The Holy Bible.

[Zane]

Interestingly enough this Book has yet to be mentioned in our Book Corner.

Any comments?

[bigsleepj]

Interestingly enough this Book has yet to be mentioned in our Book Corner.

Any comments?

A lot of people seems to own it, but I doubt they ever read it.

[Mi-Ru-Me]

I read it when I can.
The hard part is picking the translation you want to read.
King James
New King James
New International
Ext.

Yet in my family I go Upstairs I hear so much quoting I don't really need to read to get the whole book.

[Zane]

Ouch,... was expecting more posts than this, concidering what Book we're talking about here.
Okay, I have a couple of questions about it myself, which I'm sure BigSleep and co. can answer straight off the bat.

1. Why are there only so many OT books included from the many Scriptures the Jews had/have. What was the basis of ruling them in or out for the Old T.

I've heard several notions of them being the ones to which the apostles and Jesus refered to and so they were included unlike others which weren't and so left out. And also that the council of Niciea?? (spelling) had a part to play, although that was regarding the NT I believe.

2. The Apocripher (spelling once again) meaning 'the second book'(?), contains other such scriptures, which some Christians actually have in their Bible, while others do not. Were these books removed during the reformation as a 'clean up' because they weren't originally in the OT and added over the years, or was it more of a slimming down effect?

I know that (without getting into denominational stuff) depending on what Bible you have with or without those extra books also leads to those dispuits over secondary issues between the big two, Caths and Prods, because those 'extra'/'odd' books mentioning stuff; say purgatory etc.

Hence my question.. what came first in the 'original' Bible (composed about 300?? as one book?), were those 'odd ones out' in there or added later?

Cheers. And please be civil with regards to other ppls denominations etc. It would not be a good look if this 'Bible Thread' were to be locked. Thanks again.

[Ssjjvash]

I prefer reading the New King James version, but when I read stuff from Proverbs and see some verses I want more detail about, I head for the NIV and the Amplified.

For many years, I've been reading the One Year Bible in the New Living Translation, but this year I decided to stick with New King James. A change in reading will do me good. It's fun to compare the two translations.

One of my favorite Old Testament Bible stories is in Daniel when King Belshazzar saw the writing on the wall.

[termyt]

The formation of the Bible and why some books were canonized and some others were not is actually a process that took hundreds of years. There are several major divisions in Christianity and each has a different Bible. Western Protestants (most American and European Christians fall into this category) have a 66 book Bible while Catholics have that Bible with 15 or so more books. Ethiopian Christians include a lot more books while some Orthodox sects include less.

I’m not sure if there is an easy answer, but putting together the Bible as we know it today took hundreds of years worth of councils of holy men voting on one list or another. The basic discussions revolved around whether a certain book could be historically verified. If it could not be traced back to the first century, then it’s chances for inclusion were pretty slim.

I’m no expert in early church history, in fact I’ve never studied it at all, so I could be wrong about the rest of this, but I believe the 66 books of the protestant Bible was the final outcome of the canonization process. These books were reliably linked back to the times and places in history where they claimed to come from. Other books, which seemed reliable, or at least consistent with the teachings of God, but could not be verified, were placed in the Apocrypha. These writings are considered good, but do not rise to the level of the Holy Scriptures and are not canon. The additional books of the Catholic Bible were canonized after the initial 66 books and thus were not recognized by the leaders of the Reformation.

[Kaligraphic]

Originally, the books of the Old Testament were gathered as a collection of scrolls - first the Torah (Law), written by Moses, was placed in a position of reverence. As further books were written, they were recognized as being intended by God for use as scripture. There's a pretty stringent set of criteria for these. The reason that the Apocrypha were not originally included is that these books did not meet these stringent criteria. Some of these are helpful texts - In fact, some of them are even referenced by later scripture. Books like 1st and 2nd Maccabees were decent historical works. The thing is, they did not meet all of the criteria for holy writ. (On the other hand, though, you have, say, Judith, which mixes and matches names and nationalities and comes off looking more like a novel than scripture.)

For the New Testament, it was a bit faster - when Constantine came to power, He was pretty enthusiastic about his conversion, but he wanted to know what to read to understand things. So, he had the leaders of the Church gather together a list of what books are holy writ. Now, this list pretty much already existed during the persecutions - someone might give up Shepherd of Hermas, (a companion text of the New Testament), but would keep Romans safe. They had to differentiate between vital texts, and merely helpful texts. With Constantine's request for a list, the list they gave set the order that we now use.

The apocrypha was bundled with the existing canon later on, by the Roman Catholic Church. There are various perspectives on why it was bundled, so I'll leave that part to someone with more time.

[Kaori]

I don’t know all of the details either, but the books of the Apocrypha (also sometimes called the Deuterocanon) were added during the reign of Alexander the Great when the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Greek. Besides the addition of writings that hadn’t previously been considered canonical, in this Greek translation, the Septuagint, the books were rearranged into a more chronological order instead of the traditional Hebrew categories of the Law (Genesis through Deuteronomy), the Prophets, and the Writings. The translation was made for Jews who no longer spoke Hebrew, and the additional books explained the situation of Jews in Palestine during the intertestamental period.

During the Protestant reformation, there was an emphasis on scripture as the sole source of authority as opposed to scripture and church history both. The reformers went back to the original Hebrew canon, partly because the historicity of some of the Apocryphal books is questionable. The Catholics, in the counter-reformation, reaffirmed the larger canon, which is why their Bibles contain these books and Protestant Bibles do not.

Just as an additional bit of trivia, the name given for these books will differ depending on who you are talking to. Protestants generally refer to them as the Apocrypha (“hidden writingsâ€

[Technomancer]

[quote="Zane2"]. The Apocripher (spelling once again) meaning 'the second book'(?), contains other such scriptures, which some Christians actually have in their Bible, while others do not. Were these books removed during the reformation as a 'clean up' because they weren't originally in the OT and added over the years, or was it more of a slimming down effect?

I know that (without getting into denominational stuff) depending on what Bible you have with or without those extra books also leads to those dispuits over secondary issues between the big two, Caths and Prods, because those 'extra'/'odd' books mentioning stuff]

The Apocrypha is a superset that contains the Deuterocanonical texts (those used by the Catholics and Orthodox) as well the OT and NT apocryphal books which aren't included in any canon.

The history of the decisions that took place is one that is stretched over several centuries. The earliest documents show no official declaration of the canon, although individual church fathers had published their own opinions. Some used the deuteros and some did not. It wasn't until the mid to late 4th century that the final decisions were made regarding the matter. Pope Damasus (366-384) promulgated the canon that Catholics use today, and this decision was affirmed at the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage. However, the canon was not officialy closed until the Council of Trent in 1556 (prior to that time argument was limited so why bother? In any event subsequent councils all confirmed the same list).

Of the remaining balance are the books that the western church had doubts about. In part this regarded doctrine (esp. Enoch), but mostly the disputes centred around authorship and authenticity. Since there was never an ecumenical council before Trent that discussed the matter, the Eastern churches went their own way on the matter. After 1054 it was largely moot anyways.

As far as the Catholic/Protestant issue, the reason has to do with different root texts. The Catholic church used the Alexandrian canon, which had the Septuagint at its core. This canon included the books of Wisdom and Sirach which seem to have been strongly influenced by the philosophy of the classical world (I can't speak for Sirach, but Wisdom was almost certainly written by an Alexandrian Jew). There were some quibbles about this (esp. by St. Jerome), since at the time some of the deuteros had no known Hebrew original, or were not in any sense strictly Hebrew.

The Palestinian canon, which is used by the Jews and the Protestants is shorter by several books although unfortunately the exact reasons may never be fully known. According to tradition, following the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans the Jews decided on a canon at the council of Jamna. Unfortunately, no records of this council exist, so it is impossible to describe the nature of the proceedings. The Reformers preferred the narrower canon, both because of their acceptance of some earlier Christian doubts about the deuteros, but also because of the Jewish refusal to admit their canonicity. There were also, I understand some theological quibbles- since the books did not conform to their theology, they were ergo not canonical.



There is also quite a worthwhile article on the subject at:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

Also, on the NT
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

[oro!]

I woulda posted sooner had not this site broken down so many times.
I thought that the apochrypha contained some book that contradicted the NT. Was it the book of Thomas? I can't remember...
I prefer to read in the NIV version myself, since the King James' Version has old English which in vital points is hard for ME to understand. Actually, at the moment I am using it to help my learning in Spanish. What better reading way other than the Holy Bible?
I don't exactly have one favorite spot in the Bible, because so much of it gets me thinking and excites me. I love reading in Daniel, but also of the early king's reign in Kings, Samuel, and Chronicles.
I have yet to read the whole bible. I really wish that more Christians really had a yearning to find out more of God' word... anyway I'm ranting, so I'll spare y'all.

[wiggins]

The Book is God's perfect, true, and unfailing Word. I don't know what else to say.

[Technomancer]

I woulda posted sooner had not this site broken down so many times.
I thought that the apochrypha contained some book that contradicted the NT. Was it the book of Thomas? I can't remember

There are a variety of apocraphyl books that directly contradict what's already there, although there are those that don't (and are merely listed as 'edifying', rather than actual scripture). The problem is that they represent a variety of religious/philosophical traditions, so classification is sometimes a difficult manner. It helps to differentiate the deuterocanon (the books in the Catholic/Orthodox canon) from the aprocrypha itself, which are those books not contained in any canon.

The Gosple of Thomas BTW is a gnostic book and was left out of the canon for that reason.

[Arnobius]

Depends on what you mean by Apocrypha. Are you one who refers to the Deuterocanonical books as apocrypha, or are you referring to those books never accepted as official by any denomination.

Keep in mind that you run the risk of touching off a religious debate over these books, because Catholics accept the Deuterocanonical books as canonical while most Protestants don't.

The Deuterocanonical Books
Anyway, trying to keep my own denominational opinions out, Luther made use of the canon used by the Jews at his time, rejecting six books used by the Catholics that were found in Greek, but not in Hebrew. As I understand it, he felt that these books were contrary to the New Testament. Meanwhile, the Catholics believed that these books made very strong references to the New Testament. The beliefs reflected in these books revolved around theological issues that Luther rejected and the Catholics accepted.

Muddying the waters further, there is some scholarly debate that the Jews removed these books from their canon because in the early days of Christianity, these books were cited for proofs that Jesus was the Messiah.

The Apocrypha
There were other gospels and epistles written, but many were written by people long removed from the time of the Apostles, and were written by people who were trying to make points. Many were written by gnostics and other factions that were rejected by most Christians. WHile the books we have in the NT (and both Protestants and Catholics are in agreement on the # of books in the NT) were written to tell about the salvation offered to all who would accept, the gnostic gospels were written to claim that Jesus had secret teachings not available to the "common" people (gnosis = Greek for knowledge or teaching). Generally written as a justification for why they were right and the main body of Christianity was wrong. I've read some of these and a lot of them are sheer nonsense and none of them have the sense of authority the real scriptures have

[GhostontheNet]

Muddying the waters further, there is some scholarly debate that the Jews removed these books from their canon because in the early days of Christianity, these books were cited for proofs that Jesus was the Messiah.

I confess to being ignorant about this particular debate, but it sounds like a dubious argument to me. If they're excluding such books for major use by Christians, why not toss out stuff like the second Book of Isaiah (i.e. chapters 40 to the end) and the second Book of Daniel (chapters 7 to the end) which saw extremely heavy use by Yeshua Christ and the Christian movement due to great similarities all in all with the Christian message?

[Arnobius]

OK, I went back to my old texts and see that I misremembered this. What I should have said was that:
Among the Jews, there were also disputes on what their canon was. So, when this upstart group of Christians starts using texts that they are debating the validity of, it made the books less welcome. When the Jews held their council in Jamnia after the destruction of the Temple and basically set forth what the Jews were going to do without the temple, they declared the Christians to be expelled from their midst. They also decided not to accept the validity of these "deuterocanonical" books. So books like Issiah and Daniel were clearly recognized, while the books like Maccabees and Ezra were not. The fact that the Christians accepted these books seemed like a good argument for the Jews to reject them.

Interesting to see that even the Jews were not 100% in agreement on this:
http://www.ibri.org/13jamnia.html
(can be a bit dry but shows that the Jews themselves didn't agree on their canon until AD90)

[GhostontheNet]

OK, I went back to my old texts and see that I misremembered this. What I should have said was that:
Among the Jews, there were also disputes on what their canon was. So, when this upstart group of Christians starts using texts that they are debating the validity of, it made the books less welcome. When the Jews held their council in Jamnia after the destruction of the Temple and basically set forth what the Jews were going to do without the temple, they declared the Christians to be expelled from their midst. They also decided not to accept the validity of these "deuterocanonical" books. So books like Issiah and Daniel were clearly recognized, while the books like Maccabees and Ezra were not. The fact that the Christians accepted these books seemed like a good argument for the Jews to reject them.

Interesting to see that even the Jews were not 100% in agreement on this:
http://www.ibri.org/13jamnia.html
(can be a bit dry but shows that the Jews themselves didn't agree on their canon until AD90)

Even this is dubious, as I recall N.T. Wright (in Jesus and the Victory of God and The New Testament and the People of God, also citing other scholars who concur, challenging whether Christians were expelled at all point by point. The closest he comes to this line of thought is admitting the possibility that one motivation for another translation of the Bible into Greek may in part have been influenced by irritation at the widespread use of the Septuagint by early Christians.

[Arnobius]

I believe the Jews put anathema on the followers of Christ. It was in their documents that those who professed Jesus to be the Messiah were to be put out of the synagogue. This was part of Jamnia. I don't doubt that it took a while for the word to spread, but there certainly was a break between the Christians and Jews.

[GhostontheNet]

I believe the Jews put anathema on the followers of Christ. It was in their documents that those who professed Jesus to be the Messiah were to be put out of the synagogue. This was part of Jamnia. I don't doubt that it took a while for the word to spread, but there certainly was a break between the Christians and Jews.

The benediction, as shown at http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Prayers/Daily_Prayers/Shemoneh_Esrei/Birkat_HaMinim/birkat_haminim.html , doesn't specifically call for excommununication, nor does it specifically mention the Christians. And anyone can see it more reads more things into the sources than they say. Although obviously I can't reproduce multiple pages here, one cite is somewhat telling]The theory has been advanced that Jamnia propounded a modification to the twelfth clause within the ancient prayer known as the 'Eighteen Benedictions', which invokeded a curse on heritics in general and Christians in particular and thus made it impossible for Christians to continue worshipping in synagogues, which, according to this theory, many of them had been happily doing until this point... it must also be noted that 'there is little evidence for "witch hunting" in general and anti-Christian activity in particular' in the period between 70 and 135. Instead, it is probable that the 'heretics' in view included many groups of whom the Christians were only one, and that the measure taken against them did not necessarily extend to expulsion... Among other arguments, the fact that some of the later Christian Fathers felt constrained to warn their congregations agaist attending the synagogue makes it very unlikely that an anti-Christian prayer formed a regular part of the synagogue liturgy. (N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God[/QUOTE] Wright also cites a number of scholars who agree with him on his arguments.

[Zane]

Thank you everyone. Talk about muddying the water for sure.
So here is my follow-on question;

With 'all' this confusion over what is Holy Scripture and what isn't, and the different outcomes we currently have, in the form of the Cath and Prod Bibles, which to be honest, both have differenet emphasis on salvation; 'faith alone' and 'faith and works'.... Since we are talking about the Word of God; How can, or perhaps why does, God allow for this kind of confusion regarding his word.

I suppose the Gospel itself is not 'corrupted' or dispuited about (besides JWs etc), but the implications of the Gospel; ie salvation, are.

It would seem to me that God would not let his Word be corrupted or confusing to his sheep. Yet the confusion over what is 'in' and 'out' would appear, to the outsider in particular, that it is not holy, or 'one of a kind'.
For example, I have a friend who raised an interesting point; He said he found it hard to believe that the Bible, the uncorruptable, holy, Word of God which talks about the sinfullness of Mankind, is itself, although written by these sinfull men, holy and untouched by this sinfullness. Almost hypocrical really...

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Its man's interpretation of the Bible that has corrupted thoughts, not the actual Bible. The Bible states clearly that it is through faith alone that we are saved (Grace - an undeserved gift from God) nothing we can do could save us. Only Jesus can, otherwise his death was in vain. And it wasn't.

The Bible was 'breathed' by God. In other words he told the authors what to write and they did. They weren't allowed to use their own artistic license. The Bible was going to be factual.

[VioletEyedCat]

Wow- really serious conversation on a subject really unfamiliar to me. Might as well insert a random factoid:

Did you know that if they destroyed every copy of the Bible (yes, the ones stored electronically too) that is in existance you would be able to reconstruct it in pretty much its entirety from other books that made references to it?

Just an example to show the influence of the Bible on authors worldwide throughout history.

[GhostontheNet]

Thank you everyone. Talk about muddying the water for sure.
So here is my follow-on question] The Canon disputes span back quite far indeed, though we are all agreed on that the 66 books of the protestant canon are inspired. After that, core essentials aren't terribly affected in believers of various times who have, say, held to the inspiration of Maccabees and Enoch. All in all, even the Bible itself it not needed for the essential thing; salvation itself.

It would seem to me that God would not let his Word be corrupted or confusing to his sheep.

Certainly not dilliberately, though translation and transfer outside the rhetorical and social conditions of the original audiences can murk the water. Perhaps Revelation is a good example of this, where several think John was a madman or on drugs because they take him out of the context he wrote in.

For example, I have a friend who raised an interesting point; He said he found it hard to believe that the Bible, the uncorruptable, holy, Word of God which talks about the sinfullness of Mankind, is itself, although written by these sinfull men, holy and untouched by this sinfullness. Almost hypocrical really...

That's a no brainer, give a testimonial of what one can be when following these guidelines. Although to be sure the biblical writers were a far cry from perfect, their mistakes and deeds done correctly provide a wonderful example to readers of all ages of what and what not to do. One cannot deny that though they were sinful, that they were not taking proper steps to counter that. This is somewhat like complaining about testimonials from ex-drug addicts about their dangers in anti drug campaigns .

[Namelessknight]

I've been reading a new translation[to me anyway], its the New English Standard. from what i understand, it is a modern language yet literal[as possible] translation. I really like it. But i try to shake things up and read a different bible translation each year[i read my bible thru in a year], so far i've managed to do the NES, NIV, new kingjames, kingjames, american standard, new american standard, and some version i can't remember[seems like it was some fringe translation :-) refreshing, but kind of weird].

[GhostontheNet]

I've been reading a new translation[to me anyway], its the New English Standard. from what i understand, it is a modern language yet literal[as possible] translation. I really like it. But i try to shake things up and read a different bible translation each year[i read my bible thru in a year], so far i've managed to do the NES, NIV, new kingjames, kingjames, american standard, new american standard, and some version i can't remember[seems like it was some fringe translation :-) refreshing, but kind of weird].

Not to be confused with the also recent English Standard Version that I often use?

[Nate]

This is somewhat like complaining about testimonials from ex-drug addicts about their dangers in anti drug campaigns.

I like that analogy.

so far i've managed to do the NES

I tried to read that translation, but it was a pain in the rear. I had to keep taking out the cartridges and blowing on them and reinserting them countless times.

*Realizes he made a bad joke and flees from the angry mob*

[Namelessknight]

Not to be confused with the also recent English Standard Version that I often use?

Doh! Yeah, I meant English Standard Version. sorry about that...

[Zane]

Here's something that came up in my one-on-one bible reading just yesterday. We are reading Romans and in 2; 9-10 and in chapter one somewhere, Paul say "to the jew first and then the gentile".
We've seen it about 3 times so far, but in Romans 2;11, he says; "God dosn't show favouritism".

So then, why and what does Paul mean by says; "the jew first, then the gentile"?

[termyt]

I do not believe Paul is ranking Jews and Gentiles in this passage – as in saying one is better than the other. Instead, he is including the Gentiles in the promise and salvation of Christ.

The Jews were the chosen people of God. They were to be His holy priesthood to the rest of the world. Because of their stiff necks, things did not work out as God had intended, so He sent His son to patch things up. So, Jesus came to preach His message to the Jews. He spent His entire ministry with the Jews with only a couple of references to Gentiles.

Paul is the one primarily responsible for first taking Jesus’s message to the Gentiles.

That is what this passage in Romans is alluding to. The message came first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles. The responsibility for following God (and thus the rewards and punishments) came first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. It’s a chronological order, not a ranking.

This is why he says that God shows no partiality. The Gentiles may have come late to the banquet, but we have a full inheritance as sons of God through Christ our savior if we believe.

(Reference: Read the three parables found starting in Matthew 21:28-22:14. Here Christ predicts the Jew’s rejection of His Gospel and the Gentile’s acceptance.)

[Zane]

Thanks termyt, we thought it had something to do with that.

[Azier the Swordsman]

Don't forget that every version other than the old King James Version has been corrupted by Satan.... and desigend to turn you away from God. Check this pile of hogwash out.... http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp