Now I'm not of those like John Of Japan, TC and a few others who have studied Hebrew and Greek... I'm ignorant and unlearned about these things... Saying that, I read the KJV and been reading and study it over 50 years and know its history some what... Also know there are 66 books of the Bible that contain the Old and The New Testament... I also know there were many writing that didn't make it into the Canon of scripture... Also know that there are some in the Catholic Bible that are not in mine and maybe others too but I don't know of any to my limited knowledge... But I've heard of others that were not included and I'm sure you brethren have a list of them... What was the criteria used to included or excluded in the canon?... What was the measuring rod to make that determination and who made it?... Hope this has stirred up your pure minds... Brother Glen
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why Not In The Canon?
- Thread starter tyndale1946
- Start date
That depends on whether or not you accept the Roman Catholic Church as the arbiter of canonicity or accept the judgment of the early local churches in the late 1st and early 2nd century.
If the latter then the tests of canonicity would include:
A. Is it authoritative (“Thus saith the Lord”)?
B. Is it prophetic (“a man of God” 2 Peter 1:20)?
A book of the Bible must have the authority of a spiritual leader of Israel in the O.T., a prophet, king, judge, scribe, etc., or an apostle in the N.T. If not from the apostle himself it must be based on the testimony of an apostle by one closely associated with him.
C. Is it authentic (consistent with other revelation of truth)?
D. Is it dynamic – demonstrating God’s life-changing power (Hebrew 4:12)?
E. Is it received (accepted and used by believers – 1 Thessalonians 2:13)?
I was just using that as it was of something I knew of not that I want to look into... What about the early Jewish writings... One I remember The Acension Of Isaiah and the writings of the early church fathers... What about Gnostic writings?... Not that I want to check any of them out but what sets them apart and how would one know... You know me TC I'm just curious... Brother Glen
Last edited:
I'm between books and will check it out... Thanks!... Brother Glen
I think mostly just those that were widely accepted the first century.
From Bible Study Magazine: What's in your Canon
http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/extras-1/2014/10/31/whats-in-the-bible
Lots of different Canons depending upon your perspective
Rob
http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/extras-1/2014/10/31/whats-in-the-bible
Lots of different Canons depending upon your perspective
Rob
Bro. Glen: This series by the aforementioned Michael Kruger deals with 10 basic facts about the NT canon (OT canonical issues are something else entirely.) Yes, there are 10 parts, but each is short.
http://michaeljkruger.com/the-compl...t-canon-that-every-christian-should-memorize/
http://michaeljkruger.com/the-compl...t-canon-that-every-christian-should-memorize/
Thanks for that article Rob but there were two others mentioned not in the chart The Gospel of Peter and The Gospel of Thomas... Brother Glen
Yes and I don't feel we will ever discover any that didn't make it... I am fully satisfied with what I read and study in my KJV... I'm sure other brethren are satisfied in their reading a studying of what version they use... To me there is as the scriptures states nothing new under the sun... Will there be a new revelation greater than the one already revealed in Jesus Christ not to my understanding of scripture and I have my hands full as it is understanding the truths the Lord has already revealed to me and us all... Are not some teachers have itching ears wanting to hear some new thing?... And if that being the case will not that hunger take us away from the true bread that comforts our hearts, souls and minds... I also feel that according to the criteria that TC laid out those that belong in the Conon were put there and those that didn't belong there were left out by Divine instruction... Brother Glen
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Kruger's self-authenticating model is the best proof I've read about. Keep reading that book; it's really good.
Oh I will definitely finish it. I have been extremely busy the last 5 days, so I haven't touched it. I hope to read some today. Currently I would say I hold to a form of "criteria-of-canonicity" model.
** I am getting ready to start the chapter that deals with Kruger's proposal.
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
Just for the record, the 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments.
This fact was a trauma for KJVO folk and was one of the ingredients which led to the toppling of the KJVO theory/concept of "double inspiration" (that the KJVO translation committee had the gift of translation "inspiration" as did the prophets and apostles in the writing of the original mss) and that the resultant English corrected the Greek and the Hebrew.
HankD
This fact was a trauma for KJVO folk and was one of the ingredients which led to the toppling of the KJVO theory/concept of "double inspiration" (that the KJVO translation committee had the gift of translation "inspiration" as did the prophets and apostles in the writing of the original mss) and that the resultant English corrected the Greek and the Hebrew.
HankD
Last edited:
Actually the Apocrypha being included in the early KJV editions is of no consequence at all.
Note the translators removed it from its place among the Old Testament Scriptures and put it together between the Testaments.
Note that all the KJV translators were confessional Anglicans and agreed to the Anglican Confession of Faith, the 39 Articles.
Article VI
The Sufficiency of Holy Scripture for Our Salvation
Holy Scripture sets forth everything that is necessary for our salvation. Consequently, nobody should be required to believe as an article of the Christian faith, or to regard as necessary for salvation, anything that is not found in Scripture or that cannot be proved from Scripture. By the term Holy Scripture we mean the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, namely:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, I and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phiippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Revelation.
The books known as the Apocrypha are read by the Church, as Jerome said, because of the examples they provide of heroic lives and faithful conduct; but the Church does not use these books to establish any doctrine.
Note the translators removed it from its place among the Old Testament Scriptures and put it together between the Testaments.
Note that all the KJV translators were confessional Anglicans and agreed to the Anglican Confession of Faith, the 39 Articles.
Article VI
The Sufficiency of Holy Scripture for Our Salvation
Holy Scripture sets forth everything that is necessary for our salvation. Consequently, nobody should be required to believe as an article of the Christian faith, or to regard as necessary for salvation, anything that is not found in Scripture or that cannot be proved from Scripture. By the term Holy Scripture we mean the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, namely:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, I and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phiippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Revelation.
The books known as the Apocrypha are read by the Church, as Jerome said, because of the examples they provide of heroic lives and faithful conduct; but the Church does not use these books to establish any doctrine.
True, but as we went down this path several years ago Tom, someone made the observation that while these remarks are found in the 39 Articles of Faith (which have varied in number over the years) the remarks were not found in the actual 1611 publication of the First Edition of the KJ Bible, neither were these remarks found in the Letter to the Reader.
And in fact, apocryphal readings were found in the list of the "scripture" readings for the year.
Am I wrong?
AND, I am not disparaging that venerable book the 1611 KJV of the Bible, but will make excuse for them, IMO they were still in an emergent state out from the romish grave of the papacy. Just stating historical facts.
God mightily used both the 1611 Bible and many persons who were of the Church of England, John Burgon, my favorite.
HankD
I am pretty sure that part of the requirement of what was included in the canon was how the writings dealt with Christ.
Don't forget who the KJV was intended for. It was the 3rd "Authorized Version" of the Anglican Communion. "Authorized to be read in churches" and those churches were Anglican churches who were bound to the 39 Articles as their statement of faith. Therefore, as all the churches wherein the AV was going to be read were confessing Anglican churches confessing the 39 Articles as their statement of faith such an addition to the KJV would have been superfluous.
Yes they were, for the purpose of "are read by the Church, as Jerome said, because of the examples they provide of heroic lives and faithful conduct; but the Church does not use these books to establish any doctrine."
Don't forget that "bible reading schedule" was not for each individual Christian to do at home, but was the reading to be "read by the Church" from the pulpit daily. And the position of the Apocrypha was governed by the 39 Articles.
From your deleted post: However I believe it was a mistake for the Apocrypha to be included in a book titled The Holy Bible.
Would that include maps, list of proper names, concordance, etc?
Last edited: