"The doctrine by which the church stands or falls."

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Agnus Dei
"Also, is it true that the early versions of the Bible in the sixteenth century contained the Apocrypha; like Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Geneva Bible and all KJV’s published before 1640?"

GE
How many versions? How many copies? What about the very first Edition? What about the decided on Contents by the Committee of Translators under king James 6? (6 was it?) What about Tyndale's Translation? Did he accept the Apocrypha? Then what about the TR? Did Erasmus include the AC in it? were other 'versions' published alongside that did not contain the AC?
I would appreciate answers on these questions, before I shall pay any attention to the fact the AC were included in 'versions' before 1640.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

But again, just like with the question of whether the pope is antichrist, it is the intrinsic witness of the Apochrypha themselves that makes the difference between canonicity and heresy, between true and false. One needs to be no scholar to recognise this difference, and one needs no authority above conscience to reach finality, the AC are not the Word of God, but is the word of men merely - more probably the word of bad men.

 

[Matt Black]

This one point I would like to make because it has been harped on by you and other pro-Catholic apologists ad nauseum.

Er...I'm not pro-Catholic. I'm an Anglican

It is not true. It is a lie.

You would do well to consider matters before accusing me of lying.

It is a historical error, a blatant lie, a false accusation, an untruth, etc. Whatever you want to label, by any other name it is wrong to promote this ugly lie. Before you promote such things learn the history.

The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. It was done approximately 250 B.C.!! The Apocrypha range in dates between between 130 B.C. to 30 or even 50 A.D. Now, pray tell me how a book written after the death of Christ could just happen to get into a book written 300 years before that time?? Does that make any sense to you at all? These false statements, lies, must stop.

The original Septuagint NEVER contained the Apocrypha. Because of the antiquity of the book, it was impossible for it to contain book of such recent origin, written so close to the time of Christ. There are many other reasons why the Apocrypha could never have entered into the canon of the OT, one of which was the Jews would never accept any book written after 400 B.C. That just happened to be one of their tests of canonicity. It had to be extant at that period of time. That way out dates the Apocrypha by any scholar's admission.

It is true that some of the editions of the Septuagint did included the Apocrypha at the time of Christ. But they were not copies of the Septuagint that was originally done by the 72 men commissioned to do the work. The very name LXX are roman numerals for 70, a term rounded off for the 72 that did the translational work on the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus the LXX did not contain the Apocrypha but other perverted copies did.

In a modern day comparison, a TR advocate might say that the translations that come from the received text contain all the those texts that others call controversial, whereas almost all modern versions omit many key passages that seem to deal with the deity of Christ. Is this a coicidence. Many would say no, for there were many false prophets in that day that tampered with the Greek manuscripts in as much as they tampered with the Septuagint.

There is no need to promote a lie. The original LXX never contained the Apocrypha. Indeed it was physically impossible for it do so.

Bzzzt! Wrong!

Personally, I prefer to stick with the OT that my Lord and Saviour used, not some truncated version promoted by an anti-Christian Jewish council at Jamnia. Oh well, chacun a son gout.

 

[Matt Black]

1. You admit that the Bible existed before the church then, at least first.

No. I stated that the OT existed before the Church. The NT did not. Therefore, given that the Bible contains both OT and NT, then it is correct to say that the Church existed before the Bible

2. You misunderstand that Apostles used LXX, as many RCC misunderstand. Apostles didn't use LXX. Apostles may have used another Hebrew MT which is called Vorlage or quoted the contents of the scriptures by meaning instead of Word-to-Word translation.

. Incorrect. See above.

3. What was the Bible canon during 100-325 AD( around the time of Pope Sylvester and Nicean Council)?

The Bible Canon was the LXX version of the OT including the Deutero-canonicals plus various disputed books of the NT. You can read about that here or, if you prefer a non-Catholic source, here or here.

Did the Believers live without Bible canon in chaos?

No - they also had Sacred Tradition to guide them.

There were always the correct Bible canon at each time and the True churches used it, and Catholic church was not the genuine church, instead the true churches were the pure followers of the Apostles and Donatists and Novatians were among them

Rubbish! More Trail of Blood ahistorical poppycock.

So, do you mean the Idol worshippers can decide which is the correct Bible?

No. And neither did they;latria in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is only rightly given to God.

 

[Matt Black]

Agnus Dei
"Also, is it true that the early versions of the Bible in the sixteenth century contained the Apocrypha; like Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Geneva Bible and all KJV’s published before 1640?"

GE
How many versions? How many copies? What about the very first Edition? What about the decided on Contents by the Committee of Translators under king James 6? (6 was it?) What about Tyndale's Translation? Did he accept the Apocrypha? Then what about the TR? Did Erasmus include the AC in it? were other 'versions' published alongside that did not contain the AC?
I would appreciate answers on these questions, before I shall pay any attention to the fact the AC were included in 'versions' before 1640.

Wycliff's translation contained the Apocrypha, even though he wrote against it. Tyndale only managed to translate the NT and about half the OT before he was burned at the stake in the Netherlands. Luther initially included the Apocrypha in his translation in an 'inter-testamental' section; later he downgraded it to simply "good to read" but not inspired; he also wanted to similarly exclude or downgrade Jude, James (because it disagreed with his sola fide doctrine), Hebrews and Revelation but was persuaded otherwise. Coverdale (1535) included the Apocrypha. The Geneva Bible (1560) does not have the Apocrypha. The King James/Authorised Version of 1611 contains the Apocrypha in a separate appendix at the end.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

No. I stated that the OT existed before the Church. The NT did not. Therefore, given that the Bible contains both OT and NT, then it is correct to say that the Church existed before the Bible

This is simply amazing Matt. You and DT didn’t seem to have a problem following my response to my signature line. I made every effort to define what I meant by ‘Bible’ and I even made an attempt to state that Christ is the ‘corner stone’ of the Church. Yet the two of you have to hold the hands of other students who are lacking in their reading comprehension skills. The efforts and patience of both you and DT to attempt to bring these students who lack critical thinking skills to a more independent level of thinking is commendable.:thumbs:

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[Matt Black]

Easy when you know how, my dear Lamb!

 

[Eliyahu]

It is a delusion that makes so many people believe the Bibe verses quoted in NT was from Septuagint ( LXX).

At the first glance, it looks like so. However, if we compare closely we find the differences all the time in almost all the verses. I wonder what intoxicated so many scholars to believe such delusion and the hoax.

Instead of relying so many hireling scholars and false prophets, we can simply verify the differences by comparing both Septuagint and NT Greek texts. In most cases, all NT texts differ from the LXX, even though there are sometimes variances among NT texts. I can show you only a fraction of the quotes, but I enourage you to check personally between GNT and LXX for each quotation in NT.

Here are the examples.


1) Matthew 1:23 quoted from Isaiah 7:14

Greek NT/ KJV

Ιδου[FONT=바탕], [/FONT]ηπαρθενοςενγαστριεξεικαιτεξεταιθιον[FONT=바탕], [/FONT]καικαλεσουσιτοονομααυτουΕμμανουηλ

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel

LXX

His name shall be called


Masoretic Text ( Isaiah 7:14)
You (feminine You) shall call his name


All 3 are different, because they translated the meaning instead of word to word.

2) Luke 4:19 quoted from Isaiah 61:1

Greek NT
Κηρυξαι (Preach)
LXX

Καλεσαι(call )

Masoretic Text

קרא

KRA ( Proclaim)

Greek NT is nearer to Masoretic Text than to LXX

3) Acts 8:32-33 quoted from Isaiah 53:7-8

Greek NT
Καιωςαμνοςεναντιοντουκειραντοςαυτοναφωνοςουτωςουκανοιγειτοστομα…[FONT=바탕].. [/FONT]αυτου

LXX

Καιωςαμνοςεμπρσθεντουκειραντος[FONT=바탕] (- )[/FONT]
αυτοναφωνοςουτωςουκανοιγειτοστομα[FONT=바탕] ([/FONT]

Masoretic Text

[FONT=바탕]He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearer[/FONT]



(quoted from Blueletterbible.com)

LXX used the synonym, but different word.

4) Hebrews 10:5 quoted from Psalm 40:6


Greek NT

Ευδοκησας
[FONT=바탕](delight in, pleasure)[/FONT]

LXX

Εζητησας

[FONT=바탕](seek, pursue)[/FONT]

Masoretic Text

[FONT=바탕]Chaphatsta[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕](pleased to do, delight in)[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]Masoretic Text is nearer to Greek NT than LXX is[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]5) Matthew 2:6 [/FONT]–[FONT=바탕] too much different, Hegemosin-Arxnota[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]6) Matthew 2:15[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]My son [/FONT]–[FONT=바탕] His son[/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]7) Mt 2:18 [/FONT]–[FONT=바탕] couldn[/FONT]’[FONT=바탕]t be found in LXX[/FONT]
φωνηενραμαηκουσθη[FONT=바탕], [/FONT]θρηνοςκαικλαυθμοςκαιοδυρμοςπολυς[FONT=바탕], [/FONT]ραχηλκλασουσατατεκνααυτης[FONT=바탕], [/FONT]καιουκηθελεπαρκληθηναι[FONT=바탕], [/FONT]οτιουκεισι

[FONT=바탕]8) Mt 3:1 [/FONT]–[FONT=바탕] Isaiah 40:3[/FONT]
A) Isaiah 40:3 LXX:
ΦωνηβοωντοςΤηερημωετοιμασαταικαιεσταιπανταΤασκολιαειςευθειανκαιητραχειαειςπεδια

B) NT in Greek ( Textus Receptus=Other Greek Texts, No variance)
Φωνη βοωντος εν τη ερημω ετοιμασατε την οδον Κυριου, ευθειας ποιετε τας τριβοθς αυτου

 

[Eliyahu]

The people who are claiming that NT quotes Septuagint (LXX), without verifying for themselves will look foolish when the differences are actually found as above.

There are hundreds of verses where LXX has disagreements with Greek NT, even though LXX is often nearer to Greek NT than Masoretic Texts.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and other documents suggest us that there might have been a certain Hebrew underlying texts before LXX, and NT may have quoted such Hebrew Vorlage Text, not the Greek LXX which was written in Greek used by Pork meat eating, pagan worshipping, idol worshipping Greeks, full of myths during OT period.
[FONT=바탕] [/FONT]
The claim that NT quoted LXX is a non-sense created by the people who try to advocate the Apocrypha and paganism, prayer to the dead. It is a Hoax. Such claim is widely believed by foolish people who cannot verify the differences between LXX and Greek NT, verse by verse, word by word.

Ι tried to write in Hebrew for Masoretic portion of OT but this board doesn’t accommodate Hebrew characters I think. So please check with the Blueletter Bible.com for the OT in Hebrew portion.

 

[DHK]

Personally, I prefer to stick with the OT that my Lord and Saviour used, not some truncated version promoted by an anti-Christian Jewish council at Jamnia. Oh well, chacun a son gout.

1. The Lord no doubt used the Hebrew MT. Even to the orthodox Jew, the reading of the common Septuagint in the Synagogue would have been akin to blasphemy, especially in Jerusalem. When Paul wanted to quell the crowd after the Roman soldiers had rescued him from the hands of Jewish authorities he spoke to them in the Hebrew tongue, and then they were silent--out of respect for their national language.
We learn from Acts 6 that there was a Hellenization of the Jews, and that did create some problems. But to infer or conclude that all the Jews were Hellenized at the time of Christ is a giant leap of faith, and a wrong conclusion according to Acts 6:1,2. If it were so, there would have been no dispute going on between the Greek widows and those of Jerusalem.
Hebrew was not dead.

I live in a multicultural city. Each year we have a multicultural event where all the ethnic groups of the city gather and put up their tent in a large park in the middle of the city. The nation of Israel is included. Isn't it odd how their copy of the Torah is the same as mine, and without the apocrypha? They never did accept the apocrypha, and don't to this day. Their Torah is the Masoretic Text.

BTW, I do have a copy of the LXX. It happens to be one of those editions that does not contain the apocrypha. And the source you gave--it is of great benefit for general information, but it is not a sound theological source.

 

[Eliyahu]

No. I stated that the OT existed before the Church. The NT did not. Therefore, given that the Bible contains both OT and NT, then it is correct to say that the Church existed before the Bible

During the OT times : There was the Bible for the believers, and the Bible was OT.

During the time of Jesus : the Bible was OT which was enough. No tradition was used. Jesus condemned the human tradition ( Mt 15)
They had the Bible before the church formation.

During the time of Apostle Paul : the Bible was OT and Paul mentioned the Scriptures are perfect ( 2 Tim 3:15-17). Therefore it is absolutely disobedient and ignoring statement that the Bible didn't exist before the church.

At any time, throughout the ages, there existed the Bible scriptures which was enough for the Salvation and for the edification.

. Incorrect. See above.
The Bible Canon was the LXX version of the OT including the Deutero-canonicals plus various disputed books of the NT. You can read about that here or, if you prefer a non-Catholic source, here or here. No - they also had Sacred Tradition to guide them. Rubbish! More Trail of Blood ahistorical poppycock.
No. And neither did they;latria in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is only rightly given to God.

As for LXX, please read the separate post above.

As for Catholic churches, the word, Catholic, is found nowhere in the Bible.
Actually Roman catholic has used the term for the humanly universal, secular, the religion for the people running on the broadway leading to the destruction. They used the term in opposition to the church passing thru the narrow gate on the narrow path. Such Catholics have tolerated the Idol worship, prayer to the dead, goddess worship, are these small problems ?

 

[Matt Black]

The Jews did accept the Apocrypha until the council of Jamnia, whence their establishment had decamped after the destruction of the second temple in 70AD. They believed that God had punished them once again for their infidelity. The particular alleged infidelities they hit upon this time were:-

1. The use of Gentile practices and languages, in particular Greek

2. The tolerance of heretical sects, minim, in their midst.

The LXX containing the Apocrypha fell foul on both counts, since it was in Greek and used by those minim calling themselves Christian. As a consequence, the Apocrypha was evicted from the Jewish OT at that point and, indeed, the use of Greek in Jewish circles had ceased altogether by about 200AD. The Masoretic Text, to which you refer, came into existence between the 7th and 11th centuries AD and therefore could not have been used by Jesus.

[ETA - cp with Eliyahu, to whom: so, the Bible is just the OT, is it? Are you Jewish, then?]

 

[DHK]

No. And neither did they;latria in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is only rightly given to God.

For an Anglican, this is pure RCC double-speak when it comes to the subject of worship. It allows the Catholic (and Anglicans I suppose) to bow down and worship idols--idolatry) without using the word worship. They use a dichotomy redefining the word "worship" so that in one way they are allowed to worship idols and not call it worship. Latria is still worship. Call the mule a stallion; it is still a mule. And the Catholic Church is still stubbornly calling worship latria thinking that its idolatry is not idolatry. It is. It is the worship of images.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

errrp...30 pages. lol

 

[Matt Black]

For an Anglican, this is pure RCC double-speak when it comes to the subject of worship. It allows the Catholic (and Anglicans I suppose) to bow down and worship idols--idolatry) without using the word worship. They use a dichotomy redefining the word "worship" so that in one way they are allowed to worship idols and not call it worship. Latria is still worship.

Never said it wasn't; latria does indeed mean 'worship'. But no self-respecting Anglican, Catholic or Orthodox will say that that is what they render to Mary or the departed saints.

 

[Eliyahu]

Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew though Paul was fluent in Greek ( Acts 26:14)

When Jesus mentioned the jot and tittle in Mt 5:18 ( iota and keria), he was talking about Jud and masora in Hebrew. Then Jesus mentioned the martyrs from Abel to Zechariah ( Mt 23:35-)because Zechariah was the last martyr in Hebrew Tanak as shown in 2 Chronicle. According to LXX, Malachi is the last book of OT, but according to Hebrew Masoretic Text, Chronicles were the last book of Tanak. The title on the Cross was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin ( King of the Jews). Apostle Paul delivered the address in Hebrew to the crowd in Jerusalem ( Acts 21:37- 22:3) which calmed down them. Jesus explained the disciples that the Messiah had to suffer the pain according to the Bible and explained " Torah ( Law), Prophets( Neviim), and Psalm (Ketuviim)" Psalm means the writings which include Proverb, Job, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, etc. The threefold system of OT is typical aspect of Hebrew OT, and LXX didn't use such system.

So, in the life of faith the Hebrew language was widely used and the Hebrew Bible was used for the quotations.

Jesus died according to the Bible ( 1 Cor 15:1-3), even before the NT church was established.

Yeah ! the Bible modified suitable for the Idol worshippers never existed before the Idol worshipping pagan religion, Roman religion was formed, which I can agree.

 

[Matt Black]

Er...could you repost that last part in English please so that the rest of us know what you're on about.

 

[Eliyahu]

The Jews did accept the Apocrypha until the council of Jamnia, whence their establishment had decamped after the destruction of the second temple in 70AD. They believed that God had punished them once again for their infidelity. The particular alleged infidelities they hit upon this time were:-

1. The use of Gentile practices and languages, in particular Greek

2. The tolerance of heretical sects, minim, in their midst.

The LXX containing the Apocrypha fell foul on both counts, since it was in Greek and used by those minim calling themselves Christian. As a consequence, the Apocrypha was evicted from the Jewish OT at that point and, indeed, the use of Greek in Jewish circles had ceased altogether by about 200AD. The Masoretic Text, to which you refer, came into existence between the 7th and 11th centuries AD and therefore could not have been used by Jesus.

[ETA - cp with Eliyahu, to whom: so, the Bible is just the OT, is it? Are you Jewish, then?]

Matt,

What I point out is this. At each time there was the perfect Bible for that era.
Before Cross, OT was the perfect Bible. During the apostles time, still OT was the perfect Bible. After the completion of the Bible NT, OT+NT was the perfect Bible before the Roman religion was established. Roman religion just followed the Christian beliefs in order that they may well disguise themselves as devout Christians.

Apocrypha was not accepted as the Bible canon, though they might have been referred to sometimes as a reference.

 

[DHK]

The Jews did accept the Apocrypha until the council of Jamnia, whence their establishment had decamped after the destruction of the second temple in 70AD. They believed that God had punished them once again for their infidelity. The particular alleged infidelities they hit upon this time were:-

1. The use of Gentile practices and languages, in particular Greek

2. The tolerance of heretical sects, minim, in their midst.

The LXX containing the Apocrypha fell foul on both counts, since it was in Greek and used by those minim calling themselves Christian. As a consequence, the Apocrypha was evicted from the Jewish OT at that point and, indeed, the use of Greek in Jewish circles had ceased altogether by about 200AD. The Masoretic Text, to which you refer, came into existence between the 7th and 11th centuries AD and therefore could not have been used by Jesus.

You can spin quite a yarn when you want to.
Actually it is your take on Christian history and Jewish history that has run afoul. The destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was a destruction that indeed was a judgement of God upon the Jews, and foretold in the Bible. The Jews knew that it was coming, albeit not the exact time. They had rejected their Messiah. Judgement was coming. They had been warned about this many times.
During the early centuries of Christianity the Jews were one of the groups that persecuted Christians most, as is seen in Saul before he became Paul. Any Jew who converted to Christianity disgraced his family and was consequently persecuted by them. What therefore would the Jews have in common with the Christians--NOTHING!!
They don't cooperate with each other. There Scriptures were kept apart from each other. The Jews always held to the Masoretic Text and always rejected the Apocrypha. The always rejected the various "Catholic Councils," of whom they despised. They had no reason to be part of these "heretical sects." They were Jews, not Christians or Catholics. And their Torah was always separate from the Bible, the NT, and the writings of the Christians. It was always the Masoretic Hebrew Text without any Greek influence, and without any apocrypha. Neither did the orthodox Jew even care for the Septuagint when it came to the official readings in their synagogue services. It may have been used as a reference tool, as we refer to some modern versions today. But the Hebrews used the Hebrew text. It was their official sacred text.

I believe it is not too far fetched to compare it to today's Muslim who will adamantly declare that the official Scriptures of Islam are in Arabic, and every faithful Muslim will do his best to learn the Arabic language that he may read the Koran in the original. Every copy of the Koran that is printed is never printed without the Arabic even if it is in English, Spanish or whatever. The Arabic is always there beside it. And Muslims are urged to learn it. They are required to confess "Kalmah" the confession that Allah is great and that Mohammed is the only prophet, in Arabic, when they become a Muslim. They teach it in "their" schools.

And every Jewish child learned Hebrew growing up in the schools of the synagogues.

 

[Eliyahu]

Er...could you repost that last part in English please so that the rest of us know what you're on about.

Do you mean this portion? or the Greek portion?


Yeah ! the Bible modified suitable for the Idol worshippers never existed before the Idol worshipping pagan religion, Roman religion was formed, which I can agree.

I can re-write this way.

The Bible which are held by the Idol worshipping and goddess worshipping religion disguised as Christians didn't exist until such idol worshipping pagan, Roman religion crept into the Christian churches. For example, Origen or Eusebius might have modified the Bible suitable for the Idol worship and prayer to the dead by including Apocrypha.