The bible, hmm I have heard 50 different views

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChristianKnight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ChristianKnight

Guest
I am wondeirng, was the first bible the one with the extra books or the one with the books you find in KJV and NIT. I do not call them protestant cause well I doubt all protestants use them.

I have heard that the Catholic Church added the other books later on.

I have heard that they were in the original bible, and were taken out when the reformations started.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

I am looking for proof, although I do not know exactly how you can prove either, but help?
 
Well, the Jews didn’t accept the apocryphical books so that has to really say something there.
 
Well, according to the benchmark SIA has set for us, the Jews didn’t accept the entire New Testament either so those must not be “genuine scripture” either I guess. :rolleyes:

Anyway, the 7 books he was referring to were accepted by the Jews up until the Council of Jamnia which was held in around 90 AD. In other words, they were among the books Jesus and the Apostles were reading from as well.
 
ChristianKnight said:
I am wondeirng, was the first bible the one with the extra books or the one with the books you find in KJV and NIT. I do not call them protestant cause well I doubt all protestants use them.

I have heard that the Catholic Church added the other books later on.

I have heard that they were in the original bible, and were taken out when the reformations started.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

I am looking for proof, although I do not know exactly how you can prove either, but help?
Click to expand...
It depends whom you talk to and what metric is used. This can be a very confusing topic.

I am of the opinion that the right canon is the one Jesus used. After all, you never heard Jesus whine about His canon being long or short books. And if it was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for us today.

From what little I have read, I get the impression that His canon most likely did not have the (choose your lingo, Deuterocanonicals or Apocrypha) in it, but I am open to evidence to the contrary. Of course Catholics claim differently, but I don’t know what the evidence is of their claims. Perhaps if we can cite a neutral historian without an agenda, that would shed some light here.
 
exoflare said:
Well, according to the benchmark SIA has set for us, the Jews didn’t accept the entire New Testament either so those must not be “genuine scripture” either I guess. :rolleyes:

Anyway, the 7 books he was referring to were accepted by the Jews up until the Council of Jamnia which was held in around 90 AD. In other words, they were among the books Jesus and the Apostles were reading from as well.
Click to expand...
Hmm, thats funny. Jesus never alluded to or quoted anything found in the apocrypha and neither did any of the apostles for that matter. Probably a good reason why most of the Early Church fathers didn’t recognize them.
 
SIA said:
Well, the Jews didn’t accept the apocryphical books so that has to really say something there.
Click to expand...
Yes. They’re revised their beliefs because the Christians were too good at proving that Jesus was the Christ.

The books in question all are written by the Hebrews. Sirach, for instance is mentioned and commented on in the Talmud. Sirach was used by the Christians for catechism.

They all were in the Septuagint, the translation of the OT into Greek done by the elders of Israel centuries before Christ. When Theodotion (d. 200) a Jew, made a new translation he included them, which was so good that the Christians used his translation of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and the Song of the Thee Youths instead of that of the Septuagint. Point: a Jew, translated the OT, and he included the books the Jews later rejected.

The Hebrew versions of many have been found now.

The Jews got tired of losing the battle, so they banned all the translation.

However, even the Hebrew shows that the Septuagint was the original text (that is the Hebrew vorlage). For instance Masoretic Psalm 9 and 10 is two psalms, the LXX (Septuagint) is one. Since the Hebrew is an acrostic, a poem of each letter of the alphabet, the fact that 9 takes half the alphabet and 10 takes the second half, the Hebrew atttests to the priority of the LXX. Btw, many of the Dead Sea Scroll texts agree with the LXX (including a version of Psalm 151), against the Masoretic text.

The Jews didn’t reject the books until after the rise of the Church, at the Council fo Yavneh, which also OKd a curse against the minim (Jewish Christians) to be said in the synagog service (to get the Christians out). Getting rid of the “extra books” which talked most clearly about the Resurrection, like Wisdom and II and IV Maccabbees, got the favorite topic of the Christians out of discussion.

The Hebrew text used by the Jews, the Masoretic text, was not set until the 7th century, ie. long after the NEW Testament had been settled.

Ask a Jew why he celebrates Hanukkah. The only Scriptural support for it is in I Maccabbees (4:56-9). Ask why he prays kaddush for the dead. The only scriptural support for it is II Maccabbees (12:42-5).

Now that says something.
 
SIA said:
don’t confuse Ecclesiastes with Ecclesiasticus. The first is genuine Scripture, the latter is apocrypha.
Click to expand...
They are both genuine Scripture.

