Canon Of The Bible

I may have missed it but I am surprised nobody posited that oral tradition was replaced by the written tradition of the canon at the death of the last Apostle. As I recall there was even an accepted NT canon already forming during the Apostolic times concidering some of Peter's comments. The one thing I noticed in my quick study of canonization is that books were usually questioned because they were contrary to a person's personal agenda.

As far as I know we have rejected the Deutrocanonical books because they were not written in Hebrew and because they were never quoted in the NT in the same way as the Hebrew books. We retain the DC books as devotional material and a means for understand their contemporary mindset but they are not formative for doctrine.

 

I hold the DC books in high esteem. The BCP denotes them as being "substandard" but helpful, devotional reading for the Christian. BTW, if someone considers them Canon I have no problem with that. B, Aleph, and A all manuscripts used by the Church contained the extra-books that are contained within the LXX.

 

Sounds to me liek Bro. James is speaking against the use of the Bible at all.

 

Quite the contrary,

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect(having on all the armor), throughly furnished unto all good works." II Tim. 3:16, 17.

My problem with canonicity is: God is able to convey to His children that which is needful for their salvation and perserverance without the aid of a conclave of right reverend doctors and other traditions of men to decide which writings may or may not be the Word of God.

My native tongue is English. I use a KJV-1611 which was translated at the behest of the Episcopal Pope: King James II, because he did not like some Geneva Bible translations(in English) which seemed to infringe on his sovereignty.

Most would agree, they did a good job--of pacifying the king anyway. They also injected some of their own theologies. "Easter", mistranslated, "Baptizo" not translated, etc.

Who has the correct canon? God is not the author of confusion. One rule of thumb I use: if it suggests salvation by works, it is spurious. Everything God does is by grace. We all deserve to go to Hell.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

So if I wrote a post here, insisting grace alone as means of salvation, it is as inspired as the Gospel of Luke?

 

Sorry, you would be about 1900 years after the revelation was finished. See the last chapter in Revelation. Joseph Smith Jr. was too late too. The last chapter of the Book has been written. We better find out what He says.

Scratching around in antiquities looking for the origins and things already revealed is not part of the Great Commission. We are living in the end of time as we know it--we still spend a lot of time wondering where we came from and what we are to be doing here. He has already told us.

Now what?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

How do we know it was the last chapter written?

Answer: because of the New Testament canon. Further, we do well to discuss why we are here and the like; only by a clear understanding of our purpose can we fulfill it.

 

And, Bro James, how do you know that the Canon of the KJV was correct and that it does indeed contain everything which is needful for salvation? Who determined that it did?

 

In a word: God.

Verified and corroborated in His Word:

II Tim. 3:16,17; I Cor. 2:9-14; II Peter 1:20,21; 2:1-9; Heb. 4:12-16; John 3:3,5,10.
(word study: throughly furnished)

Conclusion: only born again believers being led by The Holy Spirit bearing witness to the Word of God can know what God said.

Unregenerated man, regardless of pedigree, can only wallow in befuddledness.

All of the confusion is not from God.

How do I know? The same way I know that Jesus is the Christ--it goes along with being "born from above". See John 3--the whole chapter.

Selah,

Bro. James

[ March 19, 2006, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]

 

Thank you. That was very imformative about the different books various Christian churches have. I'm thankful I'm not a member of the Ethiopic Church. I struggle with reading Protestant and Catholic Bibles in a year, let alone attempt reading all 81 books in the Ethiopic Bible!

 

Not true! A group of scholars is currently working on The Orthodox Study Bible, and the Old Tesatment will be translated from the Septuagint. They hope to have it completed next year: http://www.lxx.org/

 

Why do you think nobody has translated LXX into contemporary language by word to word translation so far? There are hundreds of English Bibles today. If LXX is so accurate, why weren't the hundreds of English bibles translated from it?

If you read LXX actually, you will find thousands of contradictions and baloneys in there. LXX is not the word-to-word translation and the whole story about Letter of Aristea is a hoax. It will not give much spiritual teachings either.

 

Most modern translations use the Alexandrian text or an eclectic text such as the 21st edition of Nestle Aland's Greek text. Some use varients from the Syriac, Samaritan pentateuch, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

For whatever the reason, a group of Eastern Orthodox scholars are currrently translating the Old Testament from the Septuagint.

 

OK, I've got an english Translation of The
LETTER OF Aristeas in front of me. What about it?

(from THE OTHER BIBLE, HarperSanFrascisco, 1984)

Seems just a month may a year ago we had a topic here
showing all the KJV verses which were translated from
the LXX.

There are 19 matches in BB SEARCH for in-text occurances
of LXX.

What does this LXX stuff have to do with the subject of this topic?

Caveat: I am NOT a moderator. However, I do have an opinion and
will express it. Unlike the moderators, though, you aught not
ignore me. Thank you.

BTW, i find way to much 'buying into' the RCC (Roman Catholic Church)
lie that they are the original church.

In 1054 when the Metropolitan Sees of the East (Antioch, Alexandria,
Athens, etc) excommunicated the Bishop of Rome (AKA: Father Poppa Pope)
is the earliest I think one can date a truly RCC church. (though
there is evidence of so much change later that the current RCC church
hardly dates back to the Seventeenth Century /1602-1700/ )

BTW, from about 600AD-1054AD the largest segment of the Church
of the Living Christ was the East Syrian Church AKA: Nestorian Church
-measure made by number of Bishops, number of Adherents. This church
was all but elilminated by the rising tide of the antichrist Mohommadam's
religion. But you won't here this information from Rome.

So I don't think for a minute that the Holy Bible canon
is Roman Catholic. The canon of the Holy Bible is truly Christian
and we should go with it.

 

If anyone translate LXX, it will be used as a reference only, or a kind of hobby books or novels.

Roman Catholic was only a fraction of the total Christendom in the past. There was much more Christianity in many countries in the world which we have not known very well.

Eastern Church people don't have to rely on LXX because they have Aramaic NT, and Aramaic Targum such as Targum Onqelos for OT.

 

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

According to Scripture the only manuscripts that were inspired are the ones that "the holy men of God" wrote. That is the prophets of the Old Testament, and by extension, the apostles of the New Testament. Translators (including KJV translators) are not inspired. I believe that God's Word is preserved in the Greek manuscripts that we have today, but it is inspired only in the original manuscripts.
That being said, please realize that the LXX is only a translation. It is a Greek translation from the sacred Hebrew Scriptures. For the most part the orthodox Jew disdained it. During the inter-testamental period many of the Jews became hellenized. They adapted to Greek culture, contrary to the wishes of many of the more conservative Jews. For this reason a Greek translation was made. It was never meant to supercede the Hebrew and never did. In fact at no time in history did the Jewish nation as a whole consider the LXX as the inspired Word of God. It was only a translation. They had the Word of God in the Hebrew. It was the Hebrew that Jesus spoke from in the synagogue. When Paul wanted to hush the crowd he spoke to them in their national and sacred tongue--Hebrew, and then they listened.

Acts 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

For men to translate from the LXX today would be the equivalent of going to a nation and translating a Bible from something like the ASV, instead of the Greek and Hebrew. Why would you make a translation from a translation?

 

So, are you saying that every born-again believer instinctively knows what's in the Canon and what isn't? So, if a man, previously ignorant of the Bible, was born again and was given a Jerusalem Bible to read, he would instinctively know that the DCs were not canonical? Hmmm...I'd like to see that tried...

 

Instinctively is probably the wrong word to describe what the scriptures above teach.

In other words: the unregenerated cannot understand the Word of God--they have no spiritual discernment. Those born from above have a hunger and thirst for righteousness which God provides through His Spirit. The Spirit, The Holy, Who came on the Day of Pentecost to indwell the New Testament Churches until Jesus returns, is still leading and guiding in all truth through the preaching and teaching of The Word. This has been going on for nearly 2,000 years without interruption, the Inquisitions not withstanding. This divine pattern of instruction and "growing in grace and knowledge" is present in the world, even though one may not find it referenced in Who's Who in Christendom.

Jesus said: "His sheep hear His voice and follow Him, another's voice they will not follow. He is able to keep and lead--even in all this religious confusion".

Jesus said, He would never leave nor forsake His Bride. He has kept His promise. He has been faithful inspite of the Apostasy. So has His Bride.

It is time for the Marriage Supper, Brother, the Library Hour is about over--do you have your invitation?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Yes, thanks be to Jesus! but that's not what this thread is about; if you don't want to discuss the canon, why are you posting here?

And no Catholic or Orthodox would disagree with you there!

 

AMEN !