Which Bible is the true Bible?

[Walpole]

That's funny. My Bible has 66 books in it. When did Church history end?

Quantrill

A 66-book canon was never used by any church in Christian history. It was a novel concoction by the various progenitors of the Protestant religions.

 

[jaybo]

A 66-book canon was never used by any church in Christian history. It was a novel concoction by the various progenitors of the Protestant religions.

This makes zero sense.

The 66-book canon was established in 367 AD by the church father Athanasius, long before the Protestant reformation came about. To say that "a 66-book canon was never used by any church in Christian history" is bizarre, unless you're referring to solely to the Christian church 1654 years ago and earlier.

 

[Walpole]

This makes zero sense.

The 66-book canon was established in 367 AD by the church father Athanasius, long before the Protestant reformation came about. To say that "a 66-book canon was never used by any church in Christian history" is bizarre, unless you're referring to solely to the Christian church 1654 years ago and earlier.

If you think Athanasius ever held to a 66 book canon, please quote him. (Spoiler alert: He did not.)

And yes, a 66 book canon was NEVER used by any church in Christian history. It was a completely novel innovation of the various progenitors of Protestantism.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

If you think Athanasius ever held to a 66 book canon, please quote him. (Spoiler alert: He did not.)

And yes, a 66 book canon was NEVER used by any church in Christian history. It was a completely novel innovation of the various progenitors of Protestantism.

The KJV originally BY LAW had to include the Deuterocanonicals until late in the 19th century, when they (being worthless Spiritually) were trashed.

 

[jaybo]

If you think Athanasius ever held to a 66 book canon, please quote him. (Spoiler alert: He did not.)

And yes, a 66 book canon was NEVER used by any church in Christian history. It was a completely novel innovation of the various progenitors of Protestantism.

So you're saying that Protestantism is not part of church history? Really? How can anybody take your posts seriously?

 

[Quantrill]

A 66-book canon was never used by any church in Christian history. It was a novel concoction by the various progenitors of the Protestant religions.

Again...my Bible has 66 books. When did Church history end?

Quantrill

 

[Walpole]

So you're saying that Protestantism is not part of church history? Really? How can anybody take your posts seriously?

I'm saying the Protestant 66-book canon was novel and non-existent in Christian history. It was an innovation of the progenitors of the various Protestant religions.

There is no church in all of Christian history which ever used a 66-book canon. None. Nada.

 

[Walpole]

Again...my Bible has 66 books. When did Church history end?

Quantrill

The 66-book canon was a novel innovation born with the advent of Protestantism. You cannot find a single church in all of history which ever used a 66-book canon. It was an innovation of the progenitors of the various Protestant sects.

 

[Walpole]

The KJV originally BY LAW had to include the Deuterocanonicals until late in the 19th century, when they (being worthless Spiritually) were trashed.

Why would some Protestants require the force of law to keep other Protestants from removing books from the canon?

Additionally, if the deuterocanonical books are spiritually worthless, why would they have been used by Jesus, the Apostles and every Church since Christianity was founded?

 

[OzSpen]

A 66-book canon was never used by any church in Christian history. It was a novel concoction by the various progenitors of the Protestant religions.

Wal,

Which books of the Bible were in the Bible after the third Council of Carthage, AD 397?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Additionally, if the deuterocanonical books are spiritually worthless, why would they have been used by Jesus, the Apostles and every Church since Christianity was founded?

Wal,

Please provide evidence to support this statement. This is your assertion/opinion until you provide documented data.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

A 66-book canon was never used by any church in Christian history. It was a novel concoction by the various progenitors of the Protestant religions.

Walpole,

That's a blatantly false statement. This is what scholars of church history state about Athanasius and his view of the canon of Scripture:

Famous Festal Letter​

Perhaps Athanasius’s single most influential writing, however, was his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367. It had been customary after Epiphany each year [the Christian festival held twelve days after Christmas] for the bishops of Alexandria to write a letter in which the dates of Lent and Easter were fixed, and thus, all other festivals of the church in that year. These letters were also used to discuss other matters of general interest. Athanasius wrote forty-five festal letters; thirteen have survived complete in Syriac translation.

The Thirty-Ninth has been reconstructed by scholars from Greek, Syriac, and Coptic fragments. It contains a list of the books of the Old and New Testaments, which Athanasius describes as being canonical. The New Testament list is identical with the twenty-seven writings we still accept as canonical, and thus Athanasius’s Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter has been regarded as the first authoritative statement on the canon of the New Testament.

Athanasius wrote the list to end disputes about such texts as “The Shepherd of Hermas” or “The Epistle of Barnabas,” which long had been regarded as equal to the apostolic letters. He also silenced those who had questioned the apostolic authenticity of Peter’s letters or the Book of Revelation. Athanasius states that “in these [27 writings] alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. No one may add to them, and nothing may be taken away from them.”

Controversial Canon​

One document supports Athanasius’s position: The famous Codex Vaticanus in the Vatican Library, a Greek codex of the Old and New Testaments. It consists of the same books in the same order as in Athanasius’s festal letter—which is particularly noteworthy given the peculiar order: Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles (James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, and Jude), Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy), and Revelation. The Codex Vaticanus probably was written in Rome, in 340, by Alexandrian scribes for Emperor Constans, during Athanasius’s seven-year exile in the city. It would thus predate the festal letter.

For those interested, here is a link to Athanasius's Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of A D 367. His statements were:

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.

5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

I'm afraid, Wal, you are the one out of step with the content of what Athanasius stated about the books in the OT and NT.


Oz

 

[OzSpen]

The 66-book canon was a novel innovation born with the advent of Protestantism. You cannot find a single church in all of history which ever used a 66-book canon. It was an innovation of the progenitors of the various Protestant sects.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm not the one posting nonsense. Here are the facts...

The Septuagint is the Old Greek version of the Bible. It includes translations of all the books found in the Hebrew (Old Testament) canon, and as such it is the first known Bible translation. It also includes the so-called Apocryphal or deuterocanonical books, some translated from Hebrew originals and others originally composed in Greek.

It's called the Septuagint after the Latin word for "seventy" (septuaginta). According to an old tradition (recounted in the Letter of Aristeas), the first five books of the Bible, known as the Pentateuch, were translated into Greek by about seventy elders sent to Egypt by the high priest Eleazar in Jerusalem at the request of King Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, who wanted to add the Jewish Scriptures to his library. Although the story originally applied only to the Pentateuch, the tradition expanded to include the other books as well. In time, the entire Greek version came to be known as the Septuagint, or the version of "the Seventy," and is abbreviated with the Roman numeral LXX (70).

Since you have no interest in the facts I will not discuss this with you further.

jaybo,

For those interested in pursuing the value of the Septuagint for Christians, I recommend this article from The Gospel Coalition: 'What is the Septuagint?'

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

No such Septuagint exists. It is based on a lie. It wasn't the Bible in Jesus day.

Good luck finding a copy. Where is the oldest so called Septuagint today?



The age of a certain manuscript is only one factor involved in determining what is Scripture. And 'Bible Scholars' can be wrong also. Those who included (Mark 16:9-20) were Bible scholars also.

Quantrill

Check the 'Text' drop down menu and you will be led to a Greek LXX translation of the OT that is available online.

 

[Walpole]

Wal,

Which books of the Bible were in the Bible after the third Council of Carthage, AD 397?

Oz

Canon 36 from the Third Council of Carthage, 397 A.D.:

"It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept."


---> Four books of Kings = First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings
---> Paraleipomena = Chronicles
---> Five books of Solomon = Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus
---> Two books of Esdras = Ezra and Nehemiah
---> Jeremiah = Included the book of Baruch, which was not separated out until (Baruch was Jeremiah’s scribe)

Source


That's 72 books (remember Baruch is still lumped in with Jeremiah), not 66.

 

[Walpole]

View attachment 10247

Please post a 66-book canon EVER being used by any church prior to the advent of the progenitors of the various Protestant religions.

 

[OzSpen]

Of Course, Why wouldn't I?? What do YOU think is "False Teaching"?

Bob,

There are 3 main errors that come from Mark 16:9-20:

1. 'Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. But those who do not believe will be judged guilty' (v. 16 ERV). Do you support baptismal regeneration?
2. 'If they pick up snakes ..., they will not be hurt' (v. 18 ERV). Are you prepared to support the current snake-handling churches that base their claim on this verse?
3. 'If they ... drink any poison, they will not be hurt' (v. 18 ERV). Are you doing this in your church? Do you promote drinking deadly poison as part of the signs of normal Christianity?

Now, do you agree there is no error in Mark 16:9-20.

Oz

 

[Walpole]

Walpole,

That's a blatantly false statement. This is what scholars of church history state about Athanasius and his view of the canon of Scripture:


For those interested, here is a link to Athanasius's Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of A D 367. His statements were:



I'm afraid, Wal, you are the one out of step with the content of what Athanasius stated about the books in the OT and NT.


Oz

Did you even bother to read the link you posted containing Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter? His Old Testament canon includes the book of Baruch and excludes the book of Esther.

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.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Bob,

There are 3 main errors that come from Mark 16:9-20:

1. 'Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. But those who do not believe will be judged guilty' (v. 16 ERV). Do you support baptismal regeneration?
2. 'If they pick up snakes ..., they will not be hurt' (v. 18 ERV). Are you prepared to support the current snake-handling churches that base their claim on this verse?
3. 'If they ... drink any poison, they will not be hurt' (v. 18 ERV). Are you doing this in your church? Do you promote drinking deadly poison as part of the signs of normal Christianity?

Now, do you agree there is no error in Mark 16:9-20.

I see no error. I agree that if YOU choose to INTERPRET certain things as "Errors" then you will find yourself in the company of many "Theologians" with their "Scholarly interpretations" (including a "Flat earth" Isa 40:22 - Job 38:13).

So go ahead and scratch your itch. Oh, and you might want to look at Acts 2:38, since Mark agrees with Luke, and there's Acts 28:3 about snakes. What you think that has to do with the "CHurch of Holiness" denomination is beyond me.