Why is the protestant bible shorter?

[WCH]

FInd an original copy of the KJ Bible. Count the number of books.

Got one.

Prove the translators of the original KJV considered the Apocrypha “inspired Scripture.”

 

[buffalo]

Got one.

Prove the translators of the original KJV considered the Apocrypha “inspired Scripture.”

How many books?

 

[WCH]

How many books?

I didn’t ask for more questions. I asked for proof.

Please provide it.

 

[buffalo]

I didn’t ask for more questions. I asked for proof.

Please provide it.

More questions: Who demoted them to non-canonical?

Luther

On whose authority?

His own.

 

[WCH]

More questions: Who demoted them to non-canonical?

Luther

On whose authority?

His own.

Obviously you can’t provide any proof.

Admit that, and I’ll consider moving on to your questions.

 

[elvisman]

Obviously you can’t provide any proof.

Admit that, and I’ll consider moving on to your questions.

And obviously you can’t answer the questions posed to you otherwise you would answer them.

This game of "answer mine before I answer yours" is silly and immature. If you have something to say about a subject in a debate, then present your case. This is Debating 101 . . .

 

[Dave_Noonan]

First I would say anything on that list prior to 382 is irrelevant. The council of Rome is is generally regarded by Catholic Apologists(or Hippo in 393) as the fist time the canon Catholics accept today was presented.

OK, I think we’ve always agreed on that.

Next, from what I have read Jerome was one of the voices against the deuteros, yet HIS OWN TRANSLATION included them (sounds like he submitted to someone else’s authority). He wrote “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches?”

Fine with me.

In answer to your question from a modern Catholic perspective, I would say, is that the Holy Spirit guided the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter. I don’t know what you are trying to get at. Is the opinion of modern Protestants that the Holy Spirit guided whoever decided to finally remove these books from the Bible? What is your opinion to explain any differences either in the 4th century or today?

Sorry, I guess we are still not connecting.

I didn’t perceive that we were even discussing the Protestant biblical canon at all!!

I’m pretty sure I responded on a thread way back that the shorter “Protestant canon” is an innovation and really has no historical warrant, in my view. And as for the opinions of modern Protestants, I’m sure they are all over the map–I wouldn’t even want to begin to tackle that.

What I was saying was that beginning in the fourth century and beyond (remember, no Protestants yet) there were a variety of biblical canons among the apostolic churches that persist to the present day–the’ve always been different (which are listed on the Wikipedia chart that I have referred you to a couple of times). So my question basically is, what do modern Catholics think about that? How could the Holy Spirt guide only the Roman Bishops/Bishop of Rome (who at in the minority) and not be available guide all the other bishops and patriarchs throughout the world on this important decision–since they all came to somewhat different conclusions about what should be in the biblical canon–even among themselves? Or in an attempt to be even more succinct in a way that probably overreaches: do modern Catholics think that the various Orthodox canons are somehow misguided or “wrong”?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

First I would say anything on that list prior to 382 is irrelevant.

OK–I think I maybe understand a little more here, so are you referring to the chart? That’s the canon today which has been fairly consistent since the fourth century. (Some shifts in the Armenian church, but that’s a long story.)

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by WCH
The Protestant Bible has no missing books.

It is 66 books long, and all 66 are present, and accounted for.

Why, do you think, did Luther include in his translation 74 books?

More questions: Who demoted them to non-canonical?

Luther

On whose authority?

His own.

He had folks who agreed with him, Cardinal Cajetan, for one. But also ithers going back to Jerome. Why, do you think, he included them, as well as the Prayer of Manasses?

I’d be curious to hear an answer on to this question from both of you.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Really? When,where, under whose authority and who decided to “fix” the Tanakh as a canon?

The content of the Tanakh was fixed under Jewish authority, of course.

Under Jewish authority? Which you still did not answer me: What JEWISH authority? Do these Jews have a name? Sadducees? Essenes? Which group of Jews had such authority?

The Torah had already been fixed for millennia, but the Prophets and the Writings were fixed during the period of time between 200 BC and 200 AD. No written records exist concerning a particular council; remember that this pre-dates the most ancient copies of NT manuscripts by several centuries.

FIXED? Do you know what you are saying when you say: FIXED For a millennia? If it was FIXED for a millennia,then tell me who FIXED it? Where? And why?

We do know, however, that the Tanakh had been “fixed” as the Jewish canon by the close of the 3rd century at the very latest.

The 3rd century AD or BC? Be specific. If by 3rd century BC, please provide emprical and primary sources confirming the Tanakh was FIXED by the close of the 3rd century

We also know that the Tanakh- the Law, Prophets, and Writings in its present form- was in use during the 1st and 2nd centuries BC, although the Sadducees (now extinct) only accepted the Torah and the Tanakh was not yet formally established as “canon.” You see, the concept of a “canon” had not yet been ideated…and it was the Jews who ideated it, although we don’t have a written record of exactly when and where it happened.

Okay,then how can you say the Tanakh was FIXED? Fixed means an AUTHORITY decided and that you have not provided a single shred of evidence of WHEN,WHERE, and BY WHOSE AUTHORITY.

 

[CatholicNUFC]

Most of you should be ashamed of your selves. You fight like dogs, but all believe in God, and that Jesus is God’s only son.

We all our Christian we have difference in beliefs that is all. To be Christian is be Christ like. Not saying your on the same level as the son of god, but what did Christ do? He spread love and peace. He showed people the way. He did good deeds. How about we all strive to be Christ like? Faith hope and love, do good things. Be a good person, and always strive to be better.

 

[WCH]

**And obviously you **can’t answer the questions posed to you otherwise you would answer them.

This game of "answer mine before I answer yours" is silly and immature. If you have something to say about a subject in a debate, then present your case. This is Debating 101 . . .

Will you cite the forum rule(s) in which it is stated that participants on this forum are engaging in debate?

I’d appreciate it.

 

[amber_lux]

cooterhein;:

What actually happened was this: All Christians reached a consensus on the 27 books of the NT.

There are New Testament Canons that contain more than 27 books. There are New Testament Canons that contain less than 27 books.

That so-called consensus was the result of force. Accept this, or your land will be burnt and your women will be raped. And the land was burnt, and the women were raped. And the Bishop of Rome blessed those who committed the rapes, because the raping was good for the victims, from the perspective of the genoci8deal church of rome.

Amber

 

[ajcstr]

What I was saying was that beginning in the fourth century and beyond (remember, no Protestants yet) there were a variety of biblical canons among the apostolic churches that persist to the present day–the’ve always been different (which are listed on the Wikipedia chart that I have referred you to a couple of times). So my question basically is, what do modern Catholics think about that? How could the Holy Spirt guide only the Roman Bishops/Bishop of Rome (who at in the minority) and not be available guide all the other bishops and patriarchs throughout the world on this important decision–since they all came to somewhat different conclusions about what should be in the biblical canon–even among themselves? Or in an attempt to be even more succinct in a way that probably overreaches: do modern Catholics think that the various Orthodox canons are somehow misguided or “wrong”?

Not talking about Protestants at all, trying to resolve the issue with the Orthodox Churches. There as also a disagreement with the Apostles Creed I believe. I guess you are right we are not connecting.

My understanding of the Catholic belief, limited as it is, is that Christ conferred upon Peter the office of the prime minister of the restored Davidic Kingdom. Isaiah 22/23. he was given the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose. His confession of Jesus as the Christ was revealed to him “not by flesh and blood but by my Father in Heaven”. The Bishops of Rome are believed to be the successors of Peter by Catholics. So to me it would follow that the books considered inspired by the council and ratified by the Pope would be the set deemed inspired. If the Orthodox Church viewed additional books as inspired, it did so outside of this authority. Even today, the Orthodox Churches do not follow the authority of the Pope. Just because the Orthodox and the Protestants do not recognize this authority I would still not say the the Holy Spirit is not present within those groups. I just can’t explain how, the canon is a tiny difference compared to all the others. We all accept the same NT, there has to be a reason for that as we can’t seem to agree on anything else.

 

[ajcstr]

Why, do you think, did Luther include in his translation 74 books?

Jon

I personally have no idea - My GUESS would be he was still trying to reform the Church, not break from it? - I would like to hear YOUR answer.

 

[elvisman]

Most of you should be ashamed of your selves. You fight like dogs, but all believe in God, and that Jesus is God’s only son.

We all our Christian we have difference in beliefs that is all. To be Christian is be Christ like. Not saying your on the same level as the son of god, but what did Christ do? He spread love and peace. He showed people the way. He did good deeds. How about we all strive to be Christ like? Faith hope and love, do good things. Be a good person, and always strive to be better.

There is no fighting going on here. This is debate and debate is healthy. Jesus debated with the Pharisees as did St. Paul. Debate is how many are exposed to the truth.

As long as there is mutual respect and the discussion doesn’t descend ito personal attacks or ephithets - debate is a good thing.

**If you are really offended by this - then, perhaps a debate site is not the best place for you to spend your time . . .

 

[elvisman]

What I was saying was that beginning in the fourth century and beyond (remember, no Protestants yet) there were a variety of biblical canons among the apostolic churches that persist to the present day–the’ve always been different (which are listed on the Wikipedia chart that I have referred you to a couple of times). So my question basically is, what do modern Catholics think about that? How could the Holy Spirt guide only the Roman Bishops/Bishop of Rome (who at in the minority) and not be available guide all the other bishops and patriarchs throughout the world on this important decision–since they all came to somewhat different conclusions about what should be in the biblical canon–even among themselves? Or in an attempt to be even more succinct in a way that probably overreaches: do modern Catholics think that the various Orthodox canons are somehow misguided or “wrong”?

God is truth itself. The Holy Spirit cannot guide somebody to an untruth. God cannot lie because that would make him the author of evil. Just as the holy Spirit cannot guide 30,000 denominations to differing beliefs, he cannot guide a multitude of Churches to a multitude of different canons.

If you believe that the Holy Spirit can do this then you believe in a different Spirit - a different God. This mode of thinking is precisely why false doctrines like Sola Scriptura took root - the idea that the Scriptures are the final authority. Everybody deciphering the “truth” for themselves and coming up with thousands of different interpretations - and ALL claiming that the Holy Spirit led them there. It is an impossibility for the Holy Spirit to have guided everybody to a different “truth”.

Regardless of all of the individuals in history who had a problem with the Deuterocanonicals or other books of the Old and New Testaments - there is only ONE canon declared that was guided by the Holy Spirit. This is the same canon of 73 books that was declared by the Catholic Church at the synods and councils of Rome (382)**, Hippo (393), Carthage (397), Florence (1442) and Trent in the 16th century.

Jesus built ONE Church and there can only be ONE truth - just as there can only be ONE God.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Not talking about Protestants at all, trying to resolve the issue with the Orthodox Churches. There as also a disagreement with the Apostles Creed I believe. I guess you are right we are not connecting.

My understanding of the Catholic belief, limited as it is, is that Christ conferred upon Peter the office of the prime minister of the restored Davidic Kingdom. Isaiah 22/23. he was given the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose. His confession of Jesus as the Christ was revealed to him “not by flesh and blood but by my Father in Heaven”. The Bishops of Rome are believed to be the successors of Peter by Catholics. So to me it would follow that the books considered inspired by the council and ratified by the Pope would be the set deemed inspired.

OK, I think I understand. So even if most of the world’s bishops went a different way with their various canons and disagreed with the Pope on this issue, you’d still consider the canon ratified by the Pope to be the only correct one.

If the Orthodox Church viewed additional books as inspired, it did so outside of this authority. Even today, the Orthodox Churches do not follow the authority of the Pope.

There are a number of Orthodox Churches, btw, but it seems to me they didn’t follow his authority on this issue either–even back in the fourth century and forward.

Just because the Orthodox and the Protestants do not recognize this authority I would still not say the the Holy Spirit is not present within those groups. I just can’t explain how, the canon is a tiny difference compared to all the others. We all accept the same NT, there has to be a reason for that as we can’t seem to agree on anything else.

Well, thanks. I think I understand your perspective.

The way I see it, if the Pope does something and most of the world’s bishops disagree and don’t follow along (as is the case with the biblical canon), then the Pope’s decision is not one that everyone needs to follow. And for me, such an decision would not be a definitive guidance of the Holy Spirit—since the Pope and the world’s bishops don’t and never did agree on the issue.

But you and I will have to just have to agree to disagree on that, which is fine!

 

[Poor_Soul]

Why is the Protestant bible have missing books ?. What are some reasons that someone would deny these books ?

I think the books are Tobit, Judith 1,2 maccabees, Baruch, Sirach, Wisdom.

The Protestant Bibles of today use the Canon from the Jewish Council of Jamnia 90 AD where the Jews closed the OT Canon. Christians should note the significance of this date.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The Protestant Bibles of today use the Canon from the Jewish Council of Jamnia 90 AD where the Jews closed the OT Canon. Christians should note the significance of this date.

Actually, most people would dispute that there was Council of Jamnia; it’s pure conjecture. (You can read about it here, if you like: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia).

If you want to claim that there was, then I would be interested in what sources you are drawing this from.