KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLE

[Laish]

I think anyone who openly reads the extra books can see there are issues with them. Maccabees is a great historical record. We have used it in church when going over things, But we do nto consider it scripture because of major issues with it.

I do see some value in the apocrypha but keep them in the same field as commentaries . Yes worth a look but not scripture.
Blessings
Bill

 

[trofimus]

I do see some value in the apocrypha but keep them in the same field as commentaries . Yes worth a look but not scripture.
Blessings
Bill

For me personally, books like Esther, Song of songs, Lamentations etc are not as useful or interesting as for example Sirach.

So its not about some kind of modern "status".

 

[trofimus]

I have to disagree Note the Belgic confession 1561 article 6 has only the 66 books of the Bible as scripture. There is some book order differences Calvin did approve of the confession in one of his letters letters he said he and his brothers in Geneva wholeheartedly agreed.

We believe that the Holy Scriptures are contained in two books, namely, the Old and New Testament, which are canonical, against which nothing can be alleged. These are thus named in the Church of God. The books of the Old Testament are, the five books of Moses, namely: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; the books of Joshua, Ruth, Judges, the two books of Samuel, the two of the Kings, two books of the Chronicles, commonly called Paralipomenon, the first of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, the Psalms of David, the three books of Solomon, namely, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; the four great prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel; and the twelve lesser prophets, namely, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.
Those of the New Testament are the four evangelists, namely: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; the fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul, namely: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon, and one to the Hebrews; the seven epistles of the other apostles, namely, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; and the Revelation of the apostle John.

Also note Calvin in his response to Rome in his publication Acts of the counsel of Trent with the antidote. Says that the apocryphal were ecclesiastical. Suitable for reading but not for doctrine by not being inspired.
So the reformers did have issues with the apocrypha,and had separated them early on and not in the 19th century . There are other things that can be used as examples from other reformers and well before the reformation,but I don’t have them in my hand at the moment. I will post that later.
Blessings
Bill

I was talking about reformers, not about later reformed creeds that were made to be "as much different than catholic creeds as possible", so they probably went too far in this.

But if you read books by reformers, you can see many times they quote DT books as Scripture without any distinction. That distinction came into protestantism later.

Also, reformed creeds are not inspired We should not ignore 1500 years of continuous use because of some 17th century creed, right?

If you are interested in Calvin, I can find you some of his quotations from Institutes. Lets see.

 

[Laish]

I was talking about reformers, not about later reformed creeds that were made to be "as much different than catholic creeds as possible", so they probably went too far in this.

But if you read books by reformers, you can see many times they quote DT books as Scripture without any distinction. That distinction came into protestantism later.

Also, reformed creeds are not inspired We should not ignore 1500 years of continuous use because of some 17th century creed, right?

If you are interested in Calvin, I can find you some of his quotations from Institutes. Lets see.

The creed is what the reformers wrote so it encompasses what they thought. Also the confession I mentioned was penned in the reformation. If you want to see what they think read what they wrote.
I do have Calvin’s institutes It is interesting but not what we are talking about.
Blessings
Bill

 

[MarcR]

LUKE 24

25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.

29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.

31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,

34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.

35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and hisfeet.

41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.

43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the [1] law of Moses, and in [2] the prophets, and in [3] the psalms, concerning me. [THE THREE MAJOR DIVISIONS OF THE TANAKH]

45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.

51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

So here is God the Word -- God the Son -- showing His apostles that everything concerning Himself was revealed throughout the Old Testament. Now our Old Testament is simply an expanded presentation of the Hebrew Tanakh. So here is what Christ was referring to:

THE LAW -- TORAH (5 books)
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy

THE PROPHETS -- NEVIIM (or Nebiim)(8 books)
Joshua
Judges
Samuel (1 book)
Kings (1 book)
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
The Twelve (1 book) -- Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

THE PSALMS (THE WRITINGS) -- KETUVIM (or Kethubim) (11 books)

(A) POETIC BOOKS
Psalms
Proverbs
Job

(B) MEGILLOTH (THE FIVE SCROLLS)
Song of Songs
Ruth
Lamentations
Ecclesiastes
Esther

(C) OTHER BOOKS
Daniel
Ezra-Nehemiah (1 book)
Chronicles (1 book)

To the best of my knowledge [and my knowledge is extensive] Melachim (Kings) was never considered prophetic and belongs in the OTHER BOOKS category. Your listing is otherwise correct.

 

[Dan_473]

Your responses are UNBELIEVABLE. All Palestinian Jews knew exactly what He was talking about.

I'm not aware of a list left behind by the Jews of that time, other than the lxx

 

[Laish]

I'm not aware of a list left behind by the Jews of that time, other than the lxx

Well if you are wondering about the Old Testament and what was used at the time of Christ I believe MarcR might have some insight. He is very knowledgeable in this area . So MarcR if ya see this could you throw in your two cents please.
I will be interesting to read what you think .
Blessings
Bill

 

[trofimus]

The creed is what the reformers wrote so it encompasses what they thought. Also the confession I mentioned was penned in the reformation. If you want to see what they think read what they wrote.
I do have Calvin’s institutes It is interesting but not what we are talking about.
Blessings
Bill

When I said "reformers considered them inspired", I really meant reformers - Jan Hus, Jan A. Komenský, Calvin etc.

I am aware of the fact that some reformed creeds say what you are saying. But it is not as important to me. I do not think that the process of protestant reformation was totally perfect. They made mistakes.

