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!

Why has God let noninspired text comingle with inspired?

S

Soma-Sight

Guest
In the defence of the Protestant paradigm, I found this statement dealiong with why the Apocrypha books were rejected from the "revised" canon".

Why the KJV Translators Did Not Accept the Apocrypha as Scripture

Another favorite lie of the critics is that the original KJV of 1611 included the Apocrypha, which no true Christian today accepts as Scripture. The Apocrypha is a collection of several pagan writings which the Catholic church accepts as inspired Scripture. In fact, the Council of Trent (1546) pronounced a CURSE upon anyone who denied that these books were inspired. The King James translators did NOT consider the books to be inspired Scripture, nor did they include them in the canon as such. They merely placed the Apocryphal books BETWEEN the Old and New testament as a historical document, not as Scripture. Their reasons for not accepting the Apocrypha as Scripture are listed on page 185-186 of the book Translators Revived, by Alexander McClure. The seven reasons are basically as follows:

Not one of them is in the Hebrew language like the rest of the Old Testament books.
Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian church.
They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves. For example, in the Books of Maccabees alone, Antiochus Epiphanes dies three times in three places!
It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.


We have some pretty viable reasons why these books should be rejected!

But here is the problem!

IF GODS WORD IS INFALLIBLE AND INERRANT, WHY DID HE ALLOW THESE APP. BOOKS TO COMINGLE WITH HIS "INSPIRED" BOOKS?
 
It is a huge issue. The Bible was made. Christians claim it was made with the guidance of the Holy Spirit so there are no mistakes. However, if the Protestant Bible is correct, then Christians have to admit that the early Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit made mistakes and put the wrong books in the Bible.

So if two groups are guided by the Holy Spirit to make the Bible, why did they come up with different answers? If one group made a mistake, why not both?

Quath
 
Quath,

That is essentially what I meant!

Good reply!

Free,

Here is the question stated once again!

IF GODS WORD IS INFALLIBLE AND INERRANT, WHY DID HE ALLOW THESE APOCRYPHA BOOKS TO COMINGLE WITH HIS "INSPIRED" BOOKS FOR 1000'S OF YEARS IN THE "INSPIRED CANON" OF THE TIME? WHY WASNT THE CANON "DONE RIGHT" THE FIRST TIME!

THIS CAN LEAD US TO A STARTLING CONCLUSION!

IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE FREE WILL OF MAN MAY HAVE/HAS/WILL CURRUPT THE "CORRECT" ORDER OF SCRIPTURE!
 
Here's your Answer. (Catholics, you may want to cover your eyes for this one.)

Quath, Soma, we all know a man who is led by the Holy Spirit can Err. After all, Paul had to rebuke Peter in Galatians 2 did he not?

The fact of the matter is, is it possible the RCC was in error when they established the original canon. Look at the Histroy of the RCC. They present doctrines that are not supported by scripture such as the Co-Redemptrix or Papal Infallibility. They've been responsible for acts which in no way represent true Christianity such as the Inquisition or the Crussades. While these acts we're "claimed" to be of God's direction they clearly are not because they in no way align with Scripture.

So why did God allow the Canon, what man claims as "God's inspired word " to be in error? Well, it's quite possibly the same reason why he allowed the RCC to make a mockery of Christianity at several points in their history. God is above all things, and can use evil for good. Just keep in mind Romans 8:28, and remember, God is above all things.
 
Brutus/HisCatalyst said:
So why did God allow the Canon, what man claims as "God's inspired word " to be in error? Well, it's quite possibly the same reason why he allowed the RCC to make a mockery of Christianity at several points in their history. God is above all things, and can use evil for good. Just keep in mind Romans 8:28, and remember, God is above all things.
The problem is that if God was above the creation of the Catholic Bible, He could have been above the creation of the Protestant Bible as well. Or maybe above the creation of any Bible. So what written word can you trust if God is above guiding their accuracy?

Quath
 
Quath said:
The problem is that if God was above the creation of the Catholic Bible, He could have been above the creation of the Protestant Bible as well. Or maybe above the creation of any Bible. So what written word can you trust if God is above guiding their accuracy?