Case in point: there is not a SINGLE manuscript of the Bible written by a Christian that does NOT include both.

Accept both.

Or reject both.
 
exoflare said:
Well, according to the benchmark SIA has set for us, the Jews didn’t accept the entire New Testament either so those must not be “genuine scripture” either I guess. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
[SIGN]BINGO![/SIGN]
Anyway, the 7 books he was referring to were accepted by the Jews up until the Council of Jamnia which was held in around 90 AD. In other words, they were among the books Jesus and the Apostles were reading from as well.
Click to expand...
Since Sirach is commented on and quoted in the Talmud, the rabbis were reading from as well.

As St. Augustine, against Jerome, noted, “we walk after the Apostles, not the Pharisees, Sadduccess and Scribes.”
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Yes. They’re revised their beliefs because the Christians were too good at proving that Jesus was the Christ.

The books in question all are written by the Hebrews. Sirach, for instance is mentioned and commented on in the Talmud. Sirach was used by the Christians for catechism.

They all were in the Septuagint, the translation of the OT into Greek done by the elders of Israel centuries before Christ. When Theodotion (d. 200) a Jew, made a new translation he included them, which was so good that the Christians used his translation of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and the Song of the Thee Youths instead of that of the Septuagint. Point: a Jew, translated the OT, and he included the books the Jews later rejected.

The Hebrew versions of many have been found now.

The Jews got tired of losing the battle, so they banned all the translation.

However, even the Hebrew shows that the Septuagint was the original text (that is the Hebrew vorlage). For instance Masoretic Psalm 9 and 10 is two psalms, the LXX (Septuagint) is one. Since the Hebrew is an acrostic, a poem of each letter of the alphabet, the fact that 9 takes half the alphabet and 10 takes the second half, the Hebrew atttests to the priority of the LXX. Btw, many of the Dead Sea Scroll texts agree with the LXX (including a version of Psalm 151), against the Masoretic text.

The Jews didn’t reject the books until after the rise of the Church, at the Council fo Yavneh, which also OKd a curse against the minim (Jewish Christians) to be said in the synagog service (to get the Christians out). Getting rid of the “extra books” which talked most clearly about the Resurrection, like Wisdom and II and IV Maccabbees, got the favorite topic of the Christians out of discussion.

The Hebrew text used by the Jews, the Masoretic text, was not set until the 7th century, ie. long after the NEW Testament had been settled.

Ask a Jew why he celebrates Hanukkah. The only Scriptural support for it is in I Maccabbees (4:56-9). Ask why he prays kaddush for the dead. The only scriptural support for it is II Maccabbees (12:42-5).

Now that says something.
Click to expand...
Ok, so then Maccabees II 14:43-46 allows for those who wish to commit suicide then.
 
There are no existing copies of the Septuagint from the 1st century or lists to indicate the contents included. The earliest surviving copies do not shed much light because they have different books.
 
mozart-250 said:
It depends whom you talk to and what metric is used. This can be a very confusing topic.

I am of the opinion that the right canon is the one Jesus used. After all, you never heard Jesus whine about His canon being long or short books. And if it was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for us today.

From what little I have read, I get the impression that His canon most likely did not have the (choose your lingo, Deuterocanonicals or Apocrypha) in it, but I am open to evidence to the contrary. Of course Catholics claim differently, but I don’t know what the evidence is of their claims. Perhaps if we can cite a neutral historian without an agenda, that would shed some light here.
Click to expand...
The quotations the NT uses are basically from the Septuagint, which included all the books. There are many allusions to the Deuterocanonicals (we Orthodox say Anagignoskomena, “things that are read, readable”). And there are books of the OT (eg. Esther) which are not quoted in the NT.

In the post above, I’ve summarized the priority of the inclusion of these books, especially for the Christian.
 
BrianH said:
There are no existing copies of the Septuagint from the 1st century or lists to indicate the contents included. The earliest surviving copies do not shed much light because they have different books.
Click to expand...
  1. No, they have different books because the codex are not complete.
  2. Theodotion, when he translated the OT, he included them. He was a Jew of the second century.
  3. They are cited by the Fathers as scripture.
  4. The celebration of Hanukkah, the saying of Qaddush, both of which have only scriptural support in I and II Maccabbees show that the Jews had used them.
  5. The Talmud cites Sirach.
etc. We have a good idea what the table of contens were, and the Anagignoskomena were in there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top