Why, for example, do you think that belgian confession is something you should rely on? Its a sincere question, since you are American and you have probably nothing or very little common with belgian church history... Thats why I rather rely on ecumenical creeds, for all the church - synod of Carthage, for example.

 

[trofimus]

Well if you are wondering about the Old Testament and what was used at the time of Christ I believe MarcR might have some insight. He is very knowledgeable in this area . So MarcR if ya see this could you throw in your two cents please.
I will be interesting to read what you think .
Blessings
Bill

1. Its a confirmed historical fact that the first church was using Septugaint. And Septuagint contains many various books.

2. Also, when we discover some caves etc with Scriptures, there are alway some other scriptures added, compared to our today´s Bibles.

3. The oldest Biblical manuscripts we have (for example Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) have DT books in them without any distinction.

4. When you read the New Testament, you see that they knew and used also books we would not consider even deuterocanonical - book of Enoch, for example. So there was no strict use of some list of "allowed" books".

---

So a "jewish canon" really existed neither for the church, nor for Jews themselves. But it was in some kind of shaping process, one group used this, one group used that.

 

[trofimus]

I'm not aware of a list left behind by the Jews of that time, other than the lxx

There were some "lists", for example by Josephus Nehemiah mentioned.

The problem is, there was no "list" used by all or everywhere. There was a huge variability. Palestinian canon was different from Samaritan canon, different from canon of other Jews, different from Saducean canon etc.

I propose we should follow Christian canon, the same as the first church did. Which was wider than today´s and not even so strictly closed.

If not, why, exactly?

 

[MarcR]

1. Its a confirmed historical fact that the first church was using Septugaint. And Septuagint contains many various books.

2. Also, when we discover some caves etc with Scriptures, there are alway some other scriptures added, compared to our today´s Bibles.

3. The oldest Biblical manuscripts we have (for example Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) have DT books in them without any distinction.

4. When you read the New Testament, you see that they knew and used also books we would not consider even deuterocanonical - book of Enoch, for example. So there was no strict use of some list of "allowed" books".

---

So a "jewish canon" really existed neither for the church, nor for Jews themselves. But it was in some kind of shaping process, one group used this, one group used that.

While your post is basically correct; the DC books were in fact distinguished. The distinctions were often quite subtle; and you may not be recognizing them. Often the notation ֠ appears over one letter of the title.

 

[Dan_473]

There were some "lists", for example by Josephus Nehemiah mentioned.

The problem is, there was no "list" used by all or everywhere. There was a huge variability. Palestinian canon was different from Samaritan canon, different from canon of other Jews, different from Saducean canon etc.

I propose we should follow Christian canon, the same as the first church did. Which was wider than today´s and not even so strictly closed.

If not, why, exactly?

interestingly, the earliest known Canon of the nt is much shorter than what we use today, and contains the book of Wisdom

The Muratorian Fragment

 

[Dan_473]

i remember reading somewhere that manuscripts not conforming to the masoretic tradition were burned

any truth to that, or did i just dream it?

 

[Laish]

When I said "reformers considered them inspired", I really meant reformers - Jan Hus, Jan A. Komenský, Calvin etc.

I am aware of the fact that some reformed creeds say what you are saying. But it is not as important to me. I do not think that the process of protestant reformation was totally perfect. They made mistakes.

Why, for example, do you think that belgian confession is something you should rely on? Its a sincere question, since you are American and you have probably nothing or very little common with belgian church history... Thats why I rather rely on ecumenical creeds, for all the church - synod of Carthage, for example.

My post was in response to the quote in the post . Not to what I believe is inspired although I do hold those same beliefs. If you follow me . Yes that sounds confusing. I would have posted differently on what I believe was inspired. Dose that make sense ?
Blessings
Bill

 

[trofimus]

While your post is basically correct; the DC books were in fact distinguished. The distinctions were often quite subtle; and you may not be recognizing them. Often the notation ֠ appears over one letter of the title.

Can you show me such distinction? I have never heard of it.

Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Genesis |

 

[trofimus]

i remember reading somewhere that manuscripts not conforming to the masoretic tradition were burned

any truth to that, or did i just dream it?

The history of masoretic text is a black box to us, outsiders... who knows what they did. It was not under the church control, the text has been managed under the rabbinic judaism.

But for some info, you can look here:
https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/

 

[MarcR]

Can you show me such distinction? I have never heard of it.

Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Genesis |

I was referring to deutero-canonical books in the Septuagint. Different editions vary; but DC books are usually designated in some way. Usually in the front before the text starts there will be some key to notations used.

 

[trofimus]

I was referring to deutero-canonical books in the Septuagint. Different editions vary; but DC books are usually designated in some way. Usually in the front before the text starts there will be some key to notations used.

Codex sinaiticus is not Septuagint? (Regarding the OT)

For example the page where Tobit starts is quite clean and well visible. But I can not see any note that this book is different from others.

 

[trofimus]

My post was in response to the quote in the post . Not to what I believe is inspired although I do hold those same beliefs. If you follow me . Yes that sounds confusing. I would have posted differently on what I believe was inspired. Dose that make sense ?
Blessings
Bill

Well, can you tell me reasons for your belief about using Jewish canon instead of traditional Christian one?

Let us forget for a while that some creed have this and some other creed has that.

 

[MarcR]

Codex sinaiticus is not Septuagint? (Regarding the OT)

For example the page where Tobit starts is quite clean and well visible. But I can not see any note that this book is different from others.

I know what Codex Sinaticus is; but I have never had direct contact with it. Are the DC books mingled with the canonical books; or are they all in a separate sectin of the document?