The Protestant Bible is flawed

[CrochetOverCoffee]

Is the Bible from God?

Hi @CrochetOverCoffee

@CrochetOverCoffee said "As for the books commonly called the Apocrypha, those who organized the books of the Bible into a single volume had certain criteria for including the ones they did, and excluding those they did not. Among these were contradictions of plain doctrine, frivolous details, contradiction of history, and conspicuous stylistic differences pointing to inauthenticity." (Post #30)

I have interest in the specific history you allude to regarding the adoption of the western canon (as opposed to the various other canons, e.g. eastern, catholic cannon, protestant canon, syrian, etc.)

Can you provide some historic details and examples of actual discussions of "those who organized the books of the Bible into a single volume" and their "criteria for including the ones they did" regarding "contradictions of plain doctrine, frivolous details, contradiction of history, and ....inauthenticity" that you alluded to?

What specific people are you referring to?
What is it they actually said regarding their criteria you say they used?
Why did they exclude specific books?
For example, Why did they say they excluded enoch when Jude quoted from it?
For example, Why did they say they excluded Hermas when it was in the earlier Sinaiticus?

Individuals from time to time will represent these unnamed individuals and without quoting who they are and exactly what they said. I am interested in who you claim these people are and what they actually said as they "organized the books of the Bible into a single volume".

thanks in advance for offering us additional details regarding this specific claim you made.

Clear
(ειδρφυδρω)

Okay. The information you're requesting is virtually a book. However, I would love to share with you my resources. From Apologetics Press, I first went to their Defending The Faith Study Bible, Special Section: Why The Apocrypha Are Excluded From The Bible (pages 1716-1717). From World Video Bible School, I used the video The Truth About the Apocrypha and the Lost Books of the Bible, and the program How We Got the Bible. I also purchased the course notes How We Got the Bible Second Edition | WVBS Store. Some other good programs on this subject are Has the Bible Been Corrupted?, Is the Bible from God?, and Is the Bible Reliable?.

I'm not trying to deflect you, I promise. It's just a lot of information, enough to study for many days if you wanted to just sit down and go through it and check all of the writers' sources. I also don't want to risk violating their copyrights by quoting too much here on the forum. However, if you would like to study privately with me on this matter, let me know, and I'll be happy to set something up!

 

[metis]

Is the Bible from God? Okay.

The issue of Divine inspiration has always been a question, not an answer, as theologians are all over the place on this-- as I am.

However, I would love to share with you my resources. From Apologetics Press, I first went to their Defending The Faith Study Bible, Special Section: Why The Apocrypha Are Excluded From The Bible (pages 1716-1717). From World Video Bible School, I used the video The Truth About the Apocrypha and the Lost Books of the Bible, and the program How We Got the Bible. I also purchased the course notes How We Got the Bible Second Edition | WVBS Store. Some other good programs on this subject are Has the Bible Been Corrupted?, Is the Bible from God?, and Is the Bible Reliable?.

This is indeed a deflection.

However, if you would like to study privately with me on this matter, let me know, and I'll be happy to set something up!

Thanks for the offer but I have taught theology both at a church and a synagogue for about three decades now and I read theological works at least several times per week.

BTW, please quote or use a @name when responding or people will not know whom you're responding to. I almost missed your post above.

Take care.

 

[CrochetOverCoffee]

OK, check out the four Gospels account of the women at Jesus' tomb as no two accounts match in their details. The general narratives do match but not the details. Also, in the Tanakh, the accounts of the Flood don't match on the details, nor do the census.

Please do not make an idol out of scriptures as God is perfect, imo, but God is not the Bible. Yes, it is highly valuable as I read it every day of the week as part of my morning prayers, but it ain't perfect.

If the gospels perfectly agreed with one another in every single detail, their writers would have been accused of collusion. Instead, we have different perspectives, different background information, and one focusing on a certain part while another adds additional details. But that's not a contradiction. The same kind of differences can be found in the other parts of the Bible that you mentioned.

