Is the bible word perfect? (infaliable? is that the right word?)

[sojourner]

Thank you.

 

[sojourner]

It's obvious that he was referring to the Bible that the Jews were using, no? If the Protestant Bible is then the same as the Hebrew Bible, why is that presumptuous? I do not claim to know everything about history. In fact, this is probably my weakest area. I know much more about the New Testament than the old. Nonetheless, I am under the impression that the Hebrew Bible is equivalent to the Protestant OT.

Your impression is mistaken.

 

[Doodlebug02]

It is from God but it is not perfect. It is corrupted. We no longer have the originals. This is a well known fact.

 

[sojourner]

It is from God but it is not perfect. It is corrupted. We no longer have the originals. This is a well known fact.

It is not perfect in terms of factual content. It is, though, perfectly scripture. I'd be interested to know just how "corrupted" the extant texts are from the "original texts." What did the "original texts" look like? Were they completely different? Does it really matter that the writings have been adapted, redacted, edited, etc. over the years? Does that significatly change their validity, or their status as scripture? I argue that it does not.

 

[kmkemp]

Your impression is mistaken.

Really? What book/s are on the Hebrew Bible and not in our OT?

 

[Quagmire]

Really? What book/s are on the Hebrew Bible and not in our OT?

Books that were included in the first century Septuegint (contemporary Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures) that didn't make it into the Christian OT canon include;


Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus Seirach, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremy (sometimes considered part of Baruch), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, Sosanna and Bel and the Dragon), additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Odes, including the Prayer of Manasses, and Psalm 151.

 

[kmkemp]

Books that were included in the first century Septuegint (contemporary Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures) that didn't make it into the Christian OT canon include;


Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus Seirach, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremy (sometimes considered part of Baruch), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, Sosanna and Bel and the Dragon), additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Odes, including the Prayer of Manasses, and Psalm 151.

OK so this post peaked my interest and I've done some amount of research.

According to my sources, the man who put the Septuagint together even said that they were not "books of the canon", but "books of the church". Additionally, do you know of any time that Jesus or any NT writers ever quoted from the Apocrypha? I can't think of any, but I can think of many, many quotes from every other section of the OT.

Still, even more convincing is what Melito (2nd century bishop) said about AD 170:
"When I came to the east and reached the place where these things were preached and done, and learnt accurately the books of the Old Testament, I set down the facts and sent them to you. These are their names:..."

He goes on to list every Protestant OT book except Esther and none from the Apocrypha.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

OK so this post peaked my interest and I've done some amount of research.

According to my sources, the man who put the Septuagint together even said that they were not "books of the canon", but "books of the church". Additionally, do you know of any time that Jesus or any NT writers ever quoted from the Apocrypha? I can't think of any, but I can think of many, many quotes from every other section of the OT.

Still, even more convincing is what Melito (2nd century bishop) said about AD 170:
"When I came to the east and reached the place where these things were preached and done, and learnt accurately the books of the Old Testament, I set down the facts and sent them to you. These are their names:..."

He goes on to list every Protestant OT book except Esther and none from the Apocrypha.

You're thinking about Jerome here. He's not the guy who put the LXX together.

As for quotes, read up on the book of Enoch - it's quoted explictly in the NT.

From the great and powerful wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Enoch

The book is referred to, and quoted, in Jude 1:14-15:

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these [men], saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
​

Compare this with Enoch 1:9, translated from the Ethiopian:

And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.
​

 

[kmkemp]

Still, I have to say, there seems to be strong evidence for my belief that the Protestant Canon are the books that Jesus considered the Old Testament. What would be your best argument that the Apocrypha should be part of the Canon?

 

[JayHawes]

people will always have exicuses as to why they do or dont believe the Bible. You dont see them complaing about the "correct" translation of the works of ancient scientist? They dont complain about the corrupt translation of the works of Plato, or Enstien (in German) or Newton, or Galileo....no they dont. Many things are translated, and EVERY translation will contian mistakes. Dont center out the bible as though man cannot mis translate something. As for the originals, they are faultless, to bad that more than 6 billion people can't read them because they are in Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek, that's why it must be translated.

