The Bible: when and where? (plz help)

[MDK]

Your reading comprehension skills are very poor. Go back and read my original post.

As to your claim about the 7 apocryphal books appearing in the LXX, which version or versions of the LXX did they appear in? Were any additional apocryphal books contained within that particular manuscript? What is the earliest date of that manuscript?

You can rant all you want but unless I missed something you haven’t done anything to demonstrate that my original post was in error. Good luck.

I forgive you for the false accusations. I have to admit, though that trying to comprehend the Protestant mindset is interesting, and challenging due to lack of standards of truth in favor of personal preferences, but nevertheless, I am able to understand. Your post is in error because you claim something that is not true. I am not foolish enough to think that if I should answer these questions, you will all of a sudden realize the Church is true. I’m quite aware of those stuck in a certain mindset. The questions being asked have nothing to do with the real issue at hand. I have already answered that many of the manuscripts are incomplete and missing sections. Those who lack Traditional Christianity typically don’t understand what the world was like back then, and treat almost as though the Jews backed up their iScrolls to their LAN drives.

You’re off track asking for dates of manuscripts, etc., as I know these will never satisfy the real question at hand. I don’t mind discussing these if someone were sincerely asking, but there is a different issue really here. The issue is authority, from God. If the Holy Spirit has inspired something, I try to understand, and refrain from denigrating it. You are trying to claim one thing, while focusing on a different question which does not support what you’re intending.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I know this is a BIG question, but can someone please list:

what Councils
dates (years)
which were accepted

I am looking for a list where I can clearly see that; at this Council, on this year, these books were accepted; then on this Council, on this year, those books where also accepted.

I am looking for OT and NT.

thank you : )

See here:

How the Bible came to be–a primer
itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2005/05/how-bible-came-to-be-primer.html

 

[MDK]

…As to your claim about the 7 apocryphal books appearing in the LXX, which version or versions of the LXX did they appear in? Were any additional apocryphal books contained within that particular manuscript? What is the earliest date of that manuscript?

You can rant all you want but unless I missed something you haven’t done anything to demonstrate that my original post was in error. Good luck.

I’ve already showed how your post was in error. I hope you come to understand it some day, as it would really help you and potentially others who serve Protestantism which doesn’t serve you. Here is another thing to consider, in that the Codex Alexandrina is considered to be a very valuable witnesses to the Septuagint. The text of the Codex Alexandrina contains all of the seven Deuterocanonical books. Many ancient texts simply are in disarray or don’t entirely exist anymore. I guess the ancient writers didn’t consult Jacob Jobs to save their iScrolls to their LAN drives for us. There were e-truscans, though! We Catholics have the fullness of revealed truth, and so don’t get stuck on the paper trail as Protestants will do in search for something they want based on something they don’t understand. We Traditional Christians believe that what the Holy Spirit inspired is good for us. So, we don’t denigrate this, looking for ways in vain to attempt to show how the Holy Spirit is not with Christ’s Church. It’s as futile as pushing with the gates of Hell against the Church… we already know how this turns out.

The irony here too is that Protestants claim the Bible is whole of revelation, while it is not. The Bible is only part of what the Church uses. The Bible was never intended to be the fullness of revealed truth. If we can read with our minds free of preconceived falsehood, we see that the Bible inspired by God’s Holy Spirit even tells you this.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I know this is a BIG question, but can someone please list:

what Councils
dates (years)
which were accepted

I am looking for a list where I can clearly see that; at this Council, on this year, these books were accepted; then on this Council, on this year, those books where also accepted.

I am looking for OT and NT.

thank you : )

See also…

How big is your book of Daniel?
itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-big-is-your-book-of-daniel.html

 

[MDK]

I’ve read both articles before and I skimmed over them and didn’t see anything that addresses my original post. Perhaps you could be more specific?

Also, I highly recommend Steve Rays article about Jamnia because at least he admits the Jews at Jamnia DID NOT even discuss the apocryphal books.

Do you recall that I said “this could help you”? I intended that these would provide some kind of background for you and help you. The plain truth is that you need a lot of groundwork before you can understand some of these things. It was preparatory.

Steve swam the Tiber and is still Catholic, is he not? Like me, he doesn’t think this has any bearing on the authentic OT. Why? Because Steve, like myself is interested in the truth.

We must ask what difference would it really make whether the DC books were discussed at Jabneh (Jamnia)? The fair minded person would say that neither did Jabneh exclude the deuterocanonical books, but the bigger factor is that Jabneh had no authority anyway. The “council” at Jabneh (Jamnia) was simply a group of Jewish scholars (Judaisers) who were granted permission to meet. This group had no authority, and the council was not authoritative. They tried to resurrect tenets of Judaism after Jerusalem was sacked and the OT priesthood was no more. Note, that they were not successful, as the OT priesthood remains a thing of the past. Naturally, since they had no authority, they could not close the Old Testament canon. Why would anyone be surprised that these people tried to undermine the New Jerusalem while they tried to establish a new version of the Septuagint? Protestants also try to undermine the authority of the New Covenant Church of God, and so it’s no surprise either that they will grasp for straws that really don’t exist either in what God has established.

The fair minded person will also keep in mind that just a short distance away in Qumran, we did find evidence of Deuterocanonical Scripture in the “Dead Sea Scrolls”.

At least Martin Luther had the decency to say ““We concede—as we must—that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received holy scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?”

Where do you think the truths come from… Barnes and Noble and your own rational thought? There is much more to it than this. Traditional Christianity has Godly Tradition, Magisterium, and Sacred Scriptures. All of these were established by God, and are protected by God. Protestantism which rejects much of God’s established authority, His Sacraments, and His Tradition…, was not established by God, nor is Protestantism protected by God. The reason Protestantism can harm it’s adherents, is that people believe it is something it is not. People believe it is authentic Christianity. Protestantism is simply man’s rational thought projected to our Catholic Bible, and being sold as something more than it is. It is simply a distortion (multiple and varied distortions) of the Bible which is only part of revealed truth. Truth in advertising would mandate that Protestantism come under the category of fictional action-adventure like Dan Brown’s work. There are some facts which do not equal truth, and the conclusions are false… so it lacks sufficient truth to be considered true. Yet, no such decency of a warning label is presented regarding Protestantism and therefore, people are being injured.

 

[elijio]

I know this is a BIG question, but can someone please list:

what Councils
dates (years)
which were accepted

I am looking for a list where I can clearly see that; at this Council, on this year, these books were accepted; then on this Council, on this year, those books where also accepted.

I am looking for OT and NT.

thank you : )

The book you must read is ‘‘Where We Got The Bible: Our Debt To The Catholic Church’’ by Henry G. Graham. You can check to see if it’s available at the Catholic Answers store in the ‘‘SHOP’’ tab above.

Also, to know more about the ways the Catholic Church preserved it among other things, a very good book to purchase in hard cover or audio book (i have the audio book to listen to it while at work) is ‘‘How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization’’ by Thomas E. Woods available here amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/0895260387

peace!

 

[SemperReformada]

I’ve already showed how your post was in error.

No, you haven’t done anything of the sort.

Here is my original post
"semperreformada:

The only versions of the LXX that we have knowledge of are Christian manuscripts that date only to around the 4th century. If I remember correctly, none of the versions of the LXX match precisely the OT canon that the Catholic church has accepted. Some LXX manuscripts have more books, some have less but none are an identical match to the RCC OT canon.

Many times Catholics will make claims that their OT canon matches the canon that Jesus and the apostles used (based on the LXX) but they make this claim with no evidence substantiate their claim.

Without reading anything into my original quote, precisely which point is wrong?

Here is another thing to consider, in that the Codex Alexandrina is considered to be a very valuable witnesses to the Septuagint. The text of the Codex Alexandrina contains all of the seven Deuterocanonical books.

Yup, the Alexandrinus manuscript is a late 4th century or early 5th century Christian manuscript which does contain all 7 books **PLUS 3rd and 4th Maccabees **which means that it doesn’t match the OT canon of the RCC. Plus it’s a Christian manuscript plus it’s centuries removed from the time of Christ and the apostles so it would seem that it would be difficult to prove that this was the LXX used by Jesus and the apostles…that and there is the pesky problem of this codex containing books that your church considers apocryphal.

Remember in my original post I said

semperreformada:

…none of the versions of the LXX match precisely the OT canon that the Catholic church has accepted. Some LXX manuscripts have more books, some have less but none are an identical match to the RCC OT canon.

The Alexandrinus canon has additonal books which means it doesn’t precisely match the OT canon of the RCC.

If you believe you can offer evidence that can prove that Jesus and apostles used precisely the OT canon that your church currently uses I would like to see it. If you feel you have already built your case please summarize it for me.

