Does anyone know the history of the book referred to today as the Holy Bible?

A little earlier than that. Date of the Exodus 1603 BC. Abraham was born 2322 BC.

The history of the Bible begins with Moses (c 1500 BC and ends with the apostle John (c 100 AD). Excuse my ignorance, but why did it end with John (c 100 AD)?

I'm wondering if this means God stopped revealing Himself to us, went silent and stopped talking to us and through us 1922 years ago, since John c 100 AD?

I'm wondering if this means God stopped revealing Himself to us, went silent and stopped talking to us and through us 1922 years ago, since John c 100 AD? And with the canon of scripture being closed. Who closed it and can it be reopened? Sorry about the questions but I'm curious.

I don't recall any reference to the scriptures being opened or closed. Can someone give me a chapter and verse to back up this action. I'm being serious as it has evaded me for a long time especially the idea of a closed canon. Again, did our God close it or did someone else? Actually did God open it in the first place or did someone else? Maybe after researching the bible and it's origins I have more questions than answers. I hope to get answers from those in this forum.

Which portion?

Long history of the Bible.

Moses started it with the Torah/Law about 5,600 years ago. (First five books)

The rest of the Tenakh (old testament) came about during the next 3000 years consisting of prophecies, songs, wisdom, and history.

There was about 600 years of nothing was added...although the Maccabees tried to add their history. But it has some errors and wonky theology.

Paper and ink was horribly expensive during this time. Just the first five books (Torah) would cost an equivalent of about $100,000 in today's dollars.

Roughly around 100-200 BC the Jews had to do something as 70% of the Jewish population couldn't read or write Hebrew. So they took 70+ scholars to translate the Tenakh into Greek in 70 days. They created what is referred to as the Septuagint.



The Apostles (including Paul) didn't start writing until around 60AD.

But by 100 AD they had a mostly complete Bible that was being used. (A couple of New Testament books missing until the Nicean Council in 300 AD where Jude was added last. ) The two guys who brought it abstained from voting for its inclusion...and there's a LOT of people making a mountain more out of this than what the truth is.

Then hand transcribed copies existed...becoming more and more Latinized in the west and Arabic in the East.

Finally, about the time when the printing press was invented the Bible was finally translated into various languages. German, French, Spanish and lastly English. (English has and continues to be the worst receptor language of them all)

Politics has played a role in Bible translating...and that created situations where people died for holding one by other supposed Christians "Doing God's work " .

1100-1400 is when the Catholic (general) church lost its grip on the nations of the world. Civil governments became a thing instead of the church ruling from Rome.

King Henry 8th is the one who created the Church of England and the first official English translation of the Bible. (Copied work of Miles Coverdale and he copied Wycliff)

New ancient manuscripts have been discovered over the years...masoretes had a system for the Old Testament and its proliferation. Each adding to the accuracy of the scriptures as they discovered copyist mistakes and added inserted sermon notes.

Around the turn of the 18th or 19th century they began to remove many of the "along side" books that were often included with bibles....these were never scripture or considered as such but used to help understand background information that assisted people with understanding scriptures.

The Festival of Light (mentioned in John's Gospel) is a celebration derived from the miracle during the Maccabean revolt. And without the books 1st&2nd Maccabees we really wouldn't know much about why this festival was happening. But it isn't included with scriptures anymore.

The common King James Bible of today has nothing to do with King James....he had died long before it was created. The current one named after him is actually a collaborative work between Cambridge and Oxford Universities in England over a century after King James had died. (shhhh...Cambridge did 90% of the work while Oxford claimed 50% of the glory)

Today there is collaborative works of the manuscripts known and published by United Bible Society for the New Testament and I'm forgetting the name of the Hebrew scriptures as it changes every so often...it was Biblica Hebraica Stutengartsia....and this is where all modern translations stem from. (Except for the Jehova Witnesses who made their junk up all along anyway)

You get statements like this thrown around.... 'The idea of a closed canon is that the Bible is complete; no more books are being added to it. God is not appending His Word'.
How could someone come up with such a conclusion? Again, when did God say that? It's not recorded in the bible itself so it must have come post bible. So there are no more books to be added to the bible but there are allowances or exceptions for adding statements (like this one), coming to conclusions (as is made here) and for taking actions that impact the whole church which has impacted it since 'The Council of Trent on 8 April 1546 approved the present Catholic Bible canon, which includes the deuterocanonical books, and the decision was confirmed by an anathema by vote (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain).' Ref. Metzger (1997), p. 246. "Finally on 8 April 1546, by a vote of 24 to 15, with 16 abstentions, the Council issued a decree (De Canonicis Scripturis) in which, for the first time in the history of the Church, the question of the contents of the Bible was made an absolute article of faith and confirmed by an anathema."
The contents of scriptures (canon) was decided on by vote. Interesting!

Because in the Catholic Church the common man isn't supposed to interpret scriptures...that job is solely for the priests to do. And the priests are supposed to be trained in how to interpret scriptures and "along side" books in the Bibles they use.

One other tidbit...

Scriptures have all been "tested" before they could be considered scripture.
Meaning that 100 unique tests were performed on any writing before being accepted as scripture.

The only time there was a controversy about what was God's word was during Daniel's time. Daniel accepted Jeremiah's prophesy as scripture before 100 years had passed since the time of its writing. This caused quite a stir at the time...still does in some Jewish circles.

The 1546 council in summery came together 1446 years later after the canon of the Bible had already been in circulation. At most it was a meeting to wrestle with the many false gospels floating around at this time.

But it bears no weight on the Christian especially today as God through science has given us enough evidence to show which gospels are false and which ones are not.

In simplicity the NT are the apostles writings. Apostles defined as people who experienced Jesus directly. That makes any gospel written by an apostles the best writing to consider inspired and to hold authority.

Everything else outside of the 66 canon should be held to the standard of truth written in the 66 books.

So for example, the gospel of Thomas holds many errors and contradicts the Bible. The Quran contadicts the Bible. Or let's say we read a book by C.S. Lewis, his book may be 98% accurate in words to compliment the Bible. So we can take that as a source that can help us study the scriptures but it must compliment scripture and not contradict.

Sorry, but you are off by about 100 years for Moses. See below:

Expanded Timeline for Senenmut and Moses
1523b. Moses, Exodus 2; found by pharaoh’s daughter Hatshepsut when she was 12 years old.
Dates based on Chronicle of the Pharaohs Peter A. Clayton (New York: Thames & Hudson; 2006)
http://www.prophecysociety.org/?p=6442

I have not checked on Abraham but that too is probably incorrect.

All it requires is a look at the levitical calendar year date. That's when the Exodus happened.

Get a copy of "The Canon of Scripture" by F.F. Bruce. I have it in my library and it should be a requirement for every 1st year Bible College student.
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-Script...ocphy=9004991&hvtargid=pla-598567492294&psc=1

It is an award winning book that details the exact history with all of the resources and proofs cited to satisfy any scholar but written in such a way that even the layman can understand (if they read it more than once and try to retain it)

One of the first things you will learn is that by 367 AD we have written documented proof that the church was known to have already accepted the same 27 books as our current New Testament as canon and no others.

The list of the same 27 books of our current New Testament appear first in 367 AD by Athanasius. This list was not the result of a vote nor was there a council convened for the purpose of deciding this. It was already accepted by the church long before this list was mentioned.

So when anyone skips this early important information and quotes only later councils and tells you that is how we got our current list they are probably willful liars. They can easily discover the information about Athanasius and his list of the same 27 books we currently hold as NT Canon written in 367 AD but they don't mention it because their agenda is to lie to people and tell them that corrupt catholics decided on what was canon.

The interesting thing is that the Apocrypha and other books were never accepted and we have this proof from as early as 367 AD. A simple Google search will reveal it in the first page of links and therefore anyone who excludes this history about Athanasius and his list from 367 AD is probably a willful liar and not just ignorant.

Don't listen to anything else they have to say. They are doing the work of Satan to deceive. As you can see, the same author Bruce Metzger is mentioned below so whoever quotes his information about a council in 1546 would have to know that Bruce Metzger gave information about the first lists of canon books from 367 AD and they purposely left that information out so that they could deceive people into thinking that Bruce Metzger said that the first list was in 1546 by a vote, which would be a lie. Bruce never said that was the origin of the list of Canonical books.

Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, addressed this problem on Jan. 7, A.D. 367, when he wrote his annual Easter letter to his churches.2 It was a landmark letter because it contained the same list of 27 books of the New Testament that are found in our Bibles today. So far as we know, Athanasius was the first Christian leader to compile a list of New Testament books exactly as we know them today. Bruce Metzger, a New Testament scholar, wrote, “The year 367 marks, thus, the first time that the scope of the New Testament canon is declared to be exactly the twenty-seven books accepted today as canonical.”3

Here are portions of Athanasius’ letter, in which he lists the books of the Old and New Testaments that he considered authoritative. The English translation is the work of the late F.F. Bruce:

Athanasius then gives his list of Old Testament books and lists the 27 New Testament books.

https://www.gci.org/articles/athanasius-lists-the-new-testament-writings/

The first church councils to approve the New Testament canon met in A.D. 393 at the Synod of Hippo Regius and in A.D. 397 at Carthage, in North Africa, some 30 years after Athanasius published his list. The councils merely endorsed what had already become the consensus in the churches of the West and most of the East about the extent of the canonical books of Scripture.