Here's a non-biblical example: One man, we'll call him Bill, says, "I went to the movie with my wife. Jim was there, too." Bill and Jim are best friends, so it makes sense that Bill focuses on his wife and Jim. But Bill says, I went to the movie with my wife. Jim and his wife were there, too, along with a bunch of guys from work with their significant others." Did Bill lie because he didn't mention the others? No. The statements don't have perfect agreement, but both are true.

The point is, these textual variations aren't by definition mistakes or corruptions.

 

[Clear]

@CrochetOverCoffee said "As for the books commonly called the Apocrypha, those who organized the books of the Bible into a single volume had certain criteria for including the ones they did, and excluding those they did not. Among these were contradictions of plain doctrine, frivolous details, contradiction of history, and conspicuous stylistic differences pointing to inauthenticity." (Post #30)

Clear asked : "Can you provide some historic details and examples of actual discussions of "those who organized the books of the Bible into a single volume" and their "criteria for including the ones they did" regarding "contradictions of plain doctrine, frivolous details, contradiction of history, and ....inauthenticity" that you alluded to?
What specific people are you referring to?
What is it they actually said regarding their criteria you say they used?
Why did they exclude specific books?
For example, Why did they say they excluded enoch when Jude quoted from it?
For example, Why did they say they excluded Hermas when it was in the earlier Sinaiticus?
Individuals from time to time will represent these unnamed individuals and without quoting who they are and exactly what they said. I am interested in who you claim these people are and what they actually said as they "organized the books of the Bible into a single volume". (post #39)


@CrochetOverCoffee responded : "Okay. The information you're requesting is virtually a book. " (post #41)
No, I am NOT requesting a virtual book of information.
I simply asked for examples of what specific people you are referring to in your claim.

Can you name just 5 people "who organized the books of the bible into a single volume" and tell us just five things they actually said when they created "criteria for including the ones they did".
Can you give us just two specific and actual quotes from these five individuals regarding why they excluded the specific books of Enoch or Hermas?
As I said, individuals will from time to time, make claims without actually having authentic data to support the claims they make and you made a specific claim I have interest in.
If you overstated, this is the time to withdraw your claim.

@CrochetOverCoffee said : "However, I would love to share with you my resources. " (post #41)
I don't want to share your resources, we probably have some of the same resources.
I simply want a few specific, authentic, actual examples of statements from the people you referred to in your claim.


@CrochetOverCoffee said : "I'm not trying to deflect you, I promise. It's just a lot of information, enough to study for many days...." (post #41)
This deflection you are offering is that this is "a lot of information", "enough to study for many days".
I did not ask for "many days" of study.
I simply requested a few simple, specific examples to support your initial claim.

Do you actually have ANY specific examples of actual statements from actual conversations from actual individuals "who organized the books of the Bible into a single volume"?


Clear
ειδρνεδρω

 

[metis]

If the gospels perfectly agreed with one another in every single detail, their writers would have been accused of collusion. Instead, we have different perspectives, different background information, and one focusing on a certain part while another adds additional details.

But the point is that the concept of inerrancy scripturally simply is bogus. Plus, it doesn't make even logical sense as it would take us to be inerrant to know that it is inerrant.

The point is, these textual variations aren't by definition mistakes or corruptions.

The Truth cannot be relative, thus there must be some "mistakes" since narratives on the same exact event sometimes differ.

The real importance deals with the general teachings, and generally speaking those normally are quite clear.

 

[pearl]

The point is, these textual variations aren't by definition mistakes or corruptions.

Each Gospel author wrote for his community and addressed the needs of his particular audience. What is the same throughout all is the confession of faith concerning who Jesus is, only the narrative changes.

 

[Muffled]

Up until the 19th century, no major Christian group taught that the scriptures were 100% inerrant. When some did, it was an overreaction against modernism that was the catalyst for some to take that position, which really doesn't make much sense because there's so many what theologians call "variations" found within.

I believe it depends on your view of errancy. No doubt the Bible has some things that are not correct but I believe God has not made an error by allowing them to be included.

 

[Muffled]

Each Gospel author wrote for his community and addressed the needs of his particular audience. What is the same throughout all is the confession of faith concerning who Jesus is, only the narrative changes.

I believe there are attempts to make the Bible into a more familiar story. For instance turning God into a "she." It may be technically correct through the Paraclete but it is not historically correct to change the reference to God as "He" and "Him."

 

[pearl]

I believe there are attempts to make the Bible into a more familiar story. For instance turning God into a "she." It may be technically correct through the Paraclete but it is not historically correct to change the reference to God as "He" and "Him."

Since God is neither male nor female either is appropriate, as is 'God our Mother'. I noticed that many Protestants, when praying the Our Father, it to a 'which'.

 

[metis]

I believe it depends on your view of errancy. No doubt the Bible has some things that are not correct but I believe God has not made an error by allowing them to be included.

I don't believe it is even remotely possible that we can ourselves determine what the level is.

 

[Muffled]

I don't believe it is even remotely possible that we can ourselves determine what the level is.

I believe coming from a Puritan background I should demand more of my Bible and of God for that matter, but instead we get the KJV and popes. So I have learned to just let God be God and let Him worry about that sort of thing.

 

[metis]

I believe coming from a Puritan background I should demand more of my Bible and of God for that matter, but instead we get the KJV and popes.

So, you don't believe that what Peter and the Others did was right & proper? Any idea of who chose the books for your Bible? If you didn't learn from the Bible or your preachers and teachers, where did you learn about God and Jesus?

 

[sojourner]

I grew up in Protestant churches that taught Biblical literalism. Churches also teach that the canon of the Bible and the Bible’s present form is perfect, thanks to divine guidance.
Gotquestions is a good reflection of the Protestant sentiment I have encountered in real life, so I’ll use them for an example
How and when was the canon of the Bible put together? | GotQuestions.org
From the link
The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible... Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon.
Biblical literalism is a popular teaching in Protestant circles, even if online it is not so much popular.
Can/should we interpret the Bible literally? | GotQuestions.org
Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally.
Well, if you take the Bible with 100% literalness, then you come across the problem. Jude 1:14-15 quotes Enoch 1, claiming that it is the words of the prophet Enoch himself. So, a literal interpretation says that Enoch 1 should be canon in the Bible.
What do Protestants say about this?
What is the book of Enoch and should it be in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org
The Book of Enoch is any of several pseudepigraphal (falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is unfounded) works that attribute themselves to Enoch... The biblical book of Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch... But this does not mean the Book of Enoch is inspired by God and should be in the Bible... It is interesting to note that no scholars believe the Book of Enoch to have truly been written by the Enoch in the Bible.
hmm... I wonder if scholars feel like Moses wrote the Torah? Of course not! Yet...
What is the JEDP Theory? | GotQuestions.org
suddenly scholarship is ridiculous and baseless theory.
I’ve come to possible two conclusions, from my Biblical literalist POV.
1. The canon of the Protestant Bible is incorrect. If 1 Enoch is missing from the canon, then that means there may be other books missing from canon. If books are missing from canon, then doesn’t that mean that some books that are considered canon could possibly not be truly inspired?
2. If the canon is correct, as in the way GOD Himself sees canon, then you cannot take the Bible with 100% literalness.
Either way, I’ve believed in the infallibility of the Protestant Bible for all of my life, and now I’m beginning to question if that’s a reasonable position. Obviously not, right?

“Canon” is an arbitrary standard that has been grossly misunderstood and misapplied. Originally, the canon (which means “standard” or “measure”) was simply “stuff that’s ok to read in church.” It was a basis, not a disqualifier. We use it to determine what’s “valid.” But that wasn’t the original intent. There are numerous canons, depending on the tradition. The Protestant canon is the shortest. The Ethiopian canon contains 81 texts.

Additionally, ultimately, it was church councils that decided what should be in the canon.

Plus, the texts were never intended to be read literalistically.

 

[sojourner]

I guess I always figured that it was logical to take the whole Bible literally because I can’t figure out where to draw the line. For example, one might not take the creation story literally, but rather allegorically. This hypothetical person will perhaps take the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus literally, however. Where do you draw the line and decide what’s to be taken literally and what isn’t? Can you still call yourself a Christian if you don’t take the story of Jesus literally?

Yes. Being a Christian doesn’t hinge on literally believing what’s written in the texts. There were no written Gospels for the first 70 years of the church’s existence. Being a Christian hinges, rather, on patterning one’s life on the teachings of Jesus through his Apostles.

 

[metis]

Yes. Being a Christian doesn’t hinge on literally believing what’s written in the texts. There were no written Gospels for the first 70 years of the church’s existence. Being a Christian hinges, rather, on patterning one’s life on the teachings of Jesus through his Apostles.

Amen.

 

[Muffled]

So, you don't believe that what Peter and the Others did was right & proper? Any idea of who chose the books for your Bible? If you didn't learn from the Bible or your preachers and teachers, where did you learn about God and Jesus?

Do you have to be reminded that Jesus said to Peter: "Get behind me satan."?

I have no idea who formulated the Protestant books of the Bible but perhaps Luther was involved.

 

[Muffled]

Yes. Being a Christian doesn’t hinge on literally believing what’s written in the texts. There were no written Gospels for the first 70 years of the church’s existence. Being a Christian hinges, rather, on patterning one’s life on the teachings of Jesus through his Apostles.

I believe patterning on Jesus is just Judaism with Christian trappings. I believe in having Jesus as my Lord and Savior. He will chose my pattern for me whether in the Bible or not. I am not about to write the book of Glenn though.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I grew up in Protestant churches that taught Biblical literalism. Churches also teach that the canon of the Bible and the Bible’s present form is perfect, thanks to divine guidance.
Gotquestions is a good reflection of the Protestant sentiment I have encountered in real life, so I’ll use them for an example
How and when was the canon of the Bible put together? | GotQuestions.org
From the link
The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible... Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon.
Biblical literalism is a popular teaching in Protestant circles, even if online it is not so much popular.
Can/should we interpret the Bible literally? | GotQuestions.org
Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally.
Well, if you take the Bible with 100% literalness, then you come across the problem. Jude 1:14-15 quotes Enoch 1, claiming that it is the words of the prophet Enoch himself. So, a literal interpretation says that Enoch 1 should be canon in the Bible.
What do Protestants say about this?
What is the book of Enoch and should it be in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org
The Book of Enoch is any of several pseudepigraphal (falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is unfounded) works that attribute themselves to Enoch... The biblical book of Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch... But this does not mean the Book of Enoch is inspired by God and should be in the Bible... It is interesting to note that no scholars believe the Book of Enoch to have truly been written by the Enoch in the Bible.
hmm... I wonder if scholars feel like Moses wrote the Torah? Of course not! Yet...
What is the JEDP Theory? | GotQuestions.org
suddenly scholarship is ridiculous and baseless theory.
I’ve come to possible two conclusions, from my Biblical literalist POV.
1. The canon of the Protestant Bible is incorrect. If 1 Enoch is missing from the canon, then that means there may be other books missing from canon. If books are missing from canon, then doesn’t that mean that some books that are considered canon could possibly not be truly inspired?
2. If the canon is correct, as in the way GOD Himself sees canon, then you cannot take the Bible with 100% literalness.
Either way, I’ve believed in the infallibility of the Protestant Bible for all of my life, and now I’m beginning to question if that’s a reasonable position. Obviously not, right?

It just needs better editors.

 

[metis]

Do you have to be reminded that Jesus said to Peter: "Get behind me satan."?

I have no idea who formulated the Protestant books of the Bible but perhaps Luther was involved.

With the exception of the Apocrypha, which he inserted between the two testaments, he kept the same books as the Catholic Church did. Most Protestant editors removed the Apocrypha later.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

With the exception of the Apocrypha, which he inserted between the two testaments, he kept the same books as the Catholic Church did. Most Protestant editors removed the Apocrypha later.

That's almost completely correct. I would only add that the Lutheran church also questions the canonicity of seven New Testament books, which they refer to as the Antilegomina (or "disputed books"). These questioned books include: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Hebrews, and Revelation.