Why are there so many versions of the Bible?

[bbyrd009]

Uhhh, no - you didn't provide Scripture to counter the teaching from the Didache.

sure i did, i provided 2, but you are not in a position to even have discussions with people, and imo if God himself came down and told you something that did not fit with your understanding, you would just give Him the finger, too, i guess. I don't know this Didache person, being as how he is not in Scripture that i am aware of, but again i hope you understand that if you prefer following him, i have no problem with this, ok. I merely meant to emphasize that it is not Scriptural, and there is no Law in Scripture along the lines of "pray 3 times a day," which i hope you see that i kind of feel compelled to say, not that i mean to counsel you personally on what you should do.

I'm imagine Didache meant "at least" three times a day anyway, but now i am putting words in his mouth, because after all he did not say that, did he? He seems to be suggesting a ritual, that, again, you are welcome to as long as it serves you, and i don't mean that facetiously at all, i bet i have many friends that i respect and value who would agree with Didache, or at least know him. Just know that if you attempt to call that "Christian," i get to justify asking you to provide a Witness from the Book, not the other way around, ok?

But i am not meaning to condemn you with this, ok; it just isn't in There, that i am aware of, and i pretty much know that you aren't going to find any such ritual and rote in the NT, because to God it = death. So let me be plain here;

"Saying the Lord's Prayer three times a day will bring death."

Even though It is meant to bring Life, and comes straight from Christ. Weird, huh? Adding such a little, seemingly well-meaning thing to Scripture, = "death." And, for anyone who is reading here, and skeptical of this, just start saying the LP 3 times a day, earnestly, and let us know how long it is before the Passage is rendered meaningless. I got to changing up the words--keeping the same concepts, the "spirit," in mind, of course--and i could only go a couple of months, and that was saying It only once a day, before i got the Message. Which does not mean your experience is any less valid, ok.

So follow what you like, ok, we are not in competition, and if you are really seeking God as best you are able, and you are led to this Didache, then i say amen. I'm not going to reply to the Protestant diversion again, wadr, because i do not care, and that is irrelevant to me. I acknowledge that you find it relevant if you were debating with a Protestant, and i agree that you would have a point then, but i don't hold any of those as doctrines, personally, because i can see the refute for every one of them in the Book, too--so i would be agreeing with you, there. Peace.

 

[epostle1]

kepha31

Why do you make your words look like they are mine? Get it separated else I have no interest in speaking with you.

See post #301 that I quoted in #303
Well, yes I am being argumentative. You didn't answer the question. If the doxology is to be rejected because it's found in the Didache, then why isn't the Lord's Prayer rejected?

Who said anything about the doxology being rejected because it's found in the Didache? Why do you think the Church rejected the whole Didache when some wanted it to be in Scripture? If you strongly believe the doxology belongs in Scripture, and we have already determined it is the original source, (50-120 AD) WHY DO YOU REJECT THE REST OF THE DIDACHE?

It's a non-issue because the doxology has always been part of the liturgy, later added by scribes into a variety of Greek manuscripts, removed by the Church because it's authenticity was questionable, Protestants copied the error, some later corrected the error, but continues to be part of the liturgy since the Infant Church.

How did it come about that some non-Catholic Bibles include the doxology as though taught by the Lord? In the history of copying the biblical texts in manuscript form, at some point in such a process a scribe (copyist) put the doxology in a margin of a manuscript to remind readers that this is the doxological ending when the prayer is recited in the Liturgy or privately.

At some subsequent point, a pious scribe decided to take it one step farther and inserted the doxology into the biblical text itself, as though taught by our Lord Himself. So we end up with variants, that is, some manuscripts that do not contain the doxology at all, others with it in the margin, and still others with it in the text as spoken by Jesus. So why the differences in modern translations?

Because coming out of the Reformation, Protestant leaders turned to original language manuscripts and settled upon those which included the doxology in the text itself; the Catholic Church, on the other hand, worked off of the ancient Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome which did not include the doxology at all, since St. Jerome was well aware in the 4th century that the doxology was liturgical, not biblical.

Thereafter, Protestants read the doxology as taught by the Lord and Catholics continued to say the doxology only in the context of the Liturgy. In more recent times, many Protestant translators have come to recognize that the older and better manuscripts do not include the doxology and so translations such as the RSV, NRSV, and NIV do not include it in the text, though they may footnote its existence in some manuscripts. This variant is one of the more significant with regards to practice, as is evident when Protestants and Catholics come together and pray the Lord’s Prayer; the issue always surfaces, where do we end?

Of course, in Ecumenical settings we do no wrong to include a doxology, understanding within ourselves that it belongs properly in the Liturgy but may be an accommodation which can be appropriate for unity in Christ in the moment. That should be left to the discretion of the individual Catholic, who is under no obligation to compromise the integrity of the prayer as taught but may add the very ancient ending, if preferred.
Father Echert EWTN

Next time get the quotes identified with the right person.

See post #301....some guy named Stranger... that I quoted in #303.....he must be an impostor.

 

[michaelvpardo]

kepha31

Why do you make your words look like they are mine? Get it separated else I have no interest in speaking with you.

Well, yes I am being argumentative. You didn't answer the question. If the doxology is to be rejected because it's found in the Didache, then why isn't the Lord's Prayer rejected?

Next time get the quotes identified with the right person.

Stranger

People here tend to get worked up about their own opinions or about the opinions of the denomination that they represent (in their own minds) and consequently loose track of who they were in conversation with originally (being an open forum and not e-mail or private messages, other people with their own opinions are always going to chime in with their own understanding, and while they may share in some common points with others, opinions are always our own.)

 

[michaelvpardo]

Actually - in Protestantism, there is almost 50,000 versions of the "truth" . . .

By your definition. Roman Catholics define Protestantism in terms of the rejection of Roman Catholic dogma, those that "protest" against abuses of the text and of doctrine are censured, and if the disagreements are great enough, in the past were killed to save their souls from their own heretical teaching. This is not unique to Roman Catholicism as I understand that the reformer, John Calvin, was occupied with the same sort of destructive sin.

 

[BreadOfLife]

When Paul quotes or alludes to the Old Testament, he prefaces it with 'as it is written' or 'what saith the Scripture', or as in Eph.4:8 he says 'Wherefore he saith'. No such preface is given for Eph 6:11-18.

Stranger

WRONG.

Paul doesn't "always" preface what the OT says with "it is written" or something similar.
We see evidence of this in 2 Cor. 13:1-2, where he alludes directly to Deut. 17:6 when he speaks of the necessity of the testimony of 2 witnesses.

it is abundantly clear to any honest person that Paul lifted the "Armor of God" reference in Eph. 6:13-17 from Wisdom 5:17-20.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Curious to know how "The Letter to the Laodiceans" has been authenticated as the same letter that Paul refers to in Colossians. Considering the existence of the many counterfeits claiming to be the Word of God in Paul's day and the fact that so much intrigue has happened over the course of Christian history, I'm inclined to accept the skepticism of the Reformers regarding the canon of Scripture. thanks. Phoneman777

Okay, fair enough.
Can you tell me WHO declared the Protestant Canon of Scripture and WHO had the Authority to do so?

this should be easy for ANY Protestant to answer . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

By your definition. Roman Catholics define Protestantism in terms of the rejection of Roman Catholic dogma, those that "protest" against abuses of the text and of doctrine are censured, and if the disagreements are great enough, in the past were killed to save their souls from their own heretical teaching. This is not unique to Roman Catholicism as I understand that the reformer, John Calvin, was occupied with the same sort of destructive sin.

There's nothing sinister about the Catholic definition of a Protestant. A Protestant is simply a non-Catholic Christian.
A Christian, by definition is one who is a follower of Christ who has been baptized in the Trinitarian formula.

 

[BreadOfLife]

sure i did, i provided 2, but you are not in a position to even have discussions with people, and imo if God himself came down and told you something that did not fit with your understanding, you would just give Him the finger, too, i guess. I don't know this Didache person, being as how he is not in Scripture that i am aware of, but again i hope you understand that if you prefer following him, i have no problem with this, ok. I merely meant to emphasize that it is not Scriptural, and there is no Law in Scripture along the lines of "pray 3 times a day," which i hope you see that i kind of feel compelled to say, not that i mean to counsel you personally on what you should do.

I'm imagine Didache meant "at least" three times a day anyway, but now i am putting words in his mouth, because after all he did not say that, did he? He seems to be suggesting a ritual, that, again, you are welcome to as long as it serves you, and i don't mean that facetiously at all, i bet i have many friends that i respect and value who would agree with Didache, or at least know him. Just know that if you attempt to call that "Christian," i get to justify asking you to provide a Witness from the Book, not the other way around, ok?

But i am not meaning to condemn you with this, ok; it just isn't in There, that i am aware of, and i pretty much know that you aren't going to find any such ritual and rote in the NT, because to God it = death. So let me be plain here;

"Saying the Lord's Prayer three times a day will bring death."

Even though It is meant to bring Life, and comes straight from Christ. Weird, huh? Adding such a little, seemingly well-meaning thing to Scripture, = "death." And, for anyone who is reading here, and skeptical of this, just start saying the LP 3 times a day, earnestly, and let us know how long it is before the Passage is rendered meaningless. I got to changing up the words--keeping the same concepts, the "spirit," in mind, of course--and i could only go a couple of months, and that was saying It only once a day, before i got the Message. Which does not mean your experience is any less valid, ok.

So follow what you like, ok, we are not in competition, and if you are really seeking God as best you are able, and you are led to this Didache, then i say amen. I'm not going to reply to the Protestant diversion again, wadr, because i do not care, and that is irrelevant to me. I acknowledge that you find it relevant if you were debating with a Protestant, and i agree that you would have a point then, but i don't hold any of those as doctrines, personally, because i can see the refute for every one of them in the Book, too--so i would be agreeing with you, there. Peace.

Ummmm, first of all - as i explained earlier, "The Didache" is "The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles".
"Didache" is not a person.

Secondly, I already destroyed your notion that just because something is not in the Bible - that is is not truth.
"Incarnation" is not in the Bible - but it is a major tenet of Christianity.
"Trinity" is not in the Bible - but it is THE most basic tent of Christianity.

Not sure where you're getting your theology from . . .

 

[mjrhealth]

A Protestant is simply a non-Catholic Christian.

Interesting isnt it, anyone who is opposes the "church" is a protestant??? Like I said that makes God Jesus, And all the hosts in heaven, protestants.

 

[bbyrd009]

lol

 

[BreadOfLife]

Interesting isnt it, anyone who is opposes the "church" is a protestant??? Like I said that makes God Jesus, And all the hosts in heaven, protestants.

That doe't make any sense whatsoever.
The hosts in Heaven don't reject God.

And NOT everybody who opposes the Church is a Protestant.
Only CHRISTIANS who oppose the Church are Protestant.

Anyway - Jesus IS God, so what's your point??

 

[mjrhealth]

That doe't make any sense whatsoever.
The hosts in Heaven don't reject God.

Who said anything about hosts rejecting God, them was your words. Al lI said according to your statement. God and all the Hosts of heaven must be protestants since God cant agree with a lie and therefore cannot be in agreement with your church. And since they cannot be in agreement according to you.

Only CHRISTIANS who oppose the Church are Protestant.

They must all be protestants.

Oh and we speak of your church not His, Big difference please dont confuse them with one another.

But this is about the bible and you are using it to promote a false religion, based on your religions corrupt interpretation just like all teh rest.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Who said anything about hosts rejecting God, them was your words. Al lI said according to your statement. God and all the Hosts of heaven must be protestants since God cant agree with a lie and therefore cannot be in agreement with your church. And since they cannot be in agreement according to you.

They must all be protestants.

Oh and we speak of your church not His, Big difference please dont confuse them with one another.

But this is about the bible and you are using it to promote a false religion, based on your religions corrupt interpretation just like all teh rest.

I'm not using this to promote anything but the truth.
The fact remains unequivocally that the Catholic Church declared the Canon of Scripture in the 4th century - and ALL Protestant versions are based on that one.

NONE of you has been able to tell me:
1. WHO declared the Protestant Canon of Scripture?
2. WHO had the Authority to do so?

Until you can answer those questions - your anti-Catholic attacks are as impotent as a Nevada boxing commissioner . . .

 

[epostle1]

When Paul quotes or alludes to the Old Testament, he prefaces it with 'as it is written' or 'what saith the Scripture', or as in Eph.4:8 he says 'Wherefore he saith'. No such preface is given for Eph 6:11-18.

Stranger

Do you have a verse that supports this rule, or is it extra-biblical?
I have about 20 Pauline quotes that allude, follows, refers to, describes or leads to an OT prophecy that very few has 'as it is written' or 'what saith the Scripture',
DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

 

[mjrhealth]

NONE of you has been able to tell me:
1. WHO declared the Protestant Canon of Scripture?
2. WHO had the Authority to do so?

Your church has an authority to declare its version of the canon to suit its purpose, that has nothing to do with God nor any other church that seem to have modified it to suit there purpose.. You keep insisting its Gods fault.. Sorry your church did it not God.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your church has an authority to declare its version of the canon to suit its purpose, that has nothing to do with God nor any other church that seem to have modified it to suit there purpose.. You keep insisting its Gods fault.. Sorry your church did it not God.

So, you couldn't answer the questions - is that it??

Here they are again:
1. WHO declared the Protestant Canon of Scripture?
2. WHO had the Authority to do so?

Somthin' tells me you'll dance around it again on your next response . . .

 

[Wormwood]

So, you couldn't answer the questions - is that it??

Here they are again:
1. WHO declared the Protestant Canon of Scripture?
2. WHO had the Authority to do so?

Somthin' tells me you'll dance around it again on your next response . . .

You are wasting your time. mjhealth doesn't even believe Scripture is God's word.

 

[mjrhealth]

You are wasting your time. mjhealth doesn't even believe Scripture is God's word.

Yes because it isnt, and some love calling God a liar by decalring teh bible to be Goods word, whe neven it decalres that role applies to Christ.

 

[mjrhealth]

1. WHO declared the Protestant Canon of Scripture?
2. WHO had the Authority to do so?

1. Dont know dont care, the truth is in Christ and when people go to Him they wil find it.
2. Not your church, in fact no one on this earth. and yelling wont change a thing.

 

[bbyrd009]

"In the beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God."

this is why there are so many versions of the Book.