It was known much earlier (1st century) that the apocryphal books were never accepted as being inspired.

Here (<= link ) is an interesting/informative read on the matter

It's a deep dive study my friend. Most people don't want to do their homework.......but the numbers I quoted are spot on.

1 Kings 6 "480 years".......is apx 113 years short (out of fellowship years). Critical is the correct reading of Acts 13:20.

Open a search engine.....keyword:
Barry Setterfield 1603 bc
Barry Setterfield 2322 bc

Barrys chronology to Abraham's spot on. Some of his other dating schemes.....I do not necessarily agree with.

I can send a couple other extremely useful links later. Which delineate the exact 113 missing years to perfection. Everything is accounted for amazingly.

BTW.........Ushers chronology dates the flood @ 2348 BC. Yet Abraham was indeed born 2322 BC.
Yes, Ushers chronology is completely useless.....for many many different reasons.

You cite Athanasius of Alexandria Athanasius (298–373 A.D.) as your source for proving that the 27 books of the New Testament existed by the year 367. You do realize that you are citing a Roman Catholic Bishop. Athanasius was a bishop of Alexandria (Egypt), in the fourth century. He is revered as a Saint by both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church..

You go on to state, " It was already accepted by the church long before this list was mentioned." May I ask which Church was that. At the time of Athanasius, there was only one established Christian Church and that was the Roman Catholic Church. So, if you think it was some other church, what church would that be? Thanks.

Read the book by F.F. Bruce "Canon of Scripture" for all the details.

Athanasius is someone who documented something early of which whose writings survived. His was not the first list but his matched the same 27 NT books we consider canon today. And his statements that the churches had already accepted them from the beginning is important.

That is the only point in using his list. There is no point being made about his credentials or his doctrines.

We know from this list that these were considered canon and his statements about how they were considered canon by the church he means that the church as it grew from the 1st century, and as these 27 books were written, were accepted by Christians and shared among them and respected as sacred scripture.

Before there was any Roman Catholic Church that replaced bishops with their own by power and authority of the state, (which was after 367)

during the entire 2nd century these books were already considered scripture.

There are writings by some who disputed certain books, 2 Peter, Jude, a few others, but they were not the voice of the rest of the churches who had already accepted them.

The history shows that the same 27 books Athanasius mentioned were already accepted before he mentioned them. That's all his list supports. He was not declaring them canon by his authority he was saying that the churches in general, whereever they were through out the world had already respected these books as canon and no others. The churches that existed as local fellowships since the 1st century.

Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion until 380 so the Roman Catholic Church system that eventually replaced all the bishops with their own took a little more time to develop. When Athanasius mentions that the churches considered these books as sacred Canon and no others in 367 AD he was talking about an historical precedence from the 1st century to date, not an official church dogma or creed that was established by their leadership or some kind of Pope somewhere. All that came later.

The earliest churches accepted the same 27 books as sacred canon as they came out and were distributed among the churches. Some early writers whos writing survived argued about some of them but even when they did they mention how they had been widely accepted, and thus saying, provide additional support that the churches in general accepted them from the beginning.

Marcion also produced a list around 140-200 AD but he was a heretic that cut out books that did not agree with his teachings and so his list of books by Paul is what he believed was the only canon and was his own opinion and no one ever agreed with him on leaving out the books he did.

Again, you cite, "
The earliest churches accepted the same 27 books as sacred canon as they came out and were distributed among the churches. Some early writers whos writing survived argued about some of them but even when they did they mention how they had been widely accepted, and thus saying, provide additional support that the churches in general accepted them from the beginning.

In fact, Jesus did not found multiple chruches, He found His Church, only one Church. You cite earliest Churches, but there was only one Church, Jesus Church. Peter and Paul and other disciples took Jesus' Church to Rome (Thus the name of the Roman Catholic Church) and they and future disciples completely conquered Rome and Rome became a Christian country.

You continue to cite earliest Churches. What churches were these that you are thinking of. Give us some of their history and some of their writings. Thanks.

I don't know what you are talking about. The local fellowships of the first 400 years were not ruled by the RCC system that took over and corrupted everything. If you are wanting to promote RCC dogma about Peter being the first pope and all that nonsense I am not interested in that discussion.

Obviously you don't know what you're talking about. Jesus only founded one Church, not numerous churches or fellowships. You are making up Church history to fit with your distorted belief. There were many local Churches but all members of the Church that Jesus founded.

So, show me the writings of these early 'fellowships of the first 400 years' that weren't associated with Christ's Apostolic/Catholic Church. Show me their history. In fact, it doesn't exist, simple as that. Christ did not found fellowships, He founded His Apostolic and Universal Church.