Is there more than 66 books

[ATP]

Are there lost letters that should of been added to the Holy Bible, or was it God's plan to not go past 66.

 

[pom2014]

Man made it 66, not God.

To be specific, anti Catholic protestant man.

 

[OzSpen]

Man made it 66, not God.

To be specific, anti Catholic protestant man.

So which are the other books that should be in the Bible? Are you saying that all Bibles should include the Apocrypha? Have you read the content of (1) Tobit and, (2) Bel and the Dragon lately?

Or, should the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Nicodemus, Gospel of Judas, and the Gospel of the Nazoreans should also be included? Where should the number of books stop? Why not include Augustine's City of God and Confessions?

Oz

 

[pom2014]

So which are the other books that should be in the Bible? Are you saying that all Bibles should include the Apocrypha? Have you read the content of (1) Tobit and, (2) Bel and the Dragon lately?

Or, should the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Nicodemus, Gospel of Judas, and the Gospel of the Nazoreans should also be included? Where should the number of books stop? Why not include Augustine's City of God and Confessions?

Oz

The New Testament at one point included all writings of Christians.

It was FOUR times the size of what we have now.

But Irenaeus decided that there should ONLY be the four gospels, because there were four corners of the earth, four winds and four angels in the prophecy of Ezekiel.
And only the letters of Paul should be included. He even said that we SHOULD NOT have Revelation. Said it was NOT for the laity. But people who had sat at the feet of John begged and he allowed it.

HE ALLOWED IT.

I agree with Timothy that ALL scripture is useful. Even what might be considered not viable by one or two men. Like Irenaeus.

Include it all. Hold nothing back. No hidden knowledge.

 

[Born_Again]

Well then I guess the next questions would be, considering the possibility of other gospels needing to be included, is anything being kept out that should be added? Meaning, anything that would change the way Christians view things... Would gaps be filled? Would prophecy change?

BA

 

[River Jordan]

This is an interesting question in the information age we live in, where pretty much all of us have access to any of the non-Biblical books we want. So if someone thinks the Book of Thomas was unnecessarily excluded, they are free to get it and include in their Bible studies as they wish.

Gone are the days when any authority directly controlled what Christians could or couldn't read.

 

[Wormwood]

The problem is that there were many groups surfacing that sought to change the message of Christ from those who originally passed it down. Marcion was the first to try to reshape the person and message of Jesus by making an anti-Semitic canon. The canon was formed not to "control" what Christians could or couldn't read. It was formed to protect the original message that was passed down and distinguish it from new cults and heresies that were developing. The NT is filled with warnings of such perversions that would exchange the truth for a lie. You guys read too many tabloids and conspiracy novels... and far too few church history books.

 

[River Jordan]

To clarify, I wasn't talking about Christian authorities forming the canon to control what Christians could or couldn't read. I was talking about things like burning libraries, deliberately keeping certain texts from circulation, and not allowing regular Christians to read the Bible for themselves.

 

[pom2014]

The problem is that there were many groups surfacing that sought to change the message of Christ from those who originally passed it down. Marcion was the first to try to reshape the person and message of Jesus by making an anti-Semitic canon. The canon was formed not to "control" what Christians could or couldn't read. It was formed to protect the original message that was passed down and distinguish it from new cults and heresies that were developing. The NT is filled with warnings of such perversions that would exchange the truth for a lie. You guys read too many tabloids and conspiracy novels... and far too few church history books.

Irenaeus didn't want us to have Revelation.

That right there tells me volumes of how early church leaders were trying to do what many that give incorrect doctrines do today. He was censoring what we could know. Was all right with that.

And he is not alone. Jerome interjected Lucifer into the text for his own agenda to attack the remaining heretical roman cults of his day.
King James made subtle changes to attack witchcraft, a heresy in his day.

And of course it has always been fashionable to take scripture out of context or highlight only what is wanted to prove a point from lifting the bans on divorce and remarriage to condemning Galileo for a heliocentric universe to
now the further attacks on science.

This hiding, twisting and misdirection is sure proof that the enemy is in our midst and is standing in the pulpits and wearing the clothing of sheep but are ravenous wolves.

So much deceit and many wonder why no one thinks highly of us.

 

[OzSpen]

The New Testament at one point included all writings of Christians.

It was FOUR times the size of what we have now.