Quath

If you can't have faith in a particular canon, then there is only one "Word of God" you can trust, His exact words. If you're faith is so poor that all you can not trust God was over one organization of a Canon, then Go through any canon you like an find the Exact words of God. They will still teach you How to live your life and still tell you the Jesus is the way, truth, and life. However, I'm going to live by the Words of Jesus, and Live by Faith. That is what allows me to accept the canon presented by protestant scripture. It does not go against what Jesus or God actually spoke, while the current Catholic canon does.
 
Brutus/HisCatalyst said:
Quath said:
The problem is that if God was above the creation of the Catholic Bible, He could have been above the creation of the Protestant Bible as well. Or maybe above the creation of any Bible. So what written word can you trust if God is above guiding their accuracy?

Quath

If you can't have faith in a particular canon, then there is only one "Word of God" you can trust, His exact words. If you're faith is so poor that all you can not trust God was over one organization of a Canon, then Go through any canon you like an find the Exact words of God. They will still teach you How to live your life and still tell you the Jesus is the way, truth, and life. However, I'm going to live by the Words of Jesus, and Live by Faith. That is what allows me to accept the canon presented by protestant scripture. It does not go against what Jesus or God actually spoke, while the current Catholic canon does.

So your saying the the words and canon you can't prove are inspired inspire you to believe that they are the right words and canon because they say so?
 
Nice avatar Brutus.......

The fact of the matter is, is it possible the RCC was in error when they established the original canon.

If THEY were mistaken................

How can you reasonably say the PROTESTANTS were not?

A paradox? Well, maybe.

A problem for literalist fundys? Definitely!
 
I will agree that they are an excellent source of historical value. Books like Macabees, etc. are indispensable when studying End Times.

I understand the Septuagint, which was read by and quoted by Jesus and others in His time, included some of these books. I also understand they were rejected by many because their writing did not 'fit' the style of writing of the other OT books.
 
ThinkerMan said:
So your saying the the words and canon you can't prove are inspired inspire you to believe that they are the right words and canon because they say so?

One way to gain trust in a source is it's consistancy. In the case of the protestant canon, the books of the OT agree with what is taught in the NT. Thinkerman, as I've told you before, and even in the last post, I will live by Faith. I put faith in the idea that the current protestant canon is a means that God has used, is using, and can continue to use to teach us about Himself and His ways. Sorry friend, this kind of Faith is something you can't understand until you live it.
 
Soma-Sight said:
Nice avatar Brutus.......

The fact of the matter is, is it possible the RCC was in error when they established the original canon.

If THEY were mistaken................

How can you reasonably say the PROTESTANTS were not?

A paradox? Well, maybe.

A problem for literalist fundys? Definitely!

The same way you once did, by Faith.

The Bible teaches that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Jesus also said that the Righteouss will live by Faith. I think I can put my Faith in God and that He is using the Protestant canon for His glory, perfect or not. What about you?
 
Brutus/HisCatalyst said:
[quote="Soma-Sight":ac2fa]Nice avatar Brutus.......

The fact of the matter is, is it possible the RCC was in error when they established the original canon.

If THEY were mistaken................

How can you reasonably say the PROTESTANTS were not?

A paradox? Well, maybe.

A problem for literalist fundys? Definitely!

The same way you once did, by Faith.

The Bible teaches that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Jesus also said that the Righteouss will live by Faith. I think I can put my Faith in God and that He is using the Protestant canon for His glory, perfect or not. What about you?
[/quote:ac2fa]

Oddly enough, faith leads people to different conclusions.
It certainly is a matter of faith by which the Protestants accept the Masoretic Hebrew scriptures- those compiled 5 centuries past the rejection of Christ- and reject the Septuagint- that Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures quoted by the Master, used by the early Christians, and rejected by the Jews: who nonetheless celebrate an annual festival which can only be found explained in the Septuagint.

They celebrate this festival 'by faith' also.

It is impossible that the Roman Catholic Church was in error when the bible was canonized, for the RCC did not do the canonization. In point of fact, there was neither RCC or EOC - only
es mia, hagia, katholikin apostolki ekklesian
One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

But since we are discussing what might have happened, let us consider the possibility that the Protestants were wrong about changing the canon. The fact that they did makes everything else they did and have done suspect- for they claim to do such things on the basis of biblical mandate.
 
Brutus/HisCatalyst said:
One way to gain trust in a source is it's consistancy. In the case of the protestant canon, the books of the OT agree with what is taught in the NT. Thinkerman, as I've told you before, and even in the last post, I will live by Faith. I put faith in the idea that the current protestant canon is a means that God has used, is using, and can continue to use to teach us about Himself and His ways. Sorry friend, this kind of Faith is something you can't understand until you live it.
This comes across as "You believe it is true because you want it to be true." A Catholic has faith their Bible is the correct cannon. So by faith, we can not determine truth since each person is led in a different direction by faith.

Quath
 
I think I can put my Faith in God and that He is using the Protestant canon for His glory, perfect or not. What about you?

I see you are admitting that the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy is fallible?
 
Soma-Sight said:
I think I can put my Faith in God and that He is using the Protestant canon for His glory, perfect or not. What about you?

I see you are admitting that the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy is fallible?

Only to the degree where Man let's his ego direct his steps.
 
Quath said:
Brutus/HisCatalyst said:
One way to gain trust in a source is it's consistancy. In the case of the protestant canon, the books of the OT agree with what is taught in the NT. Thinkerman, as I've told you before, and even in the last post, I will live by Faith. I put faith in the idea that the current protestant canon is a means that God has used, is using, and can continue to use to teach us about Himself and His ways. Sorry friend, this kind of Faith is something you can't understand until you live it.
This comes across as "You believe it is true because you want it to be true." A Catholic has faith their Bible is the correct cannon. So by faith, we can not determine truth since each person is led in a different direction by faith.

Quath

Quath, Your showing your poor logic again. In order to believe in something, you have to want to believe in it. All the proof in the world can't force someone to believe a truth. You must have a want. Also, as I said, the protestant canon is supported by it's self, while parts of the Catholic canon are not.
 
IF GODS WORD IS INFALLIBLE AND INERRANT, WHY DID HE ALLOW THESE APOCRYPHA BOOKS TO COMINGLE WITH HIS "INSPIRED" BOOKS FOR 1000'S OF YEARS IN THE "INSPIRED CANON" OF THE TIME? WHY WASNT THE CANON "DONE RIGHT" THE FIRST TIME!

Are you saying you know God's plans in advance? :wink: All things will be revealed after judgement day.

IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE FREE WILL OF MAN MAY HAVE/HAS/WILL CURRUPT THE "CORRECT" ORDER OF SCRIPTURE!

You treat it like it is not part of the plan?

God is not called "mysterious" for nothing. :wink:
 
Brutus/HisCatalyst said:
Quath, Your showing your poor logic again. In order to believe in something, you have to want to believe in it. All the proof in the world can't force someone to believe a truth. You must have a want. Also, as I said, the protestant canon is supported by it's self, while parts of the Catholic canon are not.
Catholics would disagree with you and say theirs are in harmony while yours weren't. Any error you find, they can find an error in what you have.

You have admitted that people can create a Bible that is not what God wanted. You just refuse to see that the logic applies to you as well. For example, how do you know thatthe Book of Thomas should have been included instead of the Book of John? We agree that the Catholics messed up and didn't preserve the absolute truth. So this could have been an additional error.

The Muslims make their cannon. The Mormons make the cannon. Both groups think they have it right and think theirs are the most consistent version of the Bible. You are just following along in their logic without seeing it for what it is.

Quath
 
Quath said:
Brutus/HisCatalyst said:
Quath, Your showing your poor logic again. In order to believe in something, you have to want to believe in it. All the proof in the world can't force someone to believe a truth. You must have a want. Also, as I said, the protestant canon is supported by it's self, while parts of the Catholic canon are not.
Catholics would disagree with you and say theirs are in harmony while yours weren't. Any error you find, they can find an error in what you have.

You have admitted that people can create a Bible that is not what God wanted. You just refuse to see that the logic applies to you as well. For example, how do you know thatthe Book of Thomas should have been included instead of the Book of John? We agree that the Catholics messed up and didn't preserve the absolute truth. So this could have been an additional error.

The Muslims make their cannon. The Mormons make the cannon. Both groups think they have it right and think theirs are the most consistent version of the Bible. You are just following along in their logic without seeing it for what it is.

Quath

Your still missing the issue of Faith. Faith does you no good if you place it in the wrong "truth". I'm not saying that I'm right, but I am saying only God can prove me wrong. To this point, and I talk with Him all the time, He reveal no reason for me to change. 8-)
 
Back
Top