Which Bible is the true Bible?

[Walpole]

Wal,

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

Oz

Sure thing...

The Deuterocanonical books were contained in the Septuagint, which were the Scriptures used by Jesus, the Apostles and the early Church. Greek-speaking Jews used the Septuagint, but so many converted to Christianity that Greek-speaking Judaism ceased to exist not long after the time of the Apostles. The canon of the Catholic Old Testament is a Jewish canon; it is the canon of Jews who accepted Christ.

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. The progenitors of Protestantism Protestants chose the Old Testament canon of Jews (Masoretic) who rejected Christ. Ironically, Protestant Bibles like the NIV had to refer to the Septuagint to correct certain portions of their translations from the Tanakh to match the Christological meaning!


The New Testament actually affirms the authority of the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanonical books. Here are a few examples...

Acts 15:17 ---> Amos 9:12 in the Septuagint. The Masoretic text contradicts the interpretation given by the Apostles.

Hebrews 1:6 ---> Deuteronomy 32:33 in the Septuagint. In the Masoretic text, this verse is missing.

Luke 4:18 ---> Isaiah 61:1 in the Septuagint. Jesus quotes the prophet Isaiah, which is missing in the Masoretic text.



Furthermore, Protestant scholars Gleason Archer and Gregory Chirichigno listed 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint, but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint.

---> Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament

So, either the Septuagint (containing the Deuterocanonical books) held authority with Jesus, the Apostles and the early Church, or they were all wrong and the progenitors of the various Protestant religions were right.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

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

Funny you wouldn't KNOW that the KJV was a legally Authorized translation - why would you thing the law was from "Protestants"? DO you know NOTHING of the KJV??

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?

For WHAT? The only significant thing (out of 2 Maccabees) is the phony Roman Catholic LIE about "Purgatorial Sanctification" - satan's best JOKE on Catholics, who'll find that it's really HELL and they're never getting out.

Tell me ONE THING that I've missed out on spiritually by not having the Deuteros in my Bible.

 

[OzSpen]

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

Wal,

I've answered that at #72 above. Don't you read my responses? Have you ever heard of the Muratorian Canon/Fragment?

Oz

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.

Bob,

If you believe baptism is essential to be saved, it clashes with Eph 2:8-9.

As for Acts 2:38, that's simple to answer. They believed and were baptised. They were not told their salvation depended on getting sprinkled or dunked. In Acts 2:38, what is the meaning of the Greek preposition , eis?

What happened to Paul in Acts 28:3 was not a deliberate choice to be bitten by a deadly snake to demonstrate signs following. However, Paul didn't die from the bite. He was healed by the power of God. That's not so with the examples I gave you.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Sure thing...

The Deuterocanonical books were contained in the Septuagint, which were the Scriptures used by Jesus, the Apostles and the early Church. Greek-speaking Jews used the Septuagint, but so many converted to Christianity that Greek-speaking Judaism ceased to exist not long after the time of the Apostles. The canon of the Catholic Old Testament is a Jewish canon; it is the canon of Jews who accepted Christ.

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. The progenitors of Protestantism Protestants chose the Old Testament canon of Jews (Masoretic) who rejected Christ. Ironically, Protestant Bibles like the NIV had to refer to the Septuagint to correct certain portions of their translations from the Tanakh to match the Christological meaning!


The New Testament actually affirms the authority of the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanonical books. Here are a few examples...

Acts 15:17 ---> Amos 9:12 in the Septuagint. The Masoretic text contradicts the interpretation given by the Apostles.

Hebrews 1:6 ---> Deuteronomy 32:33 in the Septuagint. In the Masoretic text, this verse is missing.

Luke 4:18 ---> Isaiah 61:1 in the Septuagint. Jesus quotes the prophet Isaiah, which is missing in the Masoretic text.



Furthermore, Protestant scholars Gleason Archer and Gregory Chirichigno listed 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint, but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint.

---> Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament

So, either the Septuagint (containing the Deuterocanonical books) held authority with Jesus, the Apostles and the early Church, or they were all wrong and the progenitors of the various Protestant religions were right.