But Irenaeus decided that there should ONLY be the four gospels, because there were four corners of the earth, four winds and four angels in the prophecy of Ezekiel.
And only the letters of Paul should be included. He even said that we SHOULD NOT have Revelation. Said it was NOT for the laity. But people who had sat at the feet of John begged and he allowed it.

HE ALLOWED IT.

I agree with Timothy that ALL scripture is useful. Even what might be considered not viable by one or two men. Like Irenaeus.

Include it all. Hold nothing back. No hidden knowledge.

pom,

From where did you obtain the information that ' The New Testament at one point included all writings of Christians.
It was FOUR times the size of what we have now'. Where do you get evidence that the NT canon was 4 times the 27 books that we now have?


Justin Martyr (ca 100-165) wrote about 'the memoirs of the apostles' which 'are called Gospels:

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me [Luke 22:19] this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood" (First Apology, ch 66).


And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 67).

Books in the Muratorian Fragment (Canon), dated ca 170, comprise the oldest known list of NT books. The early part of the document is missing. Here are details contained in it:
THE MURATORIAN CANON

The following translation usually follows the amended text edited by Hans Lietzmann, Das Muratorische Fragment und die Monarchianischen Prologue zu den Evangelien (Kleine Texte, i; Bonn, 1902; 2nd ed., Berlin, 1933). Owing to the wretched state of the Latin text, it is sometimes difficult to know what the writer intended; several phrases, therefore, are provided with alternative renderings (enclosed within parentheses). Translational expansions are enclosed within square brackets. The numerals indicate the lines of the original text. For a discussion, see chap. VIII.1 above, where freer renderings are sometimes given in place of the following literalistic translation.
. . . at which nevertheless he was present, and so he placed [them in his narrative]. [1] (2) The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. (3) Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, (4-5) when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, [2] (6) composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. [3] Yet he himself had not (7) seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, (8) so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. (9) The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. (10) To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], (11) he said, 'Fast with me from today to three days, and what (12) will be revealed to each one (13) let us tell it to one another.' In the same night it was revealed (14) to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, (15-16) that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it. And so, though various (17) elements [3a] may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels, (18) nevertheless this makes no difference to the faith (19) of believers, since by the one sovereign [3b] Spirit all things (20) have been declared in all [the Gospels]: concerning the (21) nativity, concerning the passion, concerning the resurrection, (22) concerning life with his disciples, (23) and concerning his twofold coming; (24) the first in lowliness when he was despised, which has taken place, (25) the second glorious in royal power, (26) which is still in the future. What (27) marvel is it then, if John so consistently (28) mentions these particular points also in his Epistles, (29) saying about himself, 'What we have seen with our eyes (30) and heard with our ears and our hands (31) have handled, these things we have written to you? [4] (32) For in this way he professes [himself] to be not only an eye-witness and hearer, (33) but also a writer of all the marvelous deeds of the Lord, in their order. (34) Moreover, the acts of all the apostles (35) were written in one book. For 'most excellent Theophilus' [5] Luke compiled (36) the individual events that took place in his presence — (37) as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter (38) as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] [5a] (39) when he journeyed to Spain. As for the Epistles of (40-1) Paul, they themselves make clear to those desiring to understand, which ones [they are], from what place, or for what reason they were sent. (42) First of all, to the Corinthians, prohibiting their heretical schisms; (43) next, [6] to the Galatians, against circumcision; (44-6) then to the Romans he wrote at length, explaining the order (or, plan) of the Scriptures, and also that Christ is their principle (or, main theme). [6a] It is necessary (47) for us to discuss these one by one, since the blessed (48) apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor (49-50) John, writes by name to only seven churches in the following sequence: To the Corinthians (51) first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, (52) to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, (53) to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans (54-5) seventh. It is true that he writes once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians for the sake of admonition, (56-7) yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth. For John also in the (58) Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, (59-60) nevertheless speaks to all. [Paul also wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy; and these are held sacred (62-3) in the esteem of the Church catholic for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There is current also [an epistle] to (64) the Laodiceans, [6b] [and] another to the Alexandrians, [6c] [both] forged in Paul's (65) name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others (66) which cannot be received into the catholic Church (67)— for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. (68) Moreover, the epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John are counted (or, used) in the catholic [Church]; [7] and [the book of] Wisdom, (70) written by the friends [7a] of Solomon in his honour. (71) We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, (72) [7b] though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. (73) But Hermas wrote the Shepherd (74) very recently, [7c] in our times, in the city of Rome, (75) while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair (76) of the church of the city of Rome. [7d] (77) And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but (78) it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among (79) the Prophets, whose number is complete, [8] or among (80) the Apostles, for it is after [their] time. (81) But we accept nothing whatever of Arsinous or Valentinus or Miltiades, (82) who also composed (83) a new book of psalms for Marcion, (84-5) together with Basilides, the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians [8a] . . .

