mainline Protestant churches to many “Bible only” churches with differing interpretations of course. Similarly, a Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, etc. will likely be familiar with, e.g. the Apostles and Nicene Creed while an non-denominational church goer may never have heard of them.
Click to expand...
I mean NO disrespect when I say this man. Unless it’s written out for me to read what you guys believe, didn’t mean to generalize, I don’t pay it a lick of attention. I figure if people can’t even agree on what they believe, it’s not worth my time. I can’t even begin to learn what 38,000 or so non-Catholic Christians believe.

Thanks though, maybe I will look at his post anyway, but I bet you $100 right now, another person of his “particular” faith, will just say he is wrong before I get through what he wrote.
 
Teneas said:
This is an honest question, not a baited one, maybe you can open a thread to describe the differences in the now two versions of Sola Scriptura?

It will get out of hand fast, but would be interesting to see the differences anyway. 🙂
Click to expand...
I did some legwork on that here.

Not all of these are Sola Scriptura, but the last seven I know are held by some.
 
Reuben_J said:
I would like to hear this from Protestants themselves. Why would there be 7-9 different versions of Sola Scriptura? (especially if all of you based your theology on the Bible alone). Thanks.
Click to expand...
Because nobody really (except Church of Christ and they are inconsistent in this) really believes in Bible Alone.

Like I:say, for me personally it is a misleading title.
 
Teneas said:
I mean NO disrespect when I say this man. Unless it’s written out for me to read what you guys believe, didn’t mean to generalize, I don’t pay it a lick of attention. I figure if people can’t even agree on what they believe, it’s not worth my time. I can’t even begin to learn what 38,000 or so non-Catholic Christians believe.

Thanks though, maybe I will look at his post anyway, but I bet you $100 right now, another person of his “particular” faith, will just say he is wrong before I get through what he wrote.
Click to expand...
Well, since you’re part of Christ’s universal Church, and unless you’re involved with apologetic work or have an interest in the beliefs of various Protestant churches, I would assume you may not care what they profess. Also, you’re welcome and perhaps you’re right. Lastly, I’m in the RCIA process and I haven’t identified myself as Protestant for quite a while, thus I don’t necessarily belief in Protestant theology–although I maybe familiar with it.
 
PA650 said:
Well, since you’re part of Christ’s universal Church, and unless you’re involved with apologetic work or have an interest in the beliefs of various Protestant churches, I would assume you may not care what they profess. Also, you’re welcome and perhaps you’re right. Lastly, I’m in the RCIA process and I haven’t identified myself as Protestant for quite a while, thus I don’t necessarily belief in Protestant theology–although I maybe familiar with it.
Click to expand...
Glad you are in the process my friend. 🙂

I do actually do apologetic work from time to time, but nothing hard core in about four years now. I found that it started just frustrating me to much, so it wasn’t healthy for my faith life. I do know a good deal about some of the Protestant faiths, but I don’t get into it as much as I used to. I found that focusing on my own faith was what made me grow in my love for Christ and his Church. 🙂

I will pray for you and RCIA man!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top