What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Does the Bible contain some of God's word or is fully it God's word?

Is the Bible completely God's word or is only some of it God's word? Vote is private.

  • Completely!

    Votes: 2 100.0%

  • Mostly God's word.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I don't know...

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    2
F

Fedusenko

Guest
Does the Bible contain some of God's word or is fully it God's word?

To be clear, christianforums.net believes
The bible is the inspired, infallible and authoritative Word of God.
Click to expand...
 
It really depends on what you mean by the "Bible"? The Protestant bible was adopted only 500 years ago. The bible before that time (for over 1000 years) had additional books in the bible. So who is right? The oldest bible manuscripts in existence, both OT and NT, contain additional books. Whose canon is inspired, ours or theirs? Why is our canon considered more superior? Why were they wrong for 1500 years? This is not the first time this happened. The Jews had books missing too for hundreds of years which were re-discovered by King Josiah. During that period when the books were lost... did they have the full bible? There are also many books mentioned in the scriptures, such as the Book of Jasher, that no longer exist (the modern book of Jasher is not the same book). The NT also quotes form the Book of Enoch. Was that inspired? The Ethiopians Christians have always maintained the Book of Enoch in their bible canon. Are they wrong to do this?

This poll poses some interesting questions.
 
The canon of Scripture was already acknowledged in the days of writers such as Tertullian; not by way of authenticating the New Testament books but rather acknowledging their inherent authority. Tertullian uses a helpful word: the instrument of Scripture and interestingly Erasmus's editions of the Greek New Testament, together with his amendments to the Latin Vulgate, were called the Novum Instrumentum.
 
farouk said:
The canon of Scripture was already acknowledged in the days of writers such as Tertullian...
Click to expand...

Tertullian accepted "other" books as inspired; such as the additional books of Daniel (The Prayer of the Three, Bel and the Dragon, Suzanne), as well as Enoch, Baruch and Sirach. In Tertullian's day The Shepherd of Hermas was included in the NT canon, along with The Apocalypse of Peter. In the 4th century The Epistle of Barnabas was included, as well as a book on the psalms attributed to Athenasius.
 
Well, okay, but my understanding about the so called Protestant canon is that the Protestant church did not confer authenticity on the Bible books; rather, it was more a question of acknowledging their inherent authority. Apart from Luke and the Acts, which is Luke the evangelist's account of the Apostolic activities anyway, the New Testament books are basically Apostolic writings.
 
farouk said:
Well, okay, but my understanding about the so called Protestant canon is that the Protestant church did not confer authenticity on the Bible books; rather, it was more a question of acknowledging their inherent authority. Apart from Luke and the Acts, which is Luke the evangelist's account of the Apostolic activities anyway, the New Testament books are basically Apostolic writings.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's pretty much the case with the NT. The OT was changed quite a bit though. The Catholic Church responded with the Council of Trent:

"The Council issued condemnations on what it defined as Protestant heresies and defined Church teachings in the areas of Scripture..." Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent
 
Tri Unity said:
Yes, that's pretty much the case with the NT. The OT was changed quite a bit though. The Catholic Church responded with the Council of Trent:

"The Council issued condemnations on what it defined as Protestant heresies and defined Church teachings in the areas of Scripture..." Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent
Click to expand...

The Council of Trent also recognized the Apocypha, and — amazingly, some of the large Protestant denominations even recognized more Apocryphal books than the Roman Catholic church!

But there is a clear distinction between the Apocryphal (Deuterocanonical) and canonical books.
 
farouk said:
The Council of Trent also recognized the Apocypha, and — amazingly, some of the large Protestant denominations even recognized more Apocryphal books than the Roman Catholic church!

But there is a clear distinction between the Apocryphal (Deuterocanonical) and canonical books.
Click to expand...

The Apocryphal (Deuterocanonical) books were always part of the canon of the first Christians. This is a fact. The earliest bible manuscripts contain the apocryphal books, as do the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Jews had taken the so called "apocryphal books" out of their bibles in about the 2nd or 3rd century to make a distinction and argument with Christians that the only reason they misunderstand the OT messiah is because they have the wrong bible. The christians up until the 5th century used the Septuagint (LXX) exclusively. Jerome, who was a deceiver, introduced the Jewish version into the church through the Vulgate. The "apocrypha" was still being used because EVERY CHRISTIAN was aware that these books were in the bible.