So, here in approx A D 170, Luke is mentioned as 'the third book of the Gospel' and John is 'the fourth of the Gospels'. There is strong intimation here that there are four Gospels. Note also that Muratorian does not support epistles to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians as they are forgeries associated with Paul and some are not willing for the Apocalypse of Peter to be read in church.

I am more than familiar with this field as I have just completed my writing of a lengthy PhD dissertation (yet to be examined) in an area of the historical Jesus, which required my being fluent with the church fathers.
Oz

 

[Born_Again]

Quick grammar check... Should it be "Are there more than 66 books" If I understand correctly, "Is" would be used in a singular context "Book" vs. "Are" being plural as in "Books".. I'm sorry to interject and take away from the OP but this really stuck out.

 

[JimParker]

So which are the other books that should be in the Bible? Are you saying that all Bibles should include the Apocrypha? Have you read the content of (1) Tobit and, (2) Bel and the Dragon lately?

Or, should the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Nicodemus, Gospel of Judas, and the Gospel of the Nazoreans should also be included? Where should the number of books stop? Why not include Augustine's City of God and Confessions?

Oz

OZ,

The Septuagint (LXX) was the accepted book of the scriptures at the time of Jesus. The quotes of the OT found in the NT are from the LXX which contained the Apocrypha.

The Jewish canon of scripture without apocrypha, upon which Protestants base their OT canon, did not come into existence for about 300 years after Christ.

The apocrypha were part of every English translation of the Bible and were not removed from the King James Bible of 1611 until 1885.

The LXX continued to be "the Scriptures" until the Church determined which documents would be included in the New Testament based on authorship and content.Apostolic authorship was required of the books off the NY. The Gospels of Peter, Thomas, the Hebrews, Philip, Nicodemus, Judas, and the Nazoreans were all obviously written by people other than the Apostles and deviated from the teachings of the 4 Gospels and the letters which were accepted as being from Paul, John, Peter, and James.

The first complete listing of NT books did not appear until the Pascal Letter of St. Athanasius in 367. And the canon of NT scripture was not an issue to the early church until false gospels and letters started being written which contained gnostic and neo-Platonist teachings which were contrary to the teaching of the apostles.

The fact, which seems to have been lost to the modern Protestant church, is that the original scriptures used by the apostles and their heirs to the Gospel was the LXX complete with apocrypha.

A selection of explanations of how from websites provides some insight as to why the modern Protestant church does not accept them. They tend to all agree that it was those Catholics who insisted on having them. And that is probably accurate when one realizes that the original church was "catholic."

And I have read both Tobit and Bell and the Dragon. I don't have a problem with either of them in the manner that most Christians don't have a problem with a axe head floating.

It's good to see you here, Oz.

jim

 

[Wormwood]

[SIZE=medium]The LXX MSS are paralleled by the writings of the early Christian Fathers, who (at any rate outside Palestine and Syria) normally used the LXX or the derived Old Latin version. In their writings, there is both a wide and a narrow Canon. The former comprises those books from before the time of Christ which were generally read and esteemed in the church (including the Apocrypha), but the latter is confined to the books of the Jewish Bible, which scholars like Melito, Origen, Epiphanius and Jerome distinguish from the rest as alone inspired. The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. In the NT itself, one finds Christ acknowledging the Jewish Scriptures, by various of their current titles, and accepting the three sections of the Jewish Canon and the traditional order of its books; one finds Revelation perhaps alluding to their number; and throughout the NT one finds most of the books being referred to individually as having divine authority; but none of the Apocrypha. The only apparent exception is the reference to Enoch in Jude 14f, which may be just an argumentum ad hominem to converts from the apocalyptic school of thought.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]R. T. Beckwith, “Canon of the Old Testament,” ed. D. R. W. Wood et al., New Bible Dictionary (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 169.[/SIZE]

The fact is that the RCC declared the Apocrypha to be part of the canon at the Council of Trent far more in response to Protestantism than anything else. I think the Apocrypha has good material in it, but even among Jews it was scarcely viewed as inspired in the first century. The fact that it was in the LXX and the LXX was quoted at times by NT authors does not mean they held to the Apocryphal books as inspired. There was debate on the issue. Again, most did not view these books as authoritative, there were other texts that did not include these books and it is only really referenced one time whereas the other sections of the OT are quoted and declared to be God's Word many, many times. I think you are overstating the case there a bit, Jim.

In my estimation, there is a reason the church did not embrace the Apocrypha as inspired early on. And, as I mentioned, there was a reason the RCC declared them to be inspired at the Council of Trent...and I think it had a lot more to do with denouncing the Protestants than rethinking the Church tradition based on the evidence.

 

[OzSpen]

OZ,

The Septuagint (LXX) was the accepted book of the scriptures at the time of Jesus. The quotes of the OT found in the NT are from the LXX which contained the Apocrypha.

The Jewish canon of scripture without apocrypha, upon which Protestants base their OT canon, did not come into existence for about 300 years after Christ.

The apocrypha were part of every English translation of the Bible and were not removed from the King James Bible of 1611 until 1885.

The LXX continued to be "the Scriptures" until the Church determined which documents would be included in the New Testament based on authorship and content.Apostolic authorship was required of the books off the NY. The Gospels of Peter, Thomas, the Hebrews, Philip, Nicodemus, Judas, and the Nazoreans were all obviously written by people other than the Apostles and deviated from the teachings of the 4 Gospels and the letters which were accepted as being from Paul, John, Peter, and James.

The first complete listing of NT books did not appear until the Pascal Letter of St. Athanasius in 367. And the canon of NT scripture was not an issue to the early church until false gospels and letters started being written which contained gnostic and neo-Platonist teachings which were contrary to the teaching of the apostles.

The fact, which seems to have been lost to the modern Protestant church, is that the original scriptures used by the apostles and their heirs to the Gospel was the LXX complete with apocrypha.

A selection of explanations of how from websites provides some insight as to why the modern Protestant church does not accept them. They tend to all agree that it was those Catholics who insisted on having them. And that is probably accurate when one realizes that the original church was "catholic."

And I have read both Tobit and Bell and the Dragon. I don't have a problem with either of them in the manner that most Christians don't have a problem with a axe head floating.

It's good to see you here, Oz.

jim

Jim,

There is some fanciful material in Tobit and Bel and the Dragon. Here are but a couple examples (I have read the entire Apocrypha, i.e. deuterocanonical books). In fact, in my BA, I took a course in the Apocrypha. Let's look at a couple of examples:

Tobit 6:1-8 (RSV):

5 So the young man did as the angel told him; and they roasted and ate the fish. And they both continued on their way until they came near to Ecbatana.
6 Then the young man said to the angel, "Brother Azarias, of what use is the liver and heart and gall of the fish?"
7 He replied, "As for the heart and liver, if a demon or evil spirit gives trouble to any one, you make a smoke from these before the man or woman, and that person will never be troubled again.
8 And as for the gall, anoint with it a man who has white films in his eyes, and he will be cured."

Bel and the Dragon:
1:27, ' Then Daniel took pitch, fat, and hair, and boiled them together and made cakes, which he fed to the dragon. The dragon ate them, and burst open. And Daniel said, "See what you have been worshiping!"'
1:33-36, ' Now the prophet Habakkuk was in Judea. He had boiled pottage and had broken bread into a bowl, and was going into the field to take it to the reapers. 34 But the angel of the Lord said to Habakkuk, "Take the dinner which you have to Babylon, to Daniel, in the lions' den."

35 Habakkuk said, "Sir, I have never seen Babylon, and I know nothing about the den." 36 Then the angel of the Lord took him by the crown of his head, and lifted him by his hair and set him down in Babylon, right over the den, with the rushing sound of the wind itself.

These seem hardly confirming of the Apocrypha as the God-breathed Word from God himself.

As for the Hebrew Bible, on a popular level forum like this, I don't think this is the place to go into details about the Hebrew Bible and its original formation. That would take too long and require too much detail. However, I have the 1986 edition of this book, General Introduction to the Bible, by Norman L Geisler and William L Nix (Chicago: Moody Press). These scholars provide a timeline for the OT manuscripts with approx. dates, for the original Pentateuch scrolls (Exodus and the Conquest) being about 1450 BC (the timeline is on pp 375-379 of my edition). They place the Proto-Septuagint Text-Type around 250 BC in Egypt.

I am aware of the many issues you have raised, but I'm not convinced the Apocrypha belongs in the Bible as God-breathed Scripture and the examples I gave above from Tobit and Bel and the Dragon convince me that we are dealing with something sub-biblical. However, I do find some valuable historical material in 1 & 2 Maccabees.

You and I are not likely to agree on these issues.

When we speak of the original church being 'catholic' that means a 'general' term for the church. It does not mean the Roman Catholic Church.

In Christ,
Oz

 

[JimParker]

Jim,

There is some fanciful material in Tobit and Bel and the Dragon. Here are but a couple examples (I have read the entire Apocrypha, i.e. deuterocanonical books). In fact, in my BA, I took a course in the Apocrypha. Let's look at a couple of examples:

Tobit 6:1-8 (RSV):

5 So the young man did as the angel told him; and they roasted and ate the fish. And they both continued on their way until they came near to Ecbatana.
6 Then the young man said to the angel, "Brother Azarias, of what use is the liver and heart and gall of the fish?"
7 He replied, "As for the heart and liver, if a demon or evil spirit gives trouble to any one, you make a smoke from these before the man or woman, and that person will never be troubled again.
8 And as for the gall, anoint with it a man who has white films in his eyes, and he will be cured."

Bel and the Dragon:
1:27, ' Then Daniel took pitch, fat, and hair, and boiled them together and made cakes, which he fed to the dragon. The dragon ate them, and burst open. And Daniel said, "See what you have been worshiping!"'
1:33-36, ' Now the prophet Habakkuk was in Judea. He had boiled pottage and had broken bread into a bowl, and was going into the field to take it to the reapers. 34 But the angel of the Lord said to Habakkuk, "Take the dinner which you have to Babylon, to Daniel, in the lions' den."

35 Habakkuk said, "Sir, I have never seen Babylon, and I know nothing about the den." 36 Then the angel of the Lord took him by the crown of his head, and lifted him by his hair and set him down in Babylon, right over the den, with the rushing sound of the wind itself.

These seem hardly confirming of the Apocrypha as the God-breathed Word from God himself.

As for the Hebrew Bible, on a popular level forum like this, I don't think this is the place to go into details about the Hebrew Bible and its original formation. That would take too long and require too much detail. However, I have the 1986 edition of this book, General Introduction to the Bible, by Norman L Geisler and William L Nix (Chicago: Moody Press). These scholars provide a timeline for the OT manuscripts with approx. dates, for the original Pentateuch scrolls (Exodus and the Conquest) being about 1450 BC (the timeline is on pp 375-379 of my edition). They place the Proto-Septuagint Text-Type around 250 BC in Egypt.

I am aware of the many issues you have raised, but I'm not convinced the Apocrypha belongs in the Bible as God-breathed Scripture and the examples I gave above from Tobit and Bel and the Dragon convince me that we are dealing with something sub-biblical. However, I do find some valuable historical material in 1 & 2 Maccabees.

You and I are not likely to agree on these issues.

When we speak of the original church being 'catholic' that means a 'general' term for the church. It does not mean the Roman Catholic Church.

In Christ,
Oz


Let me respond to each example.

"As for the heart and liver, if a demon or evil spirit gives trouble to any one, you make a smoke from these before the man or woman, and that person will never be troubled again. And as for the gall, anoint with it a man who has white films in his eyes, and he will be cured."

Comparing it to scripture which is acceptable to the Protestant church I can find several examples of people being told by God to do things which appear to make no sense or are impossible.

First: Noah's ark is described as being about 450 feet long. A wooden ship of that length is guaranteed to break up in even moderately uneven seas because the hogging and sagging forces exerted by the uneven lifting of the waters would be greater than any wooden keel could sustain. And, lacking a tree large enough to fashion a 450 foot keel, the keel would have had to be made in pieces which would further weaken it. The ship would simply come apart at the seams as it was flexed by the seas, leak, fill with water and sink. a ship of that size not breaking up in stormy seas is simply not a possibility.

Second: God told Moses to fashion a serpent of brass and fix it to a pole to be held upward for anyone to be able to see. Anyone who was bitten by a deadly poisonous snake was told to look at the brass serpent and they would be healed. There is no logical reason for such a method of healing to be accomplished.

Third: The healing of the child by Eli'sha. 2Ki 4:32-35

When Eli'sha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed. So he went in and shut the door upon the two of them, and prayed to the LORD.
Then he went up and lay upon the child, putting his mouth upon his mouth, his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands; and as he stretched himself upon him, the flesh of the child became warm.
Then he got up again, and walked once to and fro in the house, and went up, and stretched himself upon him; the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes.

You won't find that procedure in any medical journal.

Then in 2 Kings 6, the (expensive) iron head of a borrowed axe flies off the handle and falls into the Jordan river where it would be impossible to recover. When the man told Eli'sha what happened, Eli'sha threw a stick in the water and the axe head floated to the surface where it could be recovered. Does that seem like a bit of a stretch for you?

How about Jonah surviving 3 days in a huge fish's gut?

So, if an angel from the Lord told someone to make a smoke from the heart and liver of a fish before the man or woman, and that person will never be troubled by evil spirits or demons again, then, it seems to me, that it would behoove the person to remember this remedy. It makes no sense but neither did the specifications for the ark or looking at the brass serpent or laying on the body of the child until he sneezed and came to life or throwing a stick in the water to make the iron axe head float..

But all of those are accepted without question because they're "right there in the Bible."

So why not the prescription in Tobit?

Then there is the exploding "dragon."

First of all, it wasn't a dragon like the ones in folk lore and fairy tales that a valiant knight would gladly slay in order to rescue in order to win the heart of the fair damsel. It was an alligator or a crocodile or a Komodo Dragon or similar reptile. (Probably not a big snake because they wouldn't eat the "cakes.") And, once the reptile died from the effects of consuming those nasty cakes, might it not "exlode" as did the whale

I don't find that story to be a serious stretch of the imagination.

And as for Habakkuk being taken up by an angel to bring food to Daniel, is it not very similar to Phillip who was translated to Azo'tus? How about the devil taking Jesus to a high mountain from which he could see all the kingdoms of the world (which the curvature of the earth would make impossible) or to the pinnacle of the temple?

With reference to dating of OT original manuscripts, I don't think that makes a difference. My point is that the LXX was the most widely used scriptures used by the Jews at the time of Jesus. This was due to the fact that the Hebrew, in which the original texts were written, had been lost to all but scholars among the Jews during the exiles of the two kingdoms. That loss created a need for a translation which people could read and teach their children according to the commandment.

So the scriptures which Jesus and the writers of the NT quote is the LXX including the apocrypha which is why we may identify over 300 quotations, references, or paraphrases of the apocrypha in the NT.

I see a similarity between the Sadducees, who accepted only the Pentateuch as inspired and authoritative, primarily, I think, because of the prophesy of a new covenant by Jeremiah (31:31) which would put them all out of a job, and the Protestant rejection of the apocrypha because it gives support to the practice of prayer for the dead which is contrary to Protestant teaching. So, from my perspective, it is not because the stories are unlikely that the LXX is rejected; it is because the LXX is rejected that the stories are unlikely. (Though not more so than stories in the "God-breathed" Protestant canon.)

As for the concept of "God-breathed" scripture, I would ask; is not all truth "God-breathed"?

And do we apply the term "θεόπνευστος" as Paul intended, affirming that scripture is from God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work? Or has it been commandeered it to be used as a polemic against the Papists in defending the exile of scripture that was accepted by the original church?

The problem with all you Protestants is that you open your eggs at the wrong end. :) (heh! heh! heh! heh!)

Grace and peace to you

Iakov the fool

 

[OzSpen]

Let me respond to each example.

"As for the heart and liver, if a demon or evil spirit gives trouble to any one, you make a smoke from these before the man or woman, and that person will never be troubled again. And as for the gall, anoint with it a man who has white films in his eyes, and he will be cured."

Comparing it to scripture which is acceptable to the Protestant church I can find several examples of people being told by God to do things which appear to make no sense or are impossible.

First: Noah's ark is described as being about 450 feet long. A wooden ship of that length is guaranteed to break up in even moderately uneven seas because the hogging and sagging forces exerted by the uneven lifting of the waters would be greater than any wooden keel could sustain. And, lacking a tree large enough to fashion a 450 foot keel, the keel would have had to be made in pieces which would further weaken it. The ship would simply come apart at the seams as it was flexed by the seas, leak, fill with water and sink. a ship of that size not breaking up in stormy seas is simply not a possibility.

Second: God told Moses to fashion a serpent of brass and fix it to a pole to be held upward for anyone to be able to see. Anyone who was bitten by a deadly poisonous snake was told to look at the brass serpent and they would be healed. There is no logical reason for such a method of healing to be accomplished.

