Why do you believe the bible?

Thanks MikeS
Your answer of course references the books in question. I guess it is a different thread potentially, but the only thing I would add is that the term "apocrypha" comes from Jerome who as DHK noted was initially oppossed to there being canonical- that is until he saw the African churches were accepting them and then he whole heartedly agreed with the decision to include them and cited them with the introductory formula "God says in the Scriptures" which he used for quotations from the canonical books.

Now DHK that you know which books we are referring to in particular, how 'bout an answer?

Perhaps the term "in error" is to harsh. But seeing that you set the criteria for eliminating certain books from being able to claim God as their inspiration based on the fact that they changed from their original, I would like to hear your rational as to why the KJV doesn't have to meet this same critique.

Let me rephrase the question perhaps then to avoid the appearance that one is stating that the True Originals are in error, or that scripture itself would contain any error.

Try this then: Was the commitee that issued the original KJV that included the seven books guided by the Holy Spirit to include these books?

or conversely,

Was the KJV commitee that revised the original equally guided by the Holy Spirit?
Of course this would bring up many other questions...
Was it the Holy Spirit that changed His mind?
How do we know the canon is complete now?
I could go on...but I think the point is sufficiently made that an outside authority is required to make the claim as to the Bible being the inspired Word of God. Just as it took an outside authority to define the canon in the first place.
And whether Protestants are willing to admit this fact or not won't change the historical fact that they themselves through their "committees" played the outside authority in changing the canon as they saw fit.

 

Bro. Curtis replied with his way of "proving" the divine inspiration of the Bible:

Demonstrate exactly how it "proves itself" Bro. Curtis. But then, if you don't "understand how he did it," then what is your basis for believing it? Who attempted to "erase the bible" anyway, when all I see is a Church who husbanded it, colated it, canonized it as scripture and declared it as divinely inspired "God breathed" scripture is the (gulp!) Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

Finally, do you know why the Church condemned certain publications of scripture, Curtis? Tyndales bible, for example, was full of errors, as I understand it, with sidenotes that were anti-Catholic! Yet you would protest the Churches condemnation of it?

Thanks to the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH! A canon of scripture that existed for about 1,000 years (starting from the time the canon was established in the late 3rd century) to the time of Luther, who decided that the deuterocanonicals had to be removed from the Old Testament.

Too bad the author is dead (I presume), as I would love to see what he would say concerning that period of time between Pentecost and until ink first touched papyrus in the writing of the New Testament, and tell us where the authority and source of faith, doctrine and morals are.

He would have to be reminded, I suspect, that the Old Testament contains no words that came out of the mouth of Jesus in the "good news" - The Gospel of Christ.

I would then wonder if he would have glowing words to say about the very Church who preserved the bible for him as we see it today...

Sure - AMEN!

Amen that we had an authoritive Church who could preserve it for you, even declare it as authoritive, as only an authoritive Church, one founded by Christ who gave it awesome authority, could do such a thing!



God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)

 

Where to start, where to start... Paul's first Epistle probably predated the Gospel of Mark by a few years; still, you're only talking a couple of decades, if that, between Pentecost and when ink touched papyrus. So I'm a little foggy on exactly why this is an important point for you.

As to the Good News, have you not read Isaiah? The Psalms? Any of the major or minor prophets, all of whom promised the redemption of God and the coming Messiah?

I realize that your aim is to somehow make the Church that parent of Scripture or some such, but it just doesn't wash. The Church is, at best, the custodian of Scripture, or at least it was until the printing press was invented and most people learned to read...

 

Where to start, where to start... Paul's first Epistle probably predated the Gospel of Mark by a few years; still, you're only talking a couple of decades, if that, between Pentecost and when ink touched papyrus. So I'm a little foggy on exactly why this is an important point for you.</font>[/QUOTE]Er, ah, Tragic-pizza, I don't give a hoot about when whose gospel writing came first. What I am concerned with is that period of time when NNE had written a thing yet!

In other words, there was a period of time between Pentecost and when the first writing began that was to become the New Testament!

Where was the "authority" then, Tragic_pizza!

(Sigh!) Tragic_pizza, did you really read my message? The the writings of Isaish have any of Christ's words there? Isaiah certainly prophasized the coming of the Messiah, but not one word from Christ's mouth (since he was not born yet) do you see in Isaish's writings, right!

Tragic_pizza, you don't get it, do you? Where was the New Testament the day after Pentecost, the week after Pentedost, a year after Pentecost, 10 years after Pentecost? Some scholars think that the writing of the New Testament did not start until after A.D. 70, albeit some now think it occurred within the "eyewitness period" to about 30 years after Pentecost.

And before that happened, whence was the "authority" Christians were to go by as their source of faith, doctrine and morals?

Remember, the Old Testament is still with them, and certainly, much is contained therein that doctrine can hang, but there is nothing of Christ's new covenant that is specific in the Old Testament that can be derived specifically, until the coming of the New Testament.

But wait, what about before it was written? To whom did Christians go for their source of faith, doctrine and morals, the Old
Testament being the fulfilled covenant? In other words, when Christ ascended to the Father in heaven, His gospel was somewhere, wasn't it?

Where was it, Tragic_pizza?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)

 

Because this is found in the middle of my Bible it must be inspired just as you consider your Apocrypha inspired. I like "My Apocrypha" better.
DHK

 

No, it isn't. But unfortunately that is as far as some people's thinking or discernment goes these days.

 

I remember a bumper sticker that read " If you can't baffle them with brilliance, befuddle them with BS." and towards that end your last post DHK is well deserving of this sort of praise but not to run it into the ground but you've not answered the question?

Lets save the discussion of whether the canon should include the seven books referenced for another thread.

The question strictly pertains to the fact that the original KJV DID INCLUDE the seven books shall we. So again the question is: Which KJV's issuance was Holy Spirit lead and which one was issued in error? Simple question, ....no need to muddy the waters with half-baked contentions that Christ or the apostles rejected the Septuagint etc....we can save that for another thread.

 

Please provide a link to give evidence that the apocrypha was contained in the KJV.
Generally speaking the KJV went through a number of revisions to correct various spelling and type-setting errors. Even in recent editions there are some minor changes made. Historically the apocrypha has never been included in the canon of Scripture. Remember that the majority of the KJV translators were high Anglican/Catholic background. Thus the translation itself shows some deference to the politics of the time. For example the word ekklesia was translated church instead of assembly, and baptidzo translated baptism, instead of immersion. These translational decisions were politically motivated. If there was an early edition of the KJV that contained the Apocrypha, I am sure that it would have been out of the influence of some of high Anglican/Catholic influence. But the purpose of a revision is to weed out error, isn't it?

KJV Changes

[ July 27, 2003, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "Historically the apocrypha has never been included in the canon of Scripture."

Historically, you are incorrect.

The Synod of Hippo, which was held in North Africa in 393 produced the following in Canon 29 of its proceedings:

“Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in the church under the title of divine writings. The canonical books are:---Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings [i.e., 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings], the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon [i.e., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus], the twelve books of the Prophets [i.e., Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi], Isaiah, Jeremiah [including Baruch], Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras [i.e., Ezra, Nehemiah], two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:---the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church [i.e., the Roman church] shall be consulted.”

75 years before the Protestant Reformation at the Council of Florence - Feb. 4, 1442 - we witness the promulgation of the following decree in its Eleventh Session:

“[T]his sacred ecumenical council of Florence . . . professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament -- that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel -- since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows. Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings [i.e., 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings], two of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees . . . [they go on to list the 27 New Testament books we all accept today].”

The Protestant International Bible Commentary says:

"Even if one holds that Jesus put His imprimatur upon only the 39 books of the Hebrew OT, as is implied above, he must admit that this fact escaped the notice of many of the early followers of Jesus, or that they rejected it, for they accepted as equally authoritative those extra books in the wider canon of the LXX9 . . . Polycarp [one of John's disciples], Barnabas, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen--Greek and Latin Fathers alike--quote both classes of books, those of the Hebrew canon and the Apocrypha, without distinction. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his City of God (18.42-43) argued for equal and identical divine inspiration for both the Jewish canon and the Christian canon." (1)

Marvin Tate, an Old Testament professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote the following:

“It seems clear that the Protestant position must be judged a failure on historical grounds, insofar as it sought to return to the canon of Jesus and the Apostles. The Apocrypha belongs to this historical heritage of the Church.” (2)

DHK, perhaps a retraction on your part would be appropriate?

1. Gerald F. Hawthorne, “Canon and Apocrypha of the Old Testament,” International Bible Commentary, ed. F.F. Bruce, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 37, 35

2. Marvin Tate, “Old Testament Apocalyptica and the Old Testament Canon,” in Review and Expositor 65, 1968, 353.

 

Actually, on this one, he's correct, DHK.

Here's a link that shows all 80 Books in the original: http://ebible.org/bible/kjv/

You may find this of interest as well: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whydidkjv-apocrypha.html

The apocrypha wasn't removed from the KJV until 1885 by the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury.

[ July 27, 2003, 02:51 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

No, I am not incorrect. My position is well laid out above. And I have nothing to recant.

And your point is?? Many of the early church fathers were not in agreement. As pointed out already: Origen did not agree with the Apocrypha being in the Canon; Jerome didn't think it should be there, and even the Jewish historian Josephus thought that the books were bogus. Your Council's decision in the light of history is meaningless.

An ecumenical council doesn't speak for true Bible Believers. It never has. Of course this was a Catholic Coucil wasn't it? Catholics duly carrying out there duty to preserve their heresies.

And so? The editor of the International Bible Commentator says that some of the early church fathers held to the opionion that the Apocrypha was inspired. Of course his information is not all that accurate, I notice. For in his list he quotes Origen, who thought that the Apocrypha should not be included in the canon as far as I know.

No recant here--especially based on that questionable piece of logic or the lack therof. Circular reasoning works so great with you guys. The only history is Catholic history. The Apocrypha isn't found in Protestant history only in Catholic history, therefore it belongs in the Bible, for the only Bible and the only truth comes from the Catholic Church. Around and around and around you go, chasing your own tail. It's inspired because it is in the Catholic Bible; and therefore the Protestants are wrong. Great logic!

The Bible belongs to the historical heritage of believers everywhere, not just "the Church, aka, the Catholic Church, but to early believers that constituted local assemblies of believers. Ephesians, Colossians, and Galatians, for example were never written to the Catholic Church, but rather churches.
Jesus, nor any of the Apostles ever quoted from any of the Apocryphal books.
It is the failure of the Catholics to recognize the fact that the Jewish Old Testament canon was complete in 450 B.C. The Jews would not accept any book written after 450 B.C. There was a period of over 400 years silence when God did not speak to anyone (as a prophet). The world waited. Then after 400 some years John the Baptist appeared. All those frivilous books of the Apocrypha were written in that intertestamental period. They are not in the Jewish canon. They never were. If they are not in the Jewish canon, they are not in the Old Testament. If they are obviously not in the Old Testament, someone has done some serious tampering with the Word of God. The Catholics are in grave danger of adding to the Word of God, that which ought not to be added. These are Old Testament additions. The Old Testament canon was closed by the Jews in 450 B.C. Even the Septuagint was written in 250 B.C., and almost all the Apocrypha was written after that date. That one point alone shows that these books are entirely fake, uninspired, bogus.
DHK

 

As this tread and a few others presently are centered around biblical authority, or specifically just how it is we know the bible to be the inspired "Word of God", I think the diversionary tactics used to avoid the obvious are amusing.

Let's shelve or move the debate on the Canon and which books should be included or not to another thread, and stick with the thread topic noted above.

First off- Thanks Clint for the references on the KJV original.

I am still looking for someone to answer the question as to how the Original KJV could be issued with the deuterocanonicals and subsequently removed and from whence the authority to make these changes came.
The reason I would like to delve into this is that I believe that the Protestants who claim the Bible as their proof that the Bible is their sole authority (Sola Scriptura?) and prooves in and of itself to be divinely authored (a flawed extention of the inerrancy issue), are being hypocritical.
In as much as they are willing to accept the extra-biblical opinion of a committee to establish the bible canon of the version most readily utilized in Protestant circles. And not just the latest but I'm quite sure had they been around they would have accepted the original! How is it the fickleness of these committees viewed as binding? Was both of their authorities biblical in its' origin?
It is logical to ask the obvious, given this inconsistent inclusion /removal then: How do you know the KJV canon is complete NOW?!!

I ask again for the record: which commitee was guided by the Holy Spirit? We know the Holy Spirit would not counter itself. And does not the inerrancy of scriptire extend to the canon itself. The original version committee would have claimed inspiration to come up with a different version than the next committee that also claimed divine inspiration.

And Protestants today wholeheartedly accept THAT committee's decisions -(can you say extra-biblical, I knew you could...)

That in and of itself shows that the Protestant perspective of believing the Bible to be the sole authority on matters of faith and morals (or whatever Sola-Scriptura definition you'd prefer)is flawed as they are more than willing to accept the definitions of an extra-biblical authority just in defining WHAT makes up scripture.

The obvious is that it is proper and logical to have an outside authority to determine the canon. (for you won't find a list of the books to include in scripture itself)And the logical authority is not the individual, or we'd have a lot more BOM's, Korans, etc.
The Church is the obvious authority, the question is which church. Scripture points to that fact that the church has this responsibility as being "the pillar and foundation of truth" and the practical everyday use of the KJV by protestants is an aknowledgement of the fact that an authority is required.

I suppose it would be off-topic to further this train of thought by asking: If an extra-biblical authority is required to decide just what makes up the Bible, where does this authority end? We know we cannot specifically add to scripture of take away , but how about guiding in the understanding and interpretation of scripture? And shouldn't this guidance come in a definitive and binding way so as not to have suffer fickleness of men. Isn't that one way the Holy Spirit was promised to the church?

Just my thoughts....

God Bless

Stephen

 

DHK wrote:

Now as you have been proven to be utterly wrong in your assumption how 'bout that recantation?

Or better yet, Since the decision to include and the decision to exclude were part of the Protestant process of deciding the KJV Canon, in light of this authority being extra-biblical how do we know that authority was from God? (God's not fickle you know!)

And drop the Catholic/Anglican committee influence angle for as we see in the preface of the original version if their was a prejudiced position influencing the process it was done from a protestant perspective!!

Quote fro website Clint provided:

"A dedicatory epistle to King James, which also enhanced the completed work, recalled the King's desire that "there should be one more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue." The translators expressed that they were "poor instruments to make GOD'S holy Truth to be yet more and more known" while at the same time recognizing that "Popish persons" sought to keep the people "in ignorance and darkness."

Really reeks of anti-protestantism there DHK now doesn't it.

 

Stephen,
I hope this information will shed some light on the answer to your question.

“Crowned With Glory,” by Dr. Thomas Holland

 

Thanks DHK!,

The article was very detailed and I appreciate the effort you placed in finding this.

The emphasis I guess I was looking for was not so much on whether the books belonged or not.
That perhaps could be a separate thread.

But in keeping with the gist of this thread, I would like to know a Protestants perspective of the authority to include or exclude the books. From where does this authority derive?


You see, whether the books are: included, excluded, qualified, or as we saw a combination of all three ultimately, it still comes down to an individual's acceptance of the authority that makes the decision (or in the KJV proponents case makes and eventually changes the decision).
Why do you accept that authority? And, since this authority you would view as fallible; (I assume)how do you know the KJV to be complete now?

So often when these threads are started we get sidetracked into other ancillary issues. So I don't mean to sound disinterested in the topics you addressed. But I personally haven't seen a satisfactory completion to this topic.

So if I may go back and select some of the pertinent quotes from various participants of this thread and then try to tie them into what contentions I would make with this additional insight. (that is: that the original KJV canon was subsequently modified)

I won't necessarily name sources so as not to alienate anyone. I'd prefer healthy input from anyone without setting off the defense mechanisms. I will however separate the Protestant expressed viewpoints from the Catholic perspective comments. Here goes:

(I will post in separate posts)

 

Continued from above:
The original post (topic):

........ Why do you believe the Scriptures in your bible are the infallible Word of God?


Protestant Quotes from thread:

(italics mine)

 

Still more Protestant quotes from thread:

And Finally from the website Moderator: