Barrackubus
Residential Occultist
When it comes to the Bible nobody knows what is and.what is not inspired...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the Canon of Scripture incomplete??
- Thread starter Barrackubus
- Start date
Barrackubus
Residential Occultist
Not trying to exclude those individual canonized versions of the Bible. It is that I am addressing the protestant king james bible or any derivative of that canon....
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Then why the OP? Of course that canon is incomplete, because there are other known texts that have been long established as canon in other traditions.
IMO, the whole notion of what the canon has become SUCKS DONKEYS. It was never meant as a definitive list of what was authentic. it was originally meant to be a starting point -- essentially, "This is the stuff we think is OK to read in church."
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
To answer your question of whether there are quotes in the Bible that are not from the Bible, Paul often quoted pagan poets.
Barrackubus
Residential Occultist
It is true christianity and catholicism has alot of paganism mixed in and they don't even know it...but tht's another thread....
All scripture is given by inspiration of God.
So, any book that is inspired by God is scripture.
If a book is found to contain error, then that book is removed, that is how King James project worked.
The task of translation was undertaken by 47 scholars, although 54 were originally approved.[10] All were members of the Church of England and all except Sir Henry Savile were clergy.[46] The scholars worked in six committees, two based in each of the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, and Westminster. The committees included scholars with Puritan sympathies, as well as High Churchmen. Forty unbound copies of the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible were specially printed so that the agreed changes of each committee could be recorded in the margins.[47] The committees worked on certain parts separately and the drafts produced by each committee were then compared and revised for harmony with each other.[48] The scholars were not paid directly for their translation work, instead a circular letter was sent to bishops encouraging them to consider the translators for appointment to well paid livings as these fell vacant.[46] Several were supported by the various colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, while others were promoted to bishoprics, deaneries and prebends through royal patronage.
The committees started work towards the end of 1604. King James I of England, on 22 July 1604, sent a letter to Archbishop Bancroft asking him to contact all English churchmen requesting that they make donations to his project.
The committee was inpired by God, and no single person has right to uninspire anything just because he doesnt like it.
What is amazing is how they did it.
They went around the world, took all known texts of the Bible that had been copied for the last 2000 years and compared them. This is called the majority text. they compared each verse with 4700 different Bibles and found the majority matched 99 percent. the Bible that didnt match were ignored.
God promises by faith that the Bible would be preserved.
and keep it true forever.
so if you have faith you believe God.
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
So, any book that is inspired by God is scripture.
If a book is found to contain error, then that book is removed, that is how King James project worked.
The task of translation was undertaken by 47 scholars, although 54 were originally approved.[10] All were members of the Church of England and all except Sir Henry Savile were clergy.[46] The scholars worked in six committees, two based in each of the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, and Westminster. The committees included scholars with Puritan sympathies, as well as High Churchmen. Forty unbound copies of the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible were specially printed so that the agreed changes of each committee could be recorded in the margins.[47] The committees worked on certain parts separately and the drafts produced by each committee were then compared and revised for harmony with each other.[48] The scholars were not paid directly for their translation work, instead a circular letter was sent to bishops encouraging them to consider the translators for appointment to well paid livings as these fell vacant.[46] Several were supported by the various colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, while others were promoted to bishoprics, deaneries and prebends through royal patronage.
The committees started work towards the end of 1604. King James I of England, on 22 July 1604, sent a letter to Archbishop Bancroft asking him to contact all English churchmen requesting that they make donations to his project.
The committee was inpired by God, and no single person has right to uninspire anything just because he doesnt like it.
What is amazing is how they did it.
They went around the world, took all known texts of the Bible that had been copied for the last 2000 years and compared them. This is called the majority text. they compared each verse with 4700 different Bibles and found the majority matched 99 percent. the Bible that didnt match were ignored.
God promises by faith that the Bible would be preserved.
and keep it true forever.
so if you have faith you believe God.
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Shermana
Heretic
Considering the KJV didn't remove any books of the Catholic Bible (at least the original didn't, they removed the Apocrypha about 200 years after its first publication), I don't see where you get "That's how the KJV worked".
How do you know God didn't preserve the Bible in the Ethiopian Canon?
Back in the day, there were numerous canons circulating. The DSS authors as well had their own canons. Who is to decide whose Canon was valid scripture or not?The Church Fathers like Clement went by works like Apocalpyse of Peter and the Shepherd of Hermas. What gave the Romans authority 400 years later to throw them out?
Says who? You? How about no single person has the right to say who is inspired and who isn't instead. Why would anyone believe that the KJV authors were "inspired" just because someone says so? Why weren't the NIV authors inspired instead? There's a difference between "not liking it" and "not believing it because the facts are wrong".
Looks like you're unaware of how it really went down. They basically just collected whatever texts were available and they weren't very many. It was mostly based on earlier English renditions. Where are you learning your facts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_version#Sources
Last edited:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
there were oral jewish traditions that were stories passed down from generation to generation
some of the details of those traditions are likely to contain truth, especially the ones repeated by Jesus apostles....it doesnt mean books such as the book of 'enoch' contain complete truth though, but some accounts, if based on jewish traditions, just may have truth to them.
Last edited:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
because some of it contradicts the torah.
they were not included by the Jews, so why should they be included by the christians?
in the 1st century Josephus lists the jewish cannon and he doesnt mention those books as part of it.
the romans didnt decide....the jews already had their cannon long before the 1st century.
A bible book was accepted as authentic by the jews if the prophecies of the book proved to be true prophecies and if the writer was above reproach.
Shermana
Heretic
Like?
I see no reason to base my views on what Masoretes decided 500-1000+ years after the DSS authors. There's no reason to believe the 1st century Canon was in any way the same set of documents as earlier. And in 2 Esdras, it says there are 24 books for everyone, and 70 books for the wise. Did this tradition come out of thin air by the author of 2 Esdras? We also see that Sirach was called Scripture by the Talmud, so it appears that the total discarding of the Apocrypha was a later reaction than what the initial early Talmudists indicate.
And? It also appears Josephus went by 1 Esdras.
1 Esdras
Oh they did? By all means, show your source for this. I would love to see when and where the Jews finalized their canon long before the 1st century. I imagine so would a great many scholars.
So why was Esther approved? Interestingly, Sirach is listed as scripture in the Talmud. With that said, why would works like "Iddo the Seer" and "Gad" even be mentioned in Chronicles if it was to be rejected?
Last edited:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
the BOE names 'seven' archangels. The bible only has one archangel and his name is Michael...even the expression 'archangel' is only found in the singular in the bible.
josephus may have 'used' it, but there is quite a difference between viewing it as canonical and 'using' it. Here is what josephus states regarding the hebrew cannon:
Against Apion (I, 38-41 [8]) "We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time. Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws and the traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the lawgiver. . . . From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. Thus Josephus shows that the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures had been fixed long before the first century C.E.
In the 'traditional' jewish canon, some books were grouped together, such as the minor prophets which were all in one, so the number of books amounted to 22, but when they are split up, they number 39 in total and that is exactly how many books we have in our current bibles (except for those who include the apochrypha of course)
the source is Jospephus. A 1st century jewish historian.
a writings worth is found in its content. The account of Esther provides valuable historical information. It is completely in harmony with the rest of the inspired Scriptures and shows us how we can still remain loyal to God while living under superior authorities of a foreign land. The account also helps us to see that we, like Ester, can and should use every legal means possible to defend the interests of Gods people and their worship.
As for the writing of Ben Sirach of jerusalem, he contradicts Pauls statement at Romans 5:12-19, which places the responsibility for sin upon Adam, Ecclesiasticus says: From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die. (25:33, Dy) And he also shows to be a hardliner when it comes to women for he says he prefers any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman.25:19, Dy.
Would a person writing under Gods direction say that any sort of sin is acceptable as long as its not the sin from a woman? I think not!
Chronicals can mention the names of whoever it likes because it is an historical account about historical people. Naming people is what historians do.
Shermana
Heretic
That's not a contradiction by any stretch of the word. In Revelation it says there are Seven Angels (out of myriads of others) who are the main angels of the Lord. I see no reason to think that it needs to say "Archangels" in Revelation for the reader to know that they are of the Higher order.
He used it as if it was canonical.