Note: Jerome taught that the bible contained lies, and that the Apostles were liars. Jerome was financed by Jews to introduce the Hebrew text into the church, which he did. The next major change to the bible came when Gutenberg printed the bible using the Hebrew text without the Apocrypha, for he too was Jewish. Gutenberg was financed by a Jonathon Faust (of Geothe's fame - he sold his soul to the devil), which he (Faust) stole the manuscripts off Gutenberg, and Gutenberg ended up having no control over the bible that he first printed.
 
Tri Unity said:
The Apocryphal (Deuterocanonical) books were always part of the canon of the first Christians. This is a fact. The earliest bible manuscripts contain the apocryphal books, as do the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Jews had taken the so called "apocryphal books" out of their bibles in about the 2nd or 3rd century to make a distinction and argument with Christians that the only reason they misunderstand the OT messiah is because they have the wrong bible. The christians up until the 5th century used the Septuagint (LXX) exclusively. Jerome, who was a deceiver, introduced the Jewish version into the church through the Vulgate. The "apocrypha" was still being used because EVERY CHRISTIAN was aware that these books were in the bible.

Note: Jerome taught that the bible contained lies, and that the Apostles were liars. Jerome was financed by Jews to introduce the Hebrew text into the church, which he did. The next major change to the bible came when Gutenberg printed the bible using the Hebrew text without the Apocrypha, for he too was Jewish. Gutenberg was financed by a Jonathon Faust (of Geothe's fame - he sold his soul to the devil), which he (Faust) stole the manuscripts off Gutenberg, and Gutenberg ended up having no control over the bible that he first printed.
Click to expand...

...but I don't believe that in terms of inherent authority they were ever authentic. The Deuterocanonical books were never part of the canon, as sanctioned by the Apostles.
 
farouk said:
The authority of Scripture doesn't depend on the approval or otherwise of the professing church. Neither Rome nor Protestants had the right to add or take away from the canon.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Jesus and the Apostles used the Greek Septuagint in the NT quotations. The earliest complete christian bibles in existence are the Septuagint. These earliest bibles all have the so-called "apocrypha" incorporated. The earliest Hebrew bibles in existence also have the apocrypha (DSS). The ealiest fathers who quoted for the scriptures quoted also from the apocrypha. The earliest lists of canons include the apocrypha. I agree - with so much evidence available - who has the right to add or remove these books?
 
Tri Unity said:
I agree.

Jesus and the Apostles used the Greek Septuagint in the NT quotations. The earliest complete christian bibles in existence are the Septuagint. These earliest bibles all have the so-called "apocrypha" incorporated. The earliest Hebrew bibles in existence also have the apocrypha (DSS). The ealiest fathers who quoted for the scriptures quoted also from the apocrypha. The earliest lists of canons include the apocrypha. I agree - with so much evidence available - who has the right to add or remove these books?
Click to expand...

I'm referring to books with Apostolic authority rather than the Apocrypha.
 
Well, it sounds as if you don't recognize the distinction between canonical and non canonical. (Or have I missed something?) Remember also, that Paul even quoted a pagan poet (about the Cretans), but this doesn't make the poet canonical.
 
farouk said:
Well, it sounds as if you don't recognize the distinction between canonical and non canonical. (Or have I missed something?) Remember also, that Paul even quoted a pagan poet (about the Cretans), but this doesn't make the poet canonical.
Click to expand...

It is true what you are saying (apart from me not recognizing the distinction between canonical and non canonical). What you have missed is that the earliest known bibles all contained these so-called "apocryphal" writings; so they were deemed "canonical". It is only later generations that had removed these canonical writings because of the politics going on among christians. It is you who now do not recognize the distinction between canonical and non canonical. Your opinion is an odopted opinion based on denominational wars, not based on actual history or the revealed text that the Apostles used. Do you really think that the christians placed 10 extra books into the bible after the apostles died? Ok, show evidence of this. There is none!
 
There is a distinction between recognizing the canonical for their inherent authority, and reviving the already discarded.

You and I disagree, anyway. Thank-you for your consideration.
 
Fedusenko said:
Does the Bible contain some of God's word or is fully it God's word?

To be clear, christianforums.net believes
Click to expand...

When God or Jesus (who is God in flesh) are quoted in the Bible, you know that is the word of God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top