Changing the word of God

[Nehemiah6]

Martin Luther removed 1 and 2 Peter, James, Jude and incredibly Revelation!! there was an other but I can't remember which at present. Where would Christian Chat be if Revelation hadn't been put back after his death!!

This is totally false and misleading. Luther's Bible has every book of the New Testament.
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation

 

[tanakh]

Do you have a scholarly source for that claim?

Log into the Martin Luther Bible Society website. What scholarly source would satisfy you?
In my experience Scholarly sources are rarely impartial if at all.

 

[Jocund]

Log into the Martin Luther Bible Society website. What scholarly source would satisfy you?
In my experience Scholarly sources are rarely impartial if at all.

As Nehemiah6 pointed out in his recent post, the books that you claim to be missing are not in fact missing from the Luther Bible.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lut/

 

[posthuman]

The only thing I take on faith is that Jesus is Lord. I do not take on faith that other humans somehow correctly canonised scripture.
We can say things like the Holy Spirit was with them, or whatever, but this is wishful thinking.

if Jesus is Lord do you think He made a mistake transmitting the scripture to you?
if Jesus is Lord and Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit why would you think it's 'wishful thinking' that men guided by that very promised Holy Spirit were able to discern the truth from the lie?
have a look at Acts 15. here is an example of humans coming together to determine the answer to hard questions, and being led by the Spirit to the correct conclusion. so you have a witness that it isn't impossible.

scripture testifies of Christ. John 5:39. there's one litmus test you can use.

in general as to non-canonical books, you may as well be asking why Bill O'Reilly's books aren't in the Bible.
because they're either devoid of Christ, of full of false teaching about Christ, is why.

 

[posthuman]

Where would Christian Chat be if Revelation hadn't been put back after his death!!

CC might concentrate a little more on practical matters if that were the case . . ?

 

[posthuman]

This is totally false and misleading. Luther's Bible has every book of the New Testament.
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation

if i am correctly informed, Luther *wanted to* omit several of the books in the NT, particularly James, Peter's epistles, and Revelation. Luther however didn't have absolute authority ((like some pope or something)) over the reformed church, and his objections to those books were met with resistance from other church leaders, to which he capitulated.

 

[Nehemiah6]

and his objections to those books were met with resistance from other church leaders, to which he capitulated.

Whatever the reasons, Luther did not tamper with the Bible. Perhaps he was convicted. And Luther's Bible was a powerful force during the Reformation.

 

[Wansvic]

The only thing I take on faith is that Jesus is Lord. I do not take on faith that other humans somehow correctly canonised scripture.
We can say things like the Holy Spirit was with them, or whatever, but this is wishful thinking.

The canon of scripture we currently have is exactly what God intended since all of mankind will be judged by it. (John 12:48)

 

[Sipsey]

The only thing I take on faith is that Jesus is Lord. I do not take on faith that other humans somehow correctly canonised scripture.
We can say things like the Holy Spirit was with them, or whatever, but this is wishful thinking.

Scripture was often quoted in early correspondence between believers and early Church leaders. So much so that nearly the entire NT, minus less than 20 verses, can be constructed from these quotes- before Scripture was canonized. So I think that many use, we just don't know if it’s true, as an excuse.

 

[Unearthed]

The canon of scripture we currently have is exactly what God intended since all of mankind will be judged by it. (John 12:48)

You've said two things in your post:

1. The canon of scripture we currently have is exactly what God intended,

2. all of mankind will be judged by it.

You've then presented John 12:48 as supporting both points.
This reasoning does not hold.

1. The canon of scripture we currently have is exactly what God intended
John 12:48 says nothing about the canon

2. all of mankind will be judged by it
John 12:48 says
"There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words...."
John 12:48 supports this, but again makes no reference to the canon.

 

[Dino246]

The canon of scripture we currently have is exactly what God intended since all of mankind will be judged by it. (John 12:48)

While I don’t disagree with your first statement, the second employs the fallacy of circular reasoning. It could be applied to any collection of books that includes John.

 

[Wansvic]

While I don’t disagree with your first statement, the second employs the fallacy of circular reasoning. It could be applied to any collection of books that includes John.

I see your point.

 

[CS1]

if Jesus is Lord do you think He made a mistake transmitting the scripture to you?
if Jesus is Lord and Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit why would you think it's 'wishful thinking' that men guided by that very promised Holy Spirit were able to discern the truth from the lie?
have a look at Acts 15. here is an example of humans coming together to determine the answer to hard questions, and being led by the Spirit to the correct conclusion. so you have a witness that it isn't impossible.

scripture testifies of Christ. John 5:39. there's one litmus test you can use.

in general as to non-canonical books, you may as well be asking why Bill O'Reilly's books aren't in the Bible.
because they're either devoid of Christ, of full of false teaching about Christ, is why.

why Bill's books are not there? You know you caused me to think something that was very interesting to me.

Bill "O" wrote the killing Book" of I think all those who he never met with the exception of JFK, and Ragan I think I could be wrong.

I know he did not meet Abraham lincoln or Crazy Horse. For bill O'Reilly books to be truthful HE had to have information of those he wrote about in the book who were:

1. eyewitnesses, or testimony from those who told what happens from an eyewitness. Just like a court of law out of the mouth of two or more witnesses.

2. other historical things to support the claim, landmarks, relics, archeological finds, etc..,.

The same is with the word of God we have EYE witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ who saw his death and resurrection they died unwilling to deny that truth!

That is why the Bible is so powerful it is Truth! and God has kept it and HE always will. Many have tried to attack it, but it will stand forever.

 

[peldom10]

Um... the Bible does not say anthing about the apocryphal books, specifically, as to why they aren't in the canon.

Glad to see you got the point...we have what we have.