 

[JayHawes]

Why isn't the Book of Enoch in the Bible? Mainly becuase only portions of it are accurate and seems to make sense. The Jews probably did not believe in the whole book of Enoch, or maybe they did....but even though-- they and all Jews before them did not consider it scripture. They considered it something good to read. Like an extra book or something. So we do the same.

Although portions may be true, not all of it is written by Enoch. Enoch existed before Noah. This whole book would have had to been pased down for over 4,500 years, and re-written so many times. Besides us being able to proove the prophecy true....there's not much more we can pull from it, unless we consider ancient Jewish teachings about heaven and hell,:sarcastic , which would be hard for many people to understand.

I like the prophecy that fortells about Jesus. And how many will go to him becuase he died for their sins, and they shall call him king, and he shall put crowns on their heads....oh.....how i joyed from within. There's no doubt some of Enoch is inspired of God. But there is doubt about other parts of it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why isn't the Book of Enoch in the Bible? Mainly becuase only portions of it are accurate and seems to make sense. The Jews probably did not believe in the whole book of Enoch, or maybe they did....but even though-- they and all Jews before them did not consider it scripture. They considered it something good to read. Like an extra book or something. So we do the same.

Although portions may be true, not all of it is written by Enoch. Enoch existed before Noah. This whole book would have had to been pased down for over 4,500 years, and re-written so many times. Besides us being able to proove the prophecy true....there's not much more we can pull from it, unless we consider ancient Jewish teachings about heaven and hell,:sarcastic , which would be hard for many people to understand.

I like the prophecy that fortells about Jesus. And how many will go to him becuase he died for their sins, and they shall call him king, and he shall put crowns on their heads....oh.....how i joyed from within. There's no doubt some of Enoch is inspired of God. But there is doubt about other parts of it.

This statement doesn't make sense. No book was accepted before it was written, and if Jude refers to one portion of it or read one portion of it as Scripture, it's likely that he accepts the whole thing. Furthermore, there is no collection of writings anywhere that has been wholesale adopted by all members of a religion, including Christianity.

Enoch was likely written about 150 BCE or so...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Still, I have to say, there seems to be strong evidence for my belief that the Protestant Canon are the books that Jesus considered the Old Testament. What would be your best argument that the Apocrypha should be part of the Canon?

It always has been and still is.

Its inclusion in the earliest Christian codex is enough for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

A brief quote from the wiki article is instructive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

"Early Christianity had no well-defined set of scriptures outside of the Septuagint.[5]"

 

[kmkemp]

You take a random quote from wikipedia as proof? The quote I had from AD 170 pretty much proves that the Apocrypha was not considered scripture at that time. That is more than 150 years before that codex. So it seems likely that the earlier version was much closer if not exactly the same as what Jesus was referring to.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You take a random quote from wikipedia as proof? The quote I had from AD 170 pretty much proves that the Apocrypha was not considered scripture at that time. That is more than 150 years before that codex. So it seems likely that the earlier version was much closer if not exactly the same as what Jesus was referring to.

Nope. I have read widely on this topic and several articles on wiki compliment my reading. It's simply more convienent to send readers to wiki rather than quote a book that they won't reference anyway.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The Apocrypha has always been considered Scripture by both Jews first and then Christians. There is no memory of it outside of its sacred nature. The only time it has not been considered Scripture is by European Protestants when they didn't want to print it. The theological explanation is only there (that the Apocrypha is not inspired) is because Europeans wanted to save printing costs.

EDIT: I've read over http://www.kencollins.com/bible-p1.htm and it is mostly accurate. I do disagree with him that Jews stopped using the LXX because of Christians.