Third: The healing of the child by Eli'sha. 2Ki 4:32-35

When Eli'sha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed. So he went in and shut the door upon the two of them, and prayed to the LORD.
Then he went up and lay upon the child, putting his mouth upon his mouth, his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands; and as he stretched himself upon him, the flesh of the child became warm.
Then he got up again, and walked once to and fro in the house, and went up, and stretched himself upon him; the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes.

You won't find that procedure in any medical journal.

Then in 2 Kings 6, the (expensive) iron head of a borrowed axe flies off the handle and falls into the Jordan river where it would be impossible to recover. When the man told Eli'sha what happened, Eli'sha threw a stick in the water and the axe head floated to the surface where it could be recovered. Does that seem like a bit of a stretch for you?

How about Jonah surviving 3 days in a huge fish's gut?

So, if an angel from the Lord told someone to make a smoke from the heart and liver of a fish before the man or woman, and that person will never be troubled by evil spirits or demons again, then, it seems to me, that it would behoove the person to remember this remedy. It makes no sense but neither did the specifications for the ark or looking at the brass serpent or laying on the body of the child until he sneezed and came to life or throwing a stick in the water to make the iron axe head float..

But all of those are accepted without question because they're "right there in the Bible."

So why not the prescription in Tobit?

Then there is the exploding "dragon."

First of all, it wasn't a dragon like the ones in folk lore and fairy tales that a valiant knight would gladly slay in order to rescue in order to win the heart of the fair damsel. It was an alligator or a crocodile or a Komodo Dragon or similar reptile. (Probably not a big snake because they wouldn't eat the "cakes.") And, once the reptile died from the effects of consuming those nasty cakes, might it not "exlode" as did the whale

I don't find that story to be a serious stretch of the imagination.

And as for Habakkuk being taken up by an angel to bring food to Daniel, is it not very similar to Phillip who was translated to Azo'tus? How about the devil taking Jesus to a high mountain from which he could see all the kingdoms of the world (which the curvature of the earth would make impossible) or to the pinnacle of the temple?

With reference to dating of OT original manuscripts, I don't think that makes a difference. My point is that the LXX was the most widely used scriptures used by the Jews at the time of Jesus. This was due to the fact that the Hebrew, in which the original texts were written, had been lost to all but scholars among the Jews during the exiles of the two kingdoms. That loss created a need for a translation which people could read and teach their children according to the commandment.

So the scriptures which Jesus and the writers of the NT quote is the LXX including the apocrypha which is why we may identify over 300 quotations, references, or paraphrases of the apocrypha in the NT.

I see a similarity between the Sadducees, who accepted only the Pentateuch as inspired and authoritative, primarily, I think, because of the prophesy of a new covenant by Jeremiah (31:31) which would put them all out of a job, and the Protestant rejection of the apocrypha because it gives support to the practice of prayer for the dead which is contrary to Protestant teaching. So, from my perspective, it is not because the stories are unlikely that the LXX is rejected; it is because the LXX is rejected that the stories are unlikely. (Though not more so than stories in the "God-breathed" Protestant canon.)

As for the concept of "God-breathed" scripture, I would ask; is not all truth "God-breathed"?

And do we apply the term "θεόπνευστος" as Paul intended, affirming that scripture is from God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work? Or has it been commandeered it to be used as a polemic against the Papists in defending the exile of scripture that was accepted by the original church?

The problem with all you Protestants is that you open your eggs at the wrong end. :) (heh! heh! heh! heh!)

Grace and peace to you

Iakov the fool

Jim,

When you compare Tobit and Bel and the Dragon with Noah's Art, Moses, healing of the child by Elisha, the floating axe head, Jonah, you are not comparing eggs with eggs (your analogy).

I am a 100% supporter of the Almighty Lord God performing supernatural actions because that is who God is and what He can do. But 'as for the gall, anoint with it a man who has white films in his eyes, and he will be cured', this sounds awfully like imaginative creations by some author and not the supernatural God in action.

You have a decided bias here and you commit a genetic logical fallacy, 'Comparing it to scripture which is acceptable to the Protestant church I can find several examples of people being told by God to do things which appear to make no sense or are impossible'. Who was the King James Bible for in 1611? Protestants or Roman Catholics? And it contained the Apocrypha!!

I read this on the justforcatholics.org website:

​

Jerome and the Apocrypha​

Question: St Jerome was persuaded, against his original inclination, to include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures. What are your comments?

Answer: True, yet he classed the Apocrypha in a separated category. He differentiated between the canonical books and ecclesiastical books, which he did not recognize as authoritative Scripture. This is admitted by the modern Catholic church:

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

The practice of the Church up to the time of the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome who rejected the Old Testament apocrypha on the grounds that these books were never part of the Jewish canon. These were permissible to be read in the churches for the purposes of edification but were never considered authoritative for establishing doctrine. The Protestants did nothing new when they rejected the apocrypha as authoritative Scripture. It was the Roman church that rejected this tradition and ‘canonized’ the ecclesiastical books.

Jerome is a hero of the Roman Catholic tradition and yet he did not regard the deutero-canonical (Apocryphal) books as canonical.

Jim: 'So the scriptures which Jesus and the writers of the NT quote is the LXX including the apocrypha which is why we may identify over 300 quotations, references, or paraphrases of the apocrypha in the NT'.

Oz: You provided no source. There is one example here, 'Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament'. I do not have the time to check out the accuracy of the material in this link.

Jim: 'I see a similarity between the Sadducees, who accepted only the Pentateuch as inspired and authoritative, primarily, I think, because of the prophesy of a new covenant by Jeremiah (31:31) which would put them all out of a job, and the Protestant rejection of the apocrypha because it gives support to the practice of prayer for the dead which is contrary to Protestant teaching. So, from my perspective, it is not because the stories are unlikely that the LXX is rejected; it is because the LXX is rejected that the stories are unlikely. (Though not more so than stories in the "God-breathed" Protestant canon.)'

Oz: I think you are drawing a long bow with this one, trying to link the Protestant rejection of the Apocrypha to the prayer for the dead. There are a good number of reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha. I thought that I gave you some reasons from Tobit and Bel and the Dragon that had nothing to do with prayer for the dead.

Jim: 'As for the concept of "God-breathed" scripture, I would ask; is not all truth "God-breathed"?'

Oz: Is the truth that I'm wearing spectacles and drive a Toyota Camry 'God-breathed' truth? You must be joking!

Jim: 'And do we apply the term "θεόπνευστος" as Paul intended, affirming that scripture is from God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work? Or has it been commandeered it to be used as a polemic against the Papists in defending the exile of scripture that was accepted by the original church?'

Oz: Another genetic fallacy, Jim.

Jim: 'The problem with all you Protestants is that you open your eggs at the wrong end. :) (heh! heh! heh! heh!)'

Oz: I happen to know you are a former Protestant. The problem with us Protestants is that we accept all of Scripture as inspired by God and we don't accept the apostolic succession and tradition of the church as authoritative. That puts us at odds with the RCC and with Jim Parker.

May you have a good one, Jim! I have to prepare for my dissertation defense today where I'll be 'grilled' (my supervisor calls it a conversation) by 5 for an hour via Skype.

Oz

 

[JimParker]

<< I'm not convinced the Apocrypha belongs in the Bible as God-breathed Scripture >>

Apparently Jesus, Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, and Peter didn't have a problem with them so I suppose that I shouldn't either.

jim

 

[aspen]

The Bible is inspired, not magic. The OT is a collection of stories about God reaching out to humanity and humanity failing in countless ways to respond to God. The NT is Gods perfect response to Himself - Jesus and another invitation for humanity to join with the HS to, once again become perfect lovers of God and His Body.

It is not the only book that contains inspiration, yet it is complete. It is certainly not meant to stop us from reading about the experiences of the saints that followed the closing of the canon. The reason the Gnostic Gospels or the Book of Mormon are not considered scripture is no mistake - neither portray a correct view of God.

 

[Born_Again]

The Bible is inspired, not magic. The OT is a collection of stories about God reaching out to humanity and humanity failing in countless ways to respond to God. The NT is Gods perfect response to Himself - Jesus and another invitation for humanity to join with the HS to, once again become perfect lovers of God and His Body.

It is not the only book that contains inspiration, yet it is complete. It is certainly not meant to stop us from reading about the experiences of the saints that followed the closing of the canon. The reason the Gnostic Gospels or the Book of Mormon are not considered scripture is no mistake - neither portray a correct view of God.

That is by far the best answer I have seen on here. Well one of the best. Not to discredit others who have put up good posts. Well put, Aspen. :)

 

[Wormwood]

I agree Aspen, except for this part:

It is not the only book that contains inspiration...

Im not sure what you mean by this. The experiences of the saints are inspiring, but not inspired. Very different concepts. I would not say there are other God-breathed texts.