What makes these other churches think they are right and other's are wrong?

DHK
I'm perfectly aware of all the things in your last post, that doesn't change the fact that there are 6 different Christian canons of the Old Testament floating around.
1. the RC canon 2. the Protestant canon 3. the Eastern-Orthodox canon 4. the Ethiopian-Orthodox canon 5. the Septuagint 6. the canon often adopted by the (rather evil) Christian Identity movement

 

Bumped for Bob Ryan </font>[/QUOTE]Bumped again for Bob. </font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]Bumped again.

How about it, Bob?

 

Those are all rather moot points. The Jewish nation, the Israelites, do not accept the Roman Catholic Bible, neither the any of the others that you mentioned. I was speaking of the Hebrew Old Testament, the one that the Jews accept; the Masoretic Text. It is written in Hebrew, contains only 22 books, which when subdivided are the same 39 books of our Bible. For example they consider the 12 books of the Minor Prophets as just one book. In the Hebrew Old Testament there is no book dated after 400 B.C. All the books are written in Hebrew.
All the books in the Apocrypha (or Pseudogriphia, more properly called), were written some time between 200 B.C. and 100 A.D.). Those dates in themselves would disqualify them from being part of the canon. So would the language in which they were written. They were never quoted by Christ or the Apostles; they apparently never considered them inspired either. Neither did the early believers and a host of early church fathers wrote against them. It seems as if the only ones consistently to defend these books are the Roman Catholics and some gnostics. The word "apocrypha" means "hidden." They were books that were supposed to have some hidden knowledge, according to some. Gnostics believed this. Many of those that used the apocrypha thus used it esoterically. They (the apocryphal books) had knowledge for the inside few, but they remained uninspired and were never a part of the canon of Scripture.
DHK

 

Bob, will we all be collecting social security before you get around to adressing this?

 

DHK,

Was not Paul a Jew? How about Peter? And yet the Jews do not accept their works as Holy Scripture, and yet they are. The Jews were trusted with the Oracles of God, yes, but they reject the Oracles of God named Peter and Paul (and others). We stopped trusting them when Paul started writing letters. So you both trust them and do not trust them.

You do realize that a good chunk of Daniel was written in Aramaic, right? I guess we should toss it out, since the language (Hebrew) is the final determinant for being included in the canon. Further, Sirach was written originally in Hebrew and was translated into Greek (as the opening states).

I will never understand why you trust the Jewish rabbis who reject Jesus Christ to tell you what belongs in the canon and what does not.

 

The OLD Testament is the very same that Jesus saw when He went to the temple. If there was any problem with that group of books HE would have said so.

None of the apocryphal books were ever accepted inspired at Jerusalem. They were always considered historic texts only and NOT inspired by GOD for inclusion with the Testament that Jesus HIMSELF would have read from. This is historical fact and can be documented through the rabbinical school. A Jew may not believe Jesus is the Messiah; however, an Orthodox Jew knows the historic dateline of his scriptures and the value of scrupulously copied text.

 

DHK&A_Christian
I agree with you 2 on your choiche of canon, however this doesn't matter simply, because the clear majority position within christianity has always been to reject a Jewish version of the OT canon, that was established decades after Jezus went to heaven by a movement within Judaism that was hostile to Christianity.

On top of that.
Matthew 22:23-33 is a very clear allusion to Tobit 3:7-17.
Luke 18:1-8 alludes to Ecclesiasticus 35:13-15.
Romans 5:12 closely alludes to Wisdom 2:24.
II Timothy 3:8 cites Jannes and Jambres.
Hebrews 11:37 refers to The Martyrdom of Isaiah.
Jude 8 cites The Assumption of Moses.
Jude 14-15 quotes The Book of Enoch directly.

When the Old Testament gets quoted in the new it is the Septuaginta that is used. The masoretic text is a product of the middle ages.

 

I have studied Hebrew, and as a result have a Hebrew Old Testament, the same one used today by orthodox Jews. It contains the same 22 books now as it did in the time of Christ. Those same 22 books are the same 39 books of our Old Testament. Nothing has changed. There is no apocrypha within its pages.
Furthermore, could you please document or provide evidence that this particular version of the Old Testament has ever been rejected by the Christian Community at large, apart from the Roman Catholics. The Masoretic Text (that is what it is), has always been used in our KJV and other Bibles. It is written in Hebrew (with a few minor portions in Aramaic).
Your asssertion is just plain wrong. We do use the same Old Testament as the Jews. It was never rejected by the majority of Christians, unless you are calling that majority heretics. They had a devout sacred reverence for the Word of God.