It's not an either or/all. Have you read the New World Translation of the Bible lately? It's a mixture of good theology, mixed with false teaching, so we get a concoction of unedifying teaching. Something similar happened with the addition of the deuterocanonical books to the OT Hebrew Scriptures.

 

[Walpole]

Funny you wouldn't KNOW that the KJV was a legally Authorized translation - why would you thing the law was from "Protestants"? DO you know NOTHING of the KJV??

For WHAT? The only significant thing (out of 2 Maccabees) is the phony Roman Catholic LIE about "Purgatorial Sanctification" - satan's best JOKE on Catholics, who'll find that it's really HELL and they're never getting out.

Tell me ONE THING that I've missed out on spiritually by not having the Deuteros in my Bible.

You previously stated, "The KJV originally BY LAW had to include the Deuterocanonicals until late in the 19th century, when they (being worthless Spiritually) were trashed." - You, post #64

Archbishop George Abbott had a penalty of one year in prison for printing the KJV without the deutorcanonical books included. So again, why would some Protestants need to invoke the law to prevent other Protestants from removing books of the Bible? After all, the KJV even had over 100 cross-references to the deuterocanonical books. For example...

The deuterocanonical books were used by Jesus, the Apostles and the Church from the beginning. Do you not think there was anything spiritually they received from its pages? After all, they are quoted by Jesus and the Apostles.

In fact the most explicit messianic prophesy in all of Scripture is found in its pages. Wisdom 2:12-20 explicitly identifies the messiah as the Son of God, who would be put to death and in the end be triumphant. (This verse is even quoted by the Jewish leaders at the foot of the cross mocking Jesus.)

 

[Walpole]

It's not an either or/all. Have you read the New World Translation of the Bible lately? It's a mixture of good theology, mixed with false teaching, so we get a concoction of unedifying teaching. Something similar happened with the addition of the deuterocanonical books to the OT Hebrew Scriptures.

Wal,

I've answered that at #72 above. Don't you read my responses? Have you ever heard of the Muratorian Canon/Fragment?

Oz

I replied to your post #72. Don't you read my responses? Here again is what I wrote regarding your appeal to Athansius' 39th Festal Letter...

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.

 

[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.

It doesn't matter how 'novel' you consider the 66 book Bible. It exists and Protestant churches use it everywhere. That makes it part of Church history. That you approve of it is immaterial.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

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

But where does it come from? Where is the Septuagint that this was copied from? Where is the oldest copy of the Septuagint?

Quantrill

 

[Walpole]

It doesn't matter how 'novel' you consider the 66 book Bible. It exists and Protestant churches use it everywhere. That makes it part of Church history. That you approve of it is immaterial.

Quantrill

It exists because Protestants invented it. That is my point and thanks for finally conceding.

A 66-book canon does not exist in Church history. It was a novel creation of the various progenitors of the Protestant religions. And, were it not for Luther's former chancellor Andreas Karlstadt, you would have even fewer books, as Luther wanted to take his scalpel to the New Testament canon as well, removing books he did not like such as the epistle of James and St. John's Apocalypse.

 

[jaybo]

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.

Okay, either 1) the Protestant church doesn't exist or 2) you are 110% wrong.

Open your Protestant Bible, count the "books", and you'll discover the (secret) answer.

 

[jaybo]

It exists because Protestants invented it. That is my point and thanks for finally conceding.

A 66-book canon does not exist in Church history. It was a novel creation of the various progenitors of the Protestant religions. And, were it not for Luther's former chancellor Andreas Karlstadt, you would have even fewer books, as Luther wanted to take his scalpel to the New Testament canon as well, removing books he did not like such as the epistle of James and St. John's Apocalypse.

What century are you living in? In case you haven't noticed it's not the 15th Century, it's the 21st. You can go on and on and on and on about this but => you are dead wrong <=

 

[Walpole]

What century are you living in? In case you haven't noticed it's not the 15th Century, it's the 21st. You can go on and on and on and on about this but => you are dead wrong <=

"You are dead wrong" is not a refutation or rebuttal. If I am wrong, please demonstrate it by providing a canon from history which matches the one invented by the Protestants.

