Which Bible is the true Bible?

[Walpole]

No, you're going on and on and on and on about the 66-book canon being a Protestant invention. Enough already!

The OP is about the differences between the "books" included in the Greek Orthodox Bible, the Catholic Bible, the Protestant Bible, and the Anglican Bible.

If you would like to discuss the OP subject then go for it. To refresh your memory, it says "I find it disheartening that there are so many versions of the Bible out there, all with different books in them, making it virtually impossible for a Christian to determine which is the true Bible and inspired word of God." You haven't answered the question!!

But please, no more about the Protestant Bible containing 66 books. Everybody knows that so stop repeating the same mantra over and over and over!!

I guess you just can't quit me!

The fact that there was never a 66-book canon in all of Christian history until it was made up out of thin air by the progenitors of the Protestant religions is significant to the OP.

----> It makes the Protestant Bible the outlier.

 

[jaybo]

I guess you just can't quit me!

The fact that there was never a 66-book canon in all of Christian history until it was made up out of thin air by the progenitors of the Protestant religions is significant to the OP.

----> It makes the Protestant Bible the outlier.

So what?!

 

[Walpole]

So what?!

The OP is asking how we know which canon is the correct one. It's hard to make a case for the canon that was created out of thin air some 1500 years afterwards as being the correct one.

 

[jaybo]

The OP is asking how we know which canon is the correct one. It's hard to make a case for the canon that was created out of thin air some 1500 years afterwards as being the correct one.

Enough already!!

 

[Walpole]

Enough already!!

Please feel free to actually formulate an objection and or offer a refutation to anything I have posted.

 

[jaybo]

Please feel free to actually formulate an objection and or offer a refutation to anything I have posted.

I am not interested in your obsession. This is my last post to you. Bye -- forever.

 

[Walpole]

I am not interested in your obsession. This is my last post to you. Bye -- forever.

Promises, promises. You quit me once before and yet here you are still engaging.

Best wishes to you.

 

[OzSpen]

The OP is asking how we know which canon is the correct one. It's hard to make a case for the canon that was created out of thin air some 1500 years afterwards as being the correct one.

Wal,

The International Bible Society disagrees with you:

The 39 books of the Old Testament form the Bible of Judaism, while the Christian Bible includes those books and also the 27 books of the New Testament. This list of books included in the Bible is known as the canon. That is, the canon refers to the books regarded as inspired by God and authoritative for faith and life. No church created the canon, but the churches and councils gradually accepted the list of books recognized by believers everywhere as inspired.​

​

It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon.​

• He distinguished those from other books that were widely circulated and he noted that those 66 books were the ones, and the only ones, universally accepted.​
• The point is that the formation of the canon did not come all at once like a thunderbolt, but was the product of centuries of reflection.​

Athanasius's Paschal Festal letter stated:

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.​

​

Oz

 

[Walpole]

Wal,

The International Bible Society disagrees with you:

The 39 books of the Old Testament form the Bible of Judaism, while the Christian Bible includes those books and also the 27 books of the New Testament. This list of books included in the Bible is known as the canon. That is, the canon refers to the books regarded as inspired by God and authoritative for faith and life. No church created the canon, but the churches and councils gradually accepted the list of books recognized by believers everywhere as inspired.​

​

It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon.​

• He distinguished those from other books that were widely circulated and he noted that those 66 books were the ones, and the only ones, universally accepted.​
• The point is that the formation of the canon did not come all at once like a thunderbolt, but was the product of centuries of reflection.​

Athanasius's Paschal Festal letter stated:

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.​

​

Oz

I have no idea who The International Bible Society is, but apparently the author of this article did not bother to read the quotation of Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter, which contradicts their own argument! I also pointed this out to you as well in two previous posts in this thread. (Don't you read my posts?)

The first time ---> https://christianforums.net/Fellows...ch-bible-is-the-true-bible.84157/post-1595042


The second time ---> https://christianforums.net/Fellows...ch-bible-is-the-true-bible.84157/post-1595051


Thrice ---> Athanasius' Old Testament canon (quoted above by your source!) includes the book of Baruch and the epistle of Jeremiah, but it excludes the book of Esther.

Hence Athanasius did not hold to a 66-book canon. No one in history did. It was a completely novel innovation of the progenitors of the various Protestant religions.

 

[OzSpen]

I have no idea who The International Bible Society is, but apparently the author of this article did not bother to read the quotation of Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter, which contradicts their own argument! I also pointed this out to you as well in two previous posts in this thread. (Don't you read my posts?)

The first time ---> https://christianforums.net/Fellows...ch-bible-is-the-true-bible.84157/post-1595042


The second time ---> https://christianforums.net/Fellows...ch-bible-is-the-true-bible.84157/post-1595051


Thrice ---> Athanasius' Old Testament canon (quoted above by your source!) includes the book of Baruch and the epistle of Jeremiah, but it excludes the book of Esther.

Hence Athanasius did not hold to a 66-book canon. No one in history did. It was a completely novel innovation of the progenitors of the various Protestant religions.

Wal,

I agree with you that Athanasius included Baruch with Jeremiah and he omitted the Book of Esther. However, according to Athanasius, 'There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number'. However, his is not the final word on the topic of the OT and NT canon.

In Jewish history there were either 22 or 24 books in the OT. Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote, 'For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from, and contradicting one another: [as the Greeks have:] but only twenty two books: which contain the records of all the past times: which are justly believed to be divine” (Against Apion 1.8).

If you don't know what The International Bible Society is, have you ever heard of using Google to find out? The International Bible Society has helped people around the world gain access to a multitude of Bible translations online through Biblica. The International Bible Society is now called Biblica and was the sponsor of translation of The New International Version of the Bible.

Oz

 

[Walpole]

Wal,

I agree with you that Athanasius included Baruch with Jeremiah and he omitted the Book of Esther. However, according to Athanasius, 'There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number'. However, his is not the final word on the topic of the OT and NT canon.

In Jewish history there were either 22 or 24 books in the OT. Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote, 'For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from, and contradicting one another: [as the Greeks have:] but only twenty two books: which contain the records of all the past times: which are justly believed to be divine” (Against Apion 1.8).

If you don't know what The International Bible Society is, have you ever heard of using Google to find out? The International Bible Society has helped people around the world gain access to a multitude of Bible translations online through Biblica. The International Bible Society is now called Biblica and was the sponsor of translation of The New International Version of the Bible.

Oz

If you agree that Athanasius did not hold to a 66-book canon, why did you and the author of the article you quoted insist he did? The article you posted stated, "It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon." This is demonstrably false, as I have shown.

As for Josephus, if the great defender of Christian orthodoxy (Athanasius) is not given the final word on the canon, why would you appeal to the non-Christian Josephus as an authority? It is a historical fact the Jews themselves did not have a fixed canon in the first century. For example, the Sadducees only accepted the first five Books of Moses as Scripture and Josephus himself is missing books in his list from what would later become the Jewish canon.

As a reminder, modern rabbinical Judaism is descended from the practices of the Pharisees, who fixed the Hebrew canon after the development of Christianity and in response to Christianity.

I would direct you back to something I posted to you earlier in this thread, which helps explain this further. It can be found here ---> https://christianforums.net/Fellows...ch-bible-is-the-true-bible.84157/post-1595045


To close the loop and land the plane, the ultimate basis for the canon of Scripture is the consensus of the Church. That is true for the New Testament and the Old. The Church has always had the same 73-book canon, declared at Carthage and Rome, affirmed by Damasus, Innocent, Galasius, the Fathers at Florence, then declared dogmatically at Trent when the Protestants began removing books from the canon, and affirmed most recently yet again at Vatican I. By contrast, there is no church in history which ever used the Protestant canon.


I hope you have a leisurely weekend and a blessed Thanksgiving.

 

[OzSpen]

If you agree that Athanasius did not hold to a 66-book canon, why did you and the author of the article you quoted insist he did? The article you posted stated, "It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon." This is demonstrably false, as I have shown.

As for Josephus, if the great defender of Christian orthodoxy (Athanasius) is not given the final word on the canon, why would you appeal to the non-Christian Josephus as an authority? It is a historical fact the Jews themselves did not have a fixed canon in the first century. For example, the Sadducees only accepted the first five Books of Moses as Scripture and Josephus himself is missing books in his list from what would later become the Jewish canon.

As a reminder, modern rabbinical Judaism is descended from the practices of the Pharisees, who fixed the Hebrew canon after the development of Christianity and in response to Christianity.

I would direct you back to something I posted to you earlier in this thread, which helps explain this further. It can be found here ---> https://christianforums.net/Fellows...ch-bible-is-the-true-bible.84157/post-1595045


To close the loop and land the plane, the ultimate basis for the canon of Scripture is the consensus of the Church. That is true for the New Testament and the Old. The Church has always had the same 73-book canon, declared at Carthage and Rome, affirmed by Damasus, Innocent, Galasius, the Fathers at Florence, then declared dogmatically at Trent when the Protestants began removing books from the canon, and affirmed most recently yet again at Vatican I. By contrast, there is no church in history which ever used the Protestant canon.


I hope you have a leisurely weekend and a blessed Thanksgiving.

Athanasius held to a 22-book OT: Don't you understand the English language of Athanasius's translation: 'There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number'?

The Council of Trent was a kangaroo court. Do you understand what that means?

We don't celebrate Thanksgiving Down Under. I give thanks to God daily.

Oz

 

[Quantrill]

Again, this is not rocket surgery...

The 66-book canon was a novel innovation born with the advent of Protestantism. It was invented by the progenitors of the various Protestant religions.

You cannot find a single church in all of history which ever had or used a 66-book canon. None. Nada. Zilch.

Two posters in this thread tried to claim there was a 66-book canon proclaimed by the Third Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. and by Athanasius in his 39th Festal Letter. These assertions were both refuted...

---> https://christianforums.net/Fellows...ch-bible-is-the-true-bible.84157/post-1595037

---> https://christianforums.net/Fellows...ch-bible-is-the-true-bible.84157/post-1595042


Now, if you think there existed a 66-book canon ever used or held by ANY CHURCH prior to the progenitors of the Protestant religions inventing it out of thin air, by all means post your evidence.

The Protestant Churches are part of Church history. You don't agree with them. You dislike them. But that doesn't mean they are not part of Church history. You need to get your statement correct.

There are many Protestant churches that use the 66 book canon Bible. I have a 66 book Bible sitting right in front of me. Your argument is ridiculous.

Your real argument is that the Apocrypha books belong in the Old Testament. Which of course Protestants reject.

Quantrill

 

[jaybo]

The Protestant Churches are part of Church history. You don't agree with them. You dislike them. But that doesn't mean they are not part of Church history. You need to get your statement correct.

There are many Protestant churches that use the 66 book canon Bible. I have a 66 book Bible sitting right in front of me. Your argument is ridiculous.

Your real argument is that the Apocrypha books belong in the Old Testament. Which of course Protestants reject.

Quantrill

Even though you are right I don't think you'll get anywhere trying to reason with Walpole. He just goes on and on and on and on with the same mantra. He is like an old-fashioned record player that, once it got stuck in a groove, went on and on and on and on ... ad nauseum.

 

[Quantrill]

If you agree that Athanasius did not hold to a 66-book canon, why did you and the author of the article you quoted insist he did? The article you posted stated, "It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon." This is demonstrably false, as I have shown.

As for Josephus, if the great defender of Christian orthodoxy (Athanasius) is not given the final word on the canon, why would you appeal to the non-Christian Josephus as an authority? It is a historical fact the Jews themselves did not have a fixed canon in the first century. For example, the Sadducees only accepted the first five Books of Moses as Scripture and Josephus himself is missing books in his list from what would later become the Jewish canon.

As a reminder, modern rabbinical Judaism is descended from the practices of the Pharisees, who fixed the Hebrew canon after the development of Christianity and in response to Christianity.

I would direct you back to something I posted to you earlier in this thread, which helps explain this further. It can be found here ---> https://christianforums.net/Fellows...ch-bible-is-the-true-bible.84157/post-1595045


To close the loop and land the plane, the ultimate basis for the canon of Scripture is the consensus of the Church. That is true for the New Testament and the Old. The Church has always had the same 73-book canon, declared at Carthage and Rome, affirmed by Damasus, Innocent, Galasius, the Fathers at Florence, then declared dogmatically at Trent when the Protestants began removing books from the canon, and affirmed most recently yet again at Vatican I. By contrast, there is no church in history which ever used the Protestant canon.


I hope you have a leisurely weekend and a blessed Thanksgiving.

Carthage and Rome had nothing to do with declaring the Old Testament. That was set by the Jews in Palestine, in Israel.

The New Testament is not in question, unless you are also adding apocryphal books to that also. It is the Old that has been the question concerning the apocryphal books.

Protestants didn't remove any books from the canon of Scripture. They were always apocryphal. Rome added them at Trent to support their fight with Protestants.

Quantrill

 

[Walpole]

Athanasius held to a 22-book OT: Don't you understand the English language of Athanasius's translation: 'There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number'?

The Council of Trent was a kangaroo court. Do you understand what that means?

We don't celebrate Thanksgiving Down Under. I give thanks to God daily.

Oz

FYI, the Protestant Old Testament canon has 39 books. Athanasius' canon does not match the Protestant canon. For example, as I pointed out to you, his canon includes Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, while excluding Esther. Claiming his canon matches the Protestant canon is demonstrably fallacious. Again, there is no history of a 66-book canon until the progenitors of the various Protestant religions created it.

The Council of Trent was Council, not a court. Like Nicea, Ephesus and other 15 that preceded it, it was called to defend and define the doctrines of the Christian faith against errors. One such error it addressed was the Protestant dismantling of the canon of Scripture.

Too bad you don't live on Norfolk Island. You don't know what you're missing. Happy Thanksgiving from America.

 

[Walpole]

Even though you are right I don't think you'll get anywhere trying to reason with Walpole. He just goes on and on and on and on with the same mantra. He is like an old-fashioned record player that, once it got stuck in a groove, went on and on and on and on ... ad nauseum.

You just can't quit me!

 

[Walpole]

The Protestant Churches are part of Church history. You don't agree with them. You dislike them. But that doesn't mean they are not part of Church history. You need to get your statement correct.

There are many Protestant churches that use the 66 book canon Bible. I have a 66 book Bible sitting right in front of me. Your argument is ridiculous.

Your real argument is that the Apocrypha books belong in the Old Testament. Which of course Protestants reject.

Quantrill

Once again, there is no church in history which ever had or held a 66-book canon until the progenitors of the various Protestant religions created it.

This isn't rocker surgery. It is history.

 

[Walpole]

Carthage and Rome had nothing to do with declaring the Old Testament. That was set by the Jews in Palestine, in Israel.

The New Testament is not in question, unless you are also adding apocryphal books to that also. It is the Old that has been the question concerning the apocryphal books.

Protestants didn't remove any books from the canon of Scripture. They were always apocryphal. Rome added them at Trent to support their fight with Protestants.

Quantrill

Carthage and Rome affirmed the same exact canon Catholics use to this day, which includes the deuterocanonical books. It was the progenitors of the Protestant religions who removed them from the canon, thus creating their 66-book canon. No canon in all of history ever had 66 books. None. Nada. Zilch.


Read this earlier post of mine and feel free to offer a refutation of it ---> https://christianforums.net/Fellows...ch-bible-is-the-true-bible.84157/post-1595045

 

[Quantrill]

Once again, there is no church in history which ever had or held a 66-book canon until the progenitors of the various Protestant religions created it.

This isn't rocker surgery. It is history.

When did Church history end?

Carthage and Rome affirmed the same exact canon Catholics use to this day, which includes the deuterocanonical books. It was the progenitors of the Protestant religions who removed them from the canon, thus creating their 66-book canon. No canon in all of history ever had 66 books. None. Nada. Zilch.


Read this earlier post of mine and feel free to offer a refutation of it ---> https://christianforums.net/Fellows...ch-bible-is-the-true-bible.84157/post-1595045

Carthage and Rome didn't set the Old Testament canon . The Jews in Israel did. Thus they reject your canon. The Protestant canon concerning the Old Testament is the exact same as the Jews Tanakh. Rome and Carthage added books to the Old Testament.

That's easy. There is no Septuagint. Provide the manuscripts from which the Septuagint is translated from. Provide the location of the oldest known Septuagint in existence. I guess you believe the lie about the origin of the Septuagint? May as well.

Quantrill