I really don’t know why my post has so upset you. I simply pointed out what appears to be a weakness in an apologetics argument used from time to time by Catholics. I could be the pope himself and point this out since it doesn’t attack your church or even the canon that the RCC has accepted. All I did was point out what I believe to be a poor argument used by some of the posters here at CAF.

 

[fermat]

I really don’t know why my post has so upset you. I simply pointed out what appears to be a weakness in an apologetics argument used from time to time by Catholics. I could be the pope himself and point this out since it doesn’t attack your church or even the canon that the RCC has accepted. All I did was point out what I believe to be a poor argument used by some of the posters here at CAF.

I think some historical perspective may help here.

Right or wrong, the fact does remain that for over 1000 years, the deutroconicals books were included in Scripture. That means for over 1000 years, God allowed all Christian everywhere to receive erroneous information. Not just incomplete information, but erroneous. Personally speaking, I struggle with the thought that God would allow His followers to be so wrongly led for so long.

Something else to consider. There are plenty of NT wannabes as well. The Didichae was considered inspired by some Christian communities, but not others. 2nd Peter and 2nd and 3rd John were also in dispute. If you are going to be complete in your analysis, you need to consider all the writing from that time. If the Church didn’t get those seven right, maybe we flubbed a few other along the way. Wouldn’t you like to know if your bible is really complete or not?

Finally, I do not believe that any other collection of books was ever explicitly and infallibly declared to be the Word of God. Assuming you don’t buy the whole Papal Infallibility doctrine, it is still worth noting that we were the first (and only) to do so. I don’t know of any Protestant groups that has ever gone out on a limb to say that they know they are 100% correct, no ifs and or buts.

 

[MDK]

No, you haven’t done anything of the sort.

Actually, I have. Because you can’t see it, and it’s not what you expected, doesn’t mean it hasn’t been done. In fact, there is a lot you can’t see right now. I hope you will be able to in the future.

Part of your problem is you have your ego wrapped up in a false movement which distorted God’s word, and you somehow hold that up as a wonderful thing. The difference between you and I is that I recognize distortion, because I know what truth is revealed by Christ.

You had written your quote below in response to a quote take out of the context of my post, which read “The Septuagint written by Jews in Greek language had these 7 books included.”

Here is my original post

Originally Posted by semperreformada

The only versions of the LXX that we have knowledge of are Christian manuscripts that date only to around the 4th century. If I remember correctly, none of the versions of the LXX match precisely the OT canon that the Catholic church has accepted. Some LXX manuscripts have more books, some have less but none are an identical match to the RCC OT canon.

I have to ask if you have a sense of appropriateness, or know how to apply things in proper context? This skill and ability seems to be sorely lacking in Protestants. You misapplied this, and tried to stretch it to mean something it did not, and apply it where it was not relevant. First, it was false to claim it meant something in regard to what you were responding, because it is irrelevant whether any of the Septuagint copies match precisely the OT canon of the RCC. Why would that matter, unless you had no authority, like Luther? You had in fact used this generalization about the entire OT canon in response to my discussion about the 7 Deuterocanon books and the Septuagint, which have other questions surrounding them, disputed by some and accepted by others. So, you were discussing different things which deserve slightly different considerations and understanding, which you lacked. It is a false “requirement” when discussing the Septuagint and Deuterocanon as to whether any of these Septuagint copies strictly matched the entire Catholic OT canon. Please consider the difference.

My post was only discussing the seven Holy Spirit inspired books that Luther discarded. You’re also getting off on the wrong track here because the discussion regarding the Septuagint. It matters not whether all the RCC texts are contained in any one single Septuagint version or another. The point was that shows these were used by the Jews, such as in Alexandria, which counters the argument that Jews did not use it. It counters the argument that these are somehow uninspired and should not be used.

The most important thing is that the Holy Spirit protected the Catholic Church from error in making the table of contents of the NT and OT as well. The discussion of the Septuagint and Deuterocanon is to refute a false argument foisted by those who deny the truth.

Are you going to now attempt to change what you meant by this in the context of which it was written? This is similar to when Protestants quote our Bible, and think it means one thing, when it means another.

 

[MDK]

Many times Catholics will make claims that their OT canon matches the canon that Jesus and the apostles used (based on the LXX) but they make this claim with no evidence substantiate their claim.

This is richly ironic, in that Protestants have so little claim to truth, and it is only truth that the Catholic Church already teaches. The Catholic Church is right where you are right, and more importantly it is right where you are wrong. The Protestant claims are weakest of all, for good reason. The only reason a Catholic claim would be presented in a weak manner is if the presenter wasn’t as familiar with Catholicism as one should be. Protestantism is not about the truth, rather about what one desires to be true. To seek the truth without reserve is to begin leaving Protestantism and start becoming Catholic.

Nevertheless, this really must be expanded upon. It’s too shorthand to really get into the meat and potatoes. For greater discussion and clarity, I must clarify here that I don’t necessarily think Jesus was reading directly from what we call the Septuagint. Christ said He would send the Holy Spirit to bring to mind all He had taught. The Holy Spirit brought to mind in the inspired authors of the NT quotes found in the Septuagint.

Without reading anything into my original quote, precisely which point is wrong?

Answer was given in my post 49.

Yup, the Alexandrinus manuscript is a late 4th century or early 5th century Christian manuscript which does contain all 7 books **PLUS 3rd and 4th Maccabees **which means that it doesn’t match the OT canon of the RCC. Plus it’s a Christian manuscript plus it’s centuries removed from the time of Christ and the apostles so it would seem that it would be difficult to prove that this was the LXX used by Jesus and the apostles…that and there is the pesky problem of this codex containing books that your church considers apocryphal.

Much discussed in post 49. Like I said earlier, you are really talking about authority here. The idea about the Deuterocanon was that detractors claim it was not used by the Jews. This is simply a false argument. You want to lump authority in here, which does not come from the Jews. The authority comes from the Holy Spirit acting in God’s New Covenant Church. This is a different discussion, with some overlap here and there, but different in nature. Intelligent persons are able to discern the differences. Those foisting a separate agenda will apparently not care.

Remember in my original post I said

Originally Posted by semperreformada

…none of the versions of the LXX match precisely the OT canon that the Catholic church has accepted. Some LXX manuscripts have more books, some have less but none are an identical match to the RCC OT canon.

Do we even have original copies of the book of Matthew? We simply have copies of copies of copies. **That’s why we need the authority that God established, the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth. This is how we know the truth, including the truth of the Bible and in the Bible. The Bible is not the pillar and foundation of the truth. **

For the sake of what was being discussed, why would what you’ve said even matter? We would appreciate a little better sense of appropriateness and awareness of what is and is not relevant to the topic at hand. Your question is interesting, but doesn’t get you where you seem to want to go. The RCC Is not adopting wholesale any edition or version. That was never the point being made. The RCC acts with the protection of the Holy Spirit in these matters.

The Alexandrinus canon has additonal books which means it doesn’t precisely match the OT canon of the RCC.

Why would that matter to anyone who understood God’s authority? The RCC acted with the protection of the Holy Spirit. This is the more relevant issue. Yet, detractors really don’t like this, and want it to be different, as though they can make it so with false arguments built from lack of understanding and faith in what God has done.

If you believe you can offer evidence that can prove that Jesus and apostles used precisely the OT canon that your church currently uses I would like to see it. If you feel you have already built your case please summarize it for me.

Even the NT tells you that everything Jesus did is not recorded, so unless I claim to be God, I don’t know I or anyone can give you what you’ve asked for. One may say that you’ve asked another inappropriate question due to it being unrealistic. It’s a question that obviously originates from a mind who does not know God’s authority, nor believe in it. I will say that I know of no case where the quotes of Christ or the references to the OT from the NT inspired authors are not included in the official canon of God’s Church.

 

[MDK]

I really don’t know why my post has so upset you. I simply pointed out what appears to be a weakness in an apologetics argument used from time to time by Catholics. I could be the pope himself and point this out since it doesn’t attack your church or even the canon that the RCC has accepted. All I did was point out what I believe to be a poor argument used by some of the posters here at CAF.

It’s not you. It’s the false claims, false “requirements” or hurdles being set up that pretend to mean one thing, but actually attempt quite another… it’s lack of respect for what God has done and preferences for your way over God’s way. I trust God over man. That you trust men over God is your own thing. Don’t ask me to agree.

Next, there is no weakness such as you have claimed. What I’ve seen is a lack of understanding and also of belief in God’s work, then a “demand” for perfect record keeping in lieu of understanding and faith in God. Jesus saves, but I don’t know that the inspired writers saved their works in a way that made it to us.

 

[Mannyfit75]

So the Deutrocanonical Books were the only ones not in the Bible in 416 AD?

The Deutrocanonical Books has always been listed as part of Canon of Scripture.