In a previous post, you even made the following claim...

"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." - You, Post #62

I asked you to substantiate your assertion by providing any documentation from Athanasius supporting a 66-book canon. You never did. Will that documentation be forthcoming or were you just talking out of your hat and making that up?

(I think we both know the answer to that question.)

 

[jaybo]

"You are dead wrong" is not a refutation or rebuttal. If I am wrong, please demonstrate it by providing a canon from history which matches the one invented by the Protestants.

In a previous post, you even made the following claim...

"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." - You, Post #62

I asked you to substantiate your assertion by providing any documentation from Athanasius supporting a 66-book canon. You never did. Will that documentation be forthcoming or were you just talking out of your hat and making that up?

(I think we both know the answer to that question.)

The answers is... I am done discussing this with you. IMHO your opinion is unfounded and without merit. Believe what you want; I don't care.

 

[Walpole]

The answers is... I am done discussing this with you. IMHO your opinion is unfounded and without merit. Believe what you want; I don't care.

If you ever come up with any documentation to support your assertion that Athanasius or ANYONE else in history held to a 66-book canon matching the one invented by the progenitors of the various Protestant religions, by all means please reach back out to me.

Best wishes to you.

 

[jaybo]

If you ever come up with any documentation to support your assertion that Athanasius or ANYONE else in history held to a 66-book canon matching the one invented by the progenitors of the various Protestant religions, by all means please reach back out to me.

Best wishes to you.

Don't hold your breath. I am not, and never have been, under any obligation to refute your foolishness.

 

[Walpole]

Don't hold your breath. I am not, and never have been, under any obligation to refute your foolishness.

Believe me, I'm not holding my breath. You and I both know you were simply talking out of your hat and making it up as you went along.

Best wishes to you.

 

[OzSpen]

But where does it come from? Where is the Septuagint that this was copied from? Where is the oldest copy of the Septuagint?

Quantrill

Quantrill,

Like the NT, the original document of the LXX is not available to us. However, I'm happy to read my NIV, ESV or ERV without the benefit of the originals. I don't know of any English Bible translation that has access to the original documents of the NT.

The same applies to the copies we have online of the LXX.

By the way, I went to a sausage sizzle at my village's community centre last night and each sausage cost me $1. The committee was happy to accept my $1 much used coin as equivalent to the $1 original in the Canberra mint.

Oz

 

[Quantrill]

It exists because Protestants invented it. That is my point and thanks for finally conceding.

A 66-book canon does not exist in Church history. It was a novel creation of the various progenitors of the Protestant religions. And, were it not for Luther's former chancellor Andreas Karlstadt, you would have even fewer books, as Luther wanted to take his scalpel to the New Testament canon as well, removing books he did not like such as the epistle of James and St. John's Apocalypse.

Pay attention. The 66 book canon exists. It doesn't matter if you agree with it. It exists. And, it is part of church history. It's a part of history you don't like. Too bad. It's still history.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Quantrill,

Like the NT, the original document of the LXX is not available to us. However, I'm happy to read my NIV, ESV or ERV without the benefit of the originals. I don't know of any English Bible translation that has access to the original documents of the NT.

The same applies to the copies we have online of the LXX.

By the way, I went to a sausage sizzle at my village's community centre last night and each sausage cost me $1. The committee was happy to accept my $1 much used coin as equivalent to the $1 original in the Canberra mint.

Oz

I'm not asking for the original manuscript of the so called Septuagint. I'm asking where is the manuscript that this so called Septuagint is copied from? Where is the oldest copy of the Septuagint. Hint, there is none.

Just like the Letter of Aristeas, the Septuagint is a fraud.

Quantrill

 

[Walpole]

Pay attention. The 66 book canon exists. It doesn't matter if you agree with it. It exists. And, it is part of church history. It's a part of history you don't like. Too bad. It's still history.

Quantrill

Pay attention, as this isn’t rocket surgery.

—-> The 66-book canon exists because the progenitors of the various Protestant religions created it.

Once again, there is no church in Christian history which ever had or used a 66-book canon.