All of the references you gave citing the Apocryphal books are bogus. They make no reference to the Apocrypha at all. Even Jude citing the Book of Enoch, which was extant at that time, cannot be rightly considered as quoting the Apocrypha, for that particular book was never included in the Apocrypha as we have it today. It is an apocryphal book, and Jude did quote from it. The Holy Spirit inspired that part which was quoted, and the Holy Spirit led Jude to write that part of the book. That is the only part of the Book of Enoch that is inspired.
Paul preached on Mars hill and quoted from a Greek poet. Does that in turn mean that all Greek poetry is inspired? I certainly hope not. Not one of the apocryphal books (referred to or not) were ever inspired. Not one of them are ever cited in the New Testament.

When the Old Testament is cited, you say it was from the Septuagint. Maybe. However you have no direct proof of that statement. Jesus could just as easily used Hebrew, or even mentally translated the Hebrew Himself without using the Septuagint at all. He was not bound by translations. It was the Hebrew Old Testament that was read in the Temple and in the synagogues. That is what was sacred to the Jews. More than likely he used the Hebrew Old Testament when directly quoting Scripture.
DHK

 

DHK
"I have studied Hebrew, and as a result have a Hebrew Old Testament, the same one used today by orthodox Jews."
I have not, but that hasn't stopped me from buying one for the churchlibrary (it's good to be the verger ).

"It contains the same 22 books now as it did in the time of Christ. Those same 22 books are the same 39 books of our Old Testament. Nothing has changed. There is no apocrypha within its pages. "
Your orthodox Jewish Old Testament, contains the Masoretic texts, a medieval critical edition of the Jewish Bible. The canon it uses was officially established by the Pharisees during the 'synod' of Jamnia at the end of the 1st century A.D.
Before that several competing canons were in use. The Sadducees considered only the Tora canonical, the Jews in the Diaspora used the Septuagint and the Pharisees and their supportbase used more or less the same canon as we do nowadays, allthough some of the details (for example the canonicity of Esther) were heavily debated.


"Furthermore, could you please document or provide evidence that this particular version of the Old Testament has ever been rejected by the Christian Community at large, apart from the Roman Catholics."
The Christian Community at large can be carved up into 4 chunks.
Postreformation Christianity that uses the Jewish OT
Catholicism that uses the Jewish OT + deuterocanonicals
Eastern-Orthodoxy that still doesn't have a completely official unified canon. In practice they fit in close to the RC side of things.
http://www.bible.org/docs/qa/qa.asp?StudyID=147
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Eastern_Orthodox_OT_canon
Oriental-Orthodoxy, it's largest subgroup the Ethiopian-Orthodox church has a Biblical canon that is truly wild.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/ethiopican.html
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/ethold.stm
http://www.redlandsfortnightly.org/ethiopch.htm
In a sense the Catholic Church is the Christian Community at large (be greatfull that the majority often isn't right). Not counting them, the Orthodox churches are still an awfull large chunk of Christianity that also uses a different canon.
What is certain is that our view of the what constitutes the Biblical canon is only held by those christians that descent from the protestant Reformation.

 

"The Masoretic Text (that is what it is), has always been used in our KJV and other Bibles. It is written in Hebrew (with a few minor portions in Aramaic)."
I know. Just for future reference, I do not share the special respect that many American baptists seem to have for the KJV over all other translations.

"Your asssertion is just plain wrong. We do use the same Old Testament as the Jews. It was never rejected by the majority of Christians, unless you are calling that majority heretics."
It is not my fault that the Catholic Church is the one with the massive numbers. They are the majority. And yes we use the same OT as the modernday Jews (both liberals and orthodox ones)

"When the Old Testament is cited, you say it was from the Septuagint. Maybe. However you have no direct proof of that statement. Jesus could just as easily used Hebrew, or even mentally translated the Hebrew Himself without using the Septuagint at all."
Jezus no doubt used a Hebrew textversion that he when needed probably translated into either Aramaïc, or Koine Greek on the spot. Now the Gospel writers, those are the ones using the Septuaginta when they render the OT citations of Jezus into Greek.

"It was the Hebrew Old Testament that was read in the Temple and in the synagogues. "
In Israel yes, not in the Diaspora.

 

Bumped for Bob Ryan [/qb][/QUOTE]Bumped again for Bob. [/qb][/QUOTE][/qb][/QUOTE]Bumped again.

How about it, Bob? [/QB][/QUOTE]

Sorry fellas - I have not been following this "What makes other churches" thread as though it were a thread "to me"... I keep forgetting that you are using this for that purpose.

Anyway - the "Tired of Bumping" thread you started is carrying that conversation -- which basically shows "the facts ma'am".

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Even Jude citing the Book of Enoch, which was extant at that time, cannot be rightly considered as quoting the Apocrypha, for that particular book was never included in the Apocrypha as we have it today."
The Ethiopian-Orthodox church considers Enoch canonical.
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/ethold.stm

"Paul preached on Mars hill and quoted from a Greek poet. Does that in turn mean that all Greek poetry is inspired?"
No.

 

And yet the inspired Word of God you reference had in its original margins at least 7 references to the deuterocanonicals. The KJV original translators hardely viewed these references as "bogus", or they would not have cited them!
If the Septuagint was not considered the inspired Word of God why have these references to these books?
And why would the original KJV express the view that the Septuagint was the Word of God?

See the pertinent details at the following web site:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1967/

 

Sometimes Mioque says something in his ceaseless promotion of the RCC that does not contain enough error for me to find a way to differ with him.

This is one of those times.

In Christ,

Bob

 

No, you are wrong. It doesn't have any. I am not a KJVO, like your website portrays. I prefer the KJV, and believe that it is an accurate translation; but I do not believe that it is infallible like Moique does. You have the wrong person there. Only the original manuscripts are inspired--those written by Peter, Paul, John, Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, etc. God inspired the prophets and the Apostles by His Holy Spirit to write down what He wanted them to write down. Those inspired words have been preserved for us in Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, but no translation is either inspired or infallible. In fact it is not even preserved. The Bible is preserved for us in the original languages: Greek and Hebrew.
These originals never had any reference to the deuterocanonicals; no references to the apocrypha at all.

The KJV translators can put whatever they want in the margins of their Bible. They are just translators and that is all. I have all kinds of notes in my Bible. Some notes from historical sources as well. Does that make them inspired, just because I write them in the margin of my Bible? Well if that is your view, then so be it! But that is not the view of inspiration that the KJV translators had. They could have scrawled cartoons of peanuts and snoopy. Would that be inspired too? What is in the margin is in the margin. It is not inspired. It is simply a note, and that is all. It does not even imply inspiration.
The deuterocanonical books were put between the Testaments for a reason--to show that they were not part of the inspired canon. They were put there purposely, for one's own reading and profit. But they were never inspired, or even considered to be inspired. That is why they were placed in the middle, between the Testaments, as some other editions of the Bible still do to this day.

The apocrypha was not considered inspired. Neither was the Septuagint considered inspired. The Septuagint was simply a translation of the Hebrew Canon, which was the preserved Word of God. The Septuagint was not; it was a translation, which the orthodox Jew probably had quite a bit of disdain for. References to either the Septuagint or the Apocrypha were put their purely for one's own profit. I might put a cross-reference, or a reference to another book. That doesn't make the other book inspired, it just makes the reference to it profitable to me. I write in my margins all the time. So what!

It didn't. The translators expressed that they themselves were making a translation from the original languages. They knew what a translation was. They also knew that the Septuagint was a translation of the Word of God. It is the Word of God in as much as it is a translation of it. But the Apocryphal Books were not in the original Septuagint. They were added in much much later in later editions. The early Jews, conservative Hebrews would never think of doing such a thing. Besides that the Septuagint was written about 250 B.C. The oldest book of the Apocrypha is no older than 200 B.C. It is impossible for any (much less all the books) of the apocrypha to be included in the Septuagint. They were written between 200 B.C. and 100 A.D. Some of them were written after the completion of the New Testament. That in itself tells you that they are uninspired books that could never be part of the Old Testament canon.
DHK

 

"I am not a KJVO, like your website portrays. I prefer the KJV, and believe that it is an accurate translation; but I do not believe that it is infallible like Moique does."

That would be Homebound, not me. I am probably the least likely candidate for KJVOnlyism on the entire board.