That in no way shows that this Sadducee canon was by any means fixed from long ago.
And all that proves is that by the 1st century the Sadducees and perhaps Pharisees had decided on this, but I'd hesitate with the Pharisees since they seem to include Sirach.
Can you provide a single source that considers Esther to be historically valid?
By that logic, I see the rest of the Apocrypha as entirely within harmony of the rest of the scriptures. Including Enoch and much other of the non-canonical writings.
I've gone over this elsewhere, using Paul to discredit Sirach simply doesn't work. Why is Paul the inspired Epistle but not Sirach? I think Paul's epistles are not at all "in harmony" with the scriptures, or the other works of the NT for that matter whatsoever. The early Nazarene Jews felt similarly. Why should one believe Paul's epistles are valid by this logic? Because the early Orthodox Church agreed on them? Why not the books Clement and Iraneus went by like Shepherd of Hermas and Apocalypse of Peter?
I can totally understand what he's trying to say but for the sake of not sounding misogynistic I won't get into it here. Let's just say I wouldn't be getting all feminist about the rest of the scriptures.
No, it refers to those works as if they are authentic, prophetic works. The Ascension of Isaiah is considered by much of the Ethiopian Orthodox to be part of Canon for example even if they don't include it in the Bible and I believe its the same book spoken of in Chronicles, with perhaps some interpolations over the years. They weren't just naming history, they were naming scriptures they considered prophetic and thus were canonical at that time.
Last edited:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
the fesitval of Purim was established by Mordecai himself in praise and thanksgiving for the salvation of the jews in persia.
Esther 9:18 As for the Jews that were in Shu′shan, they congregated themselves on the thirteenth [day] of it and on the fourteenth [day] of it, and there was a rest on the fifteenth [day] of it, and there was a making of it a day of banqueting and of rejoicing. 19 That is why the country Jews, inhabiting the cities of the outlying districts, were making the fourteenth day of the month A′dar a rejoicing and a banqueting and a good day and a sending of portions to one another.
20 And Mor′de·cai proceeded to write these things and send written documents to all the Jews that were in all the jurisdictional districts of King A·has·u·e′rus, the nearby and the distant ones, 21 to impose upon them the obligation to be regularly holding the fourteenth day of the month A′dar and the fifteenth day of it in each and every year, ..... 28 And these days were to be remembered and held in each and every generation, each family, each jurisdictional district and each city, and these days of Pu′rim themselves should not pass away from the midst of the Jews and the commemoration itself of them not come to an end among their offspring.
Purim is a celebration based on the historical account of Esther. It is still celebrated today and has been celebrated ever since it was established in the 4th century BCE. It think that is plenty of evidence that the book of esther is historically authentic. The information in it about the persian empire is accurate and the details it gives about the inner workings of the kings court, which would only have been known by eye witnesses, is in harmony with what archeology reveals about the persian empire.
So its not a fanciful account, there's no mystiscism or magic or myths associated with it. Its simply a very well documented piece of Jewish history written by an eyewitness.
Paul was a christian, a member of the jerusalem congregation and a man chosen by Jesus himself. Paul had ample proof of being a prophet and of having the holy spirit upon him. For that reason alone I can take the word of Paul over the word of Ben Sirach anyday. Besides, we dont need Pauls writings to confirm that Ben Sirach was a fraud... we can see that from the words of Josephus which shows that the hebrew canon was considered 'complete' from the 4th century BCE:
From Artaxerxes (4th century bce) to our own time the complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets. We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to die for them.Against Apion, I, 41-43 (8).
And the thing is, Jerome (3rd century) made a list of the canon, as was current in his day, when he translated the Vulgate....and even back then, they knew which books were not a part of the inspired record. After listing the inspired books, he writes in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings in the Vulgate: Thus there are twenty-two books . . . This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a fortified approach to all the books which we translate from the Hebrew into Latin; so that we may know that whatever is beyond these must be put in the apocrypha.
And according to Jerome, he based his list from that of Josephus of the 1st century. So any books written between the 4th century BCE and 1st century CE (and most apocrypha are) could not be considered part of the hebrew canon if we accept the words of Josephus.
Shermana
Heretic
Pegg said:
2) The DSS authors obviously took the time to painstakingly copy other books that must have been in circulation.
3) The early Church Fathers had different opinions.
4) The mere fact that Chronicles references other works as prophetically authentic means that before then they did in fact consider other works like Gad and Iddo to be canonical.
5) Josephus could have in fact been covering up for the "70 books hidden for the wise" mentioned in 2 Esdras. If they're hidden for the wise, Josephus would not mention them.
6) The Talmud refers to Sirach as Writ, so its disclusion among the Pharisees (Whom Josephus was not a part of) obviously came well after the Talmud was initiated.
7) Jude quotes Enoch 1:9 as "prophetic" and obviously his readers were well acquainted with it and considered it prophetic too or he wouldn't have phrased it as such.
8) The mere fact that Josephus refers to 1 Esdras indicates that he was aware of its existence and may have considered it the "True Ezra".
That has absolutely nothing to do with historical authenticity.
Can you name a single scholar or link that would in any way say that Esther is remotely historically accurate, especially by that logic? That's as circular reasoning as it gets. What information about the Persian empire is in any way represented there that can be matched with historical sources?
So you could say the same for Maccabees.
That's disputable. The Nazarenes would most certainly disagree, and the overall Authenticity of Acts is disputed by most scholars. According to F.C. Baur and others, the "Pseudo-Clementine epistles" defacto used "Simon Magus" as a code word for Paul (whose story bears more than a passing resemblance, as in almost totally identical).
That's disputable too. I see no reason to believe he had ample proof. Because he said so? By the same logic, the Shepherd of Hermas had ample proof of being a prophet. You're simply giving standard Christian rhetoric, the reasoning is fallacious and not supportable.
Ummm, why can't I say that Ben Sirach was given the gift.
1) That in no way proves that the canon was closed by the 4th century, Josephus was of the Sadducee opinion and his word is by no means final on anything.
2) The DSS authors obviously took the time to painstakingly copy other books that must have been in circulation.
3) The early Church Fathers had different opinions.
4) The mere fact that Chronicles references other works as prophetically authentic means that before then they did in fact consider other works like Gad and Iddo to be canonical.
5) Josephus could have in fact been covering up for the "70 books hidden for the wise" mentioned in 2 Esdras. If they're hidden for the wise, Josephus would not mention them.
6) The Talmud refers to Sirach as Writ, so its disclusion among the Pharisees (Whom Josephus was not a part of) obviously came well after the Talmud was initiated.
7) Jude quotes Enoch 1:9 as "prophetic" and obviously his readers were well acquainted with it and considered it prophetic too or he wouldn't have phrased it as such.
8) The mere fact that Josephus refers to 1 Esdras indicates that he was aware of its existence and may have considered it the "True Ezra".
This entire post is filled with assumptions and presumptions, why does Jerome's word count but not Clement's or Iraneus's or Origen's?
So explain again why you're giving Jerome some kind of final say over the earlier Church fathers again?
Okay, so you assume that Josephus and Jerome somehow have this final word of authority that trumps other sources....because....?
Last edited:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
some of the features of its historical accuracy have been pointed out in the WT commentary from the study aid "All scripture Inspired" publication which states:
"The book presents Persian manners and customs in a lifelike way and in harmony with the known facts of history and archaeological discoveries. For example, the book of Esther accurately describes the way Persians honored a man. (6:8) Archaeological excavations have revealed that the descriptions of the kings palace as given in the book of Esther are exact to the smallest detail.5:1, 2.
5 This exactness is also to be noted in the account itself, in its careful naming of court officials and attendants, giving even the names of Hamans ten sons. The lineage of Mordecai and Esther is traced back to Kish of the tribe of Benjamin. (2:5-7) References are made to the official records of the Persian government. (2:23; 6:1; 10:2) The language of the book is late Hebrew, with many Persian and Aramaic words and expressions added, which style matches that of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, thus harmonizing completely with the period in which it was written.
6 It is thought that the events of Esther are set in the days when the mighty Persian empire was at its peak and that they cover about 18 years of the reign of Ahasuerus (Xerxes I). The time period, extending down to about 475 B.C.E., is indicated by testimony from Greek, Persian, and Babylonian sources. Mordecai, eyewitness and a major character in the account, was most likely the writer of the book; the intimate and detailed account shows that the writer must have lived through these events in Shushan the palace. Though he is not mentioned in any other Bible book, there is no question that Mordecai was an actual individual of history. Interestingly, an undated cuneiform text has been found that is described by A. Ungnad of Germany as referring to Mardukâ (Mordecai?) as a high official at the court of Susa (Shushan) during the reign of Xerxes I. It was there at Shushan that Mordecai no doubt completed the record of the events of Esther immediately after they took place, that is, about 475 B.C.E.
and they would claim such all without any evidence... old men telling unlikely stories as they do.
The miracles Paul performed are what provide the proof of holy spirit upon him. As Jesus said John 10:37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me. 38 But if I am doing them, even though YOU do not believe me, believe the works, in order that YOU may come to know and may continue knowing that the Father is in union with me and I am in union with the Father.
If Ben Sirach was speaking by Gods spirit, he would not have demeaned the female of Gods creation the way he did.
Nor would he claim that mankind do not have free will, nor would he claim that God is indifferent to the behaviors of mankind or that God does not reward virtue. These are pretty basic concepts in the hebrew scriptures... God wants mankind to practice righteousness, so obviously he is not indifferent as B.S claims.
And what a contradiction of belief, to admonish adherence to the law of moses, while at the same time say that God doesnt care what we do. Thats crazy.
there will always be some who want to go against the grain, but Jerome compiled the books that were accepted as canonical in his day. That means that in his day, the mainstream christians and Jews (according to Josephus) held to books that make up the bible today.
these were:
 1. Genesis
 2. Exodus
 3. Leviticus
 4. Numbers
 5. Deuteronomy
 6. Joshua
 7. Judges
 8. Samuel (First and Second together as one book)
 9. Kings (First and Second together as one book)
10. Isaiah
11. Jeremiah
12. Ezekiel
13. The Twelve Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, as one book)
14. Psalms
15. Proverbs
16. Job
17. The Song of Solomon
18. Ruth
19. Lamentations
20. Ecclesiastes
21. Esther
22. Daniel
23. Ezra (Nehemiah was included with Ezra)
24. Chronicles (First and Second together as one book)
anything besides these were viewed as uninspired for reasons that we can see when we examine the contents of the apochrypha and compare them to the books of the canon. We can see how they contradict the canon such as Ben Sirach when he says that God is indifferent to the way we behave and that he does not reward those who do good.
because they were both well respected and well known scholars who would not have done something deliberately as stupid as leave out a whole range of books and claim that those books were not accepted as inspired if they were accepted as inspired.
they had their reputations to consider.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
you need to define what you think constitutes a 'divinely inspired' account as opposed to an everyday account reported on by someone who thought it would be a good idea to make a note of what was going on.
Here, then, I will make an end of writing; if it has been done workmanly, and in historians fashion, none better pleased than I; if it is of little merit, I must be humoured none the less.2 Maccabees 15:38, 39, Kx.
Does this sound like someone who thought they were writing a divinely commissioned memoir?
well, The Muratorian fragment states that the 'Shepherd' could be read but made it clear that it was not a part of the cannon. That gives us some clue that as early as the beginning of the 2nd century, christians knew which letters were a part of the inpspired record and which were not.
The apocryphal Gospel of Peter was being read publicly too , but it was ordered to be rejected as false according to 'Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, p. 231. Tertullian reports that the writer of Acts of Paul was punished for posing as a first-century writer in De Baptismo 17. And in a letter written by Theodore of Egypt in the fourth century the apocryphal writings are referred to as the lying waters of which so many drank,
So the Christian community was aware of false teachers and writings that spread false information...they knew what was authentic and inspired and what was not and they were very careful to protect the integrity of the canon.
sorry, dont stone me just yet
i read something completely the wrong way...i just realized it said he 'attacks theories which he considers dangerous'
i thought it was saying he was the promoting those things. But just so you know, it doesnt make me suddenly think he must be an inspired writer. the mark of inspiriation is not simply in having correct teachings...if that were the case I could write a book myself based on the bibles teachings and i'd be able to proclaim myself inspired by God.