This quote is instructive:

American printers discovered that they could leave out the Apocrypha and sell the Bible for the same price, and no one would care because it wasn’t used much. So they left out the Apocrypha to increase their profits. Some of the homegrown religious groups naïvely assumed that whatever was not in their Bible was not in the canon. Later, when Catholics became a significant segment of the population, a non-Catholic would say, “That’s not in my Bible” to a Catholic, completely unaware that it was the printer who left it out. A Lutheran pastor told me that one of his parishioners was insistent that the Lutheran Church did not recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture. The parishioner was astonished when he saw the church by-law that says it is. The parishioner had assumed that his copy of the Bible was complete when it wasn’t.

Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians use the Apocrypha and it is part of the Bible for them. Many independent churches and low-church denominations are only aware that it is not in their printing of the Bible, and think it is a Catholic addition when it is really a printer’s subtraction.

In other words, printers removed the Apocrypha from the Bible, not any church.

 

[kmkemp]

Nope. I have read widely on this topic and several articles on wiki compliment my reading. It's simply more convienent to send readers to wiki rather than quote a book that they won't reference anyway.

Fair enough, although I would love to see those sources. Even if they were in a book that I don't own, they should be on the web somewhere if they are a common argument.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The Apocrypha has always been considered Scripture by both Jews first and then Christians. There is no memory of it outside of its sacred nature. The only time it has not been considered Scripture is by European Protestants when they didn't want to print it. The theological explanation is only there (that the Apocrypha is not inspired) is because Europeans wanted to save printing costs.

How can you say that when I already provided you with proof? What reason do you have to not believe the proof?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Fair enough, although I would love to see those sources. Even if they were in a book that I don't own, they should be on the web somewhere if they are a common argument.

I'll thumb through some bibliography when I get home tonight. You're missing very basic stuff, however, that can be addressed by wiki articles. The articles on the LXX, apocrypha, canon, and Christian codexes are excellent introductions.

How can you say that when I already provided you with proof? What reason do you have to not believe the proof?

I didn't see any proof, only profound ignorance of the most basic nature concerning the topics. What proof do you think that you've presented? Seriously.

 

[kmkemp]

I didn't see any proof, only profound ignorance of the most basic nature concerning the topics. What proof do you think that you've presented? Seriously.

I don't know what your deal with insulting people is. I mean really, what have I done to you? If I had said that to most everyone else on this forum or any decent person, they would have looked back to see the proof I was speaking about. I think you should ask yourself why that is.

Still, even more convincing is what Melito (2nd century bishop) said about AD 170:
"When I came to the east and reached the place where these things were preached and done, and learnt accurately the books of the Old Testament, I set down the facts and sent them to you. These are their names:..."

He goes on to list every Protestant OT book except Esther and none from the Apocrypha.

That is dated way before the codex that you linked. It seems unlikely that they had it wrong that long after Jesus, but they magically got it right 150 years later.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Still, even more convincing is what Melito (2nd century bishop) said about AD 170:
"When I came to the east and reached the place where these things were preached and done, and learnt accurately the books of the Old Testament, I set down the facts and sent them to you. These are their names:..."

He goes on to list every Protestant OT book except Esther and none from the Apocrypha.

This is interesting, and I can't explain why he did not include the Apocrypha. He may not have known about it for some reason or had a mistrust of Jewish texts that were not written in Hebrew. We should keep in mind that canon lists are exceptionally rare and Melito only speaks for his very limited geographic area.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That is dated way before the codex that you linked. It seems unlikely that they had it wrong that long after Jesus, but they magically got it right 150 years later.

The earliest Christian codices are where we get the most authoritative text for the NT. It's where your Bible comes from, and it tells us a lot about what the earliest Christians considered to be Scripture. It's one thing to have a list from a sole bishop in Asia Minor, and quite another to have the text itself (of both the NT and OT and Apocrypha) together in one book (a codex) in a variety of geographic locations. The codices themselves are copies of earlier works...

note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus