Posted on 01/04/2010 12:17:14 PM PST by Gamecock
What Makes the Bible Unique?
The bible is unique in that it is the only book that is fully human and also eminently divine. As a divine book, the bible is perfect, infallible, and inspired by God (II. Pet. 1:20,21; II Tim. 3:16,17; Lk. 21:33; Is. 55:11); it reveals God's own plan, will, motives and agenda (Isaiah 45:21-23); and it cannot be truly understood by anyone who is not taught by the Holy Spirit of God (I Cor. 2:12-16). And yet, it is also a thoroughly human book, and was written by human authors, each displaying his own unique style and personality; moreover, it was written in human languages, within the context of human history, and to address human needs. As the bible's great hero is Jesus Christ, who is eternally God and became fully human to reveal the nature of God to mankind (Jn. 1:14, 18), this dual nature of the bible is appropriate and necessary for the accurate portrayal of its great Protagonist.
The bible is thus the one complete and fully sufficient testimony of the God who created us, containing within its pages everything that he has determined that we could need to be pleasing to him, and live the lives he created us to live; this is why many of the Reformed creeds and confessions speak of the bible as “our only standard for faith and practice”.
The bible is thus the one complete and fully sufficient testimony of the God who created us, containing within its pages everything that he has determined that we could need to be pleasing to him, and live the lives he created us to live; this is why many of the Reformed creeds and confessions speak of the bible as “our only standard for faith and practice”.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Then explain Why are 7 Books Missing from non catholic Bible in the last few centuries.... How Can God Command himself to remove Books from the Bible which are used by the Catholic Church Founded By his own son Jesus Christ and who said his church will last until the end of time and prevail against the gates of hell...
The Only answer I can figure is man tinkered with the word of GOD...But Why?? is God wrong?? or is man??
The 400 Years after the death of Jesus Christ.where the church was based on oral Tradition...and no complete Bible what then?? hmmm
Just thinking out loud!
Interesting protective logic. If you criticize it, then you were obviously not "taught by the Holy Spirit of God," then you by definition must not have properly understood it, so your criticism is baseless.
“Then explain Why are 7 Books Missing from non catholic Bible in the last few centuries....”
LOL
"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)
1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus;
"From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
6. The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Council of Jamnia both rejected the apocrypha as inspired;
"They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. "The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])
Completely untrue. The canon of Trent was the same as the canon taught by the councils in the late 4th and early 5th C. that defined the NT canon. The canon of Trent was also the same as the canon defined by Florence >100 years before.
The only thing that changed at Trent was the addition of an anathema against Catholics who denied the canon it taught.
I'm surprised that this canard is still floating around FR, because we've talked about it many times.
If I might add, the first "authority" to declare which books were Scripture was Athansius in 367 AD. He noted that the Apocrypha was to be read only as devotional literature not Scripture. The first council to have a say was the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD, no one from Rome attended.
What we are really looking at is people recognizing a well established fact. The Canon was finished by 100 AD at the latest and these pronouncements are being made 270-300 years later. It really does denigrate that first generation of Christians to think they didn't recognize Scripture and discard that which wasn't.
If we are to believe those that claim their church put the Canon together then we are expected to believe the Holy Spirit let Christians wander in darkness until a hierarchy emerged.
When we turn to Jewish literature outside the Old Testament, we see that the belief that divinely authoritative words from God had ceased is clearly attested in several different strands of extra biblical Jewish literature. In 1 Maccabees (about 100 B.C.) the author writes of the defiled altar, “So they tore down the altar and stored the stones in a convenient place on the temple hill until there should come a prophet to tell what to do with them” (1 Macc.:45—46). The apparently knew of no one who could speak with the authority of God as the Old Testament prophets had done. The memory of an authoritative prophet among the people was one that belonged to the distant past, for the author could speak of a great distress “such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them” (1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).
Josephus (born c. A.D. 37/38) explained, “From Artaxerxes to our own times a complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets” (Against Apion 1.41). This statement shows that he knew of the writings now considered part of the “Apocrypha,” but that he (and many of his contemporaries) considered these other writings “not ... worthy of equal credit” with what we now know as the Old Testament Scriptures. There had been, in Josephus’s viewpoint, no more “words of God” added to Scripture after about 435 B.C.
Rabbinic literature reflects a similar conviction in its repeated statement that the Holy Spirit (in the Spirit’s function of inspiring prophecy) departed from Israel. “After the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi had died, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel."
The Qumran community awaited a prophet whose words would have authority to supersede any existing regulations (1 QS 9.11), and other similar statements are found elsewhere in ancient Jewish literature (2 Baruch 85.3 and Prayer of Azariah 15). Thus, writings subsequent to about 435 B.C. were not accepted by the Jewish people generally as having equal authority with the rest of Scripture.
In the New Testament, we have no record of any dispute between Jesus and the Jews over the extent of the canon. Apparently there was full agreement between Jesus and his disciples,on the one hand, and the Jewish leaders or Jewish people, on the other hand, that additions to the Old Testament canon had ceased after the time of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. This fact is confirmed by the quotations of Jesus and the New Testament authors from the Old Testament. According to one count, Jesus and the New Testament authors quote various parts of the Old Testament Scriptures as divinely authoritative over 295 times, but not once do they cite any statement from the books of the Apocrypha or any other writings as having divine authority. The absence of any such reference to other literature as divinely authoritative, and the extremely frequent reference to hundreds of places in the Old Testament as divinely authoritative, gives strong confirmation to the fact that the New Testament authors agreed that the established Old Testament canon, no more and no less, was to be taken as God’s very words.
The Apocrypha books were never accepted by the Jews as Scripture. Jerome in his Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible (completed in A.D. 404) included the books but said they were not “books of the canon” but merely “books of the church” that were helpful and useful for believers.
The earliest Christian list of Old Testament books that exists today is by Melito, bishop of Sardis, writing about A.D. l70: “When I came to the east and reached the place where these things were preached and done, and learnt accurately the books of the Old Testament, I set down the facts and sent them to you. These are their names: five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kingdoms,’two books of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon and his Wisdom,Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra.”
It is noteworthy here that Melito names none of the books of the Apocrypha but he includes all of our present Old Testament books except Esther. Eusebius also quotes Origen as affirming most of the books of our present Old Testament canon (including Esther), but no book of the Apocrypha is affirmed as canonical, and the books of Maccabees are explicitly said to be “outside of these [canonical books].”
Similarly, in A.D. 367, when Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, wrote his Paschal Letter, he listed all the books of our present New Testament canon and all the books of our present Old Testament canon except Esther. He also mentioned some books of the Apocrypha such as the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Judith, and Tobit, and said these are “not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness.” The Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius contained an exact list with the exception of Esther of the books we have today. This was the list of books accepted by the churches in the eastern part of the Mediterranean world. Thirty years later, in A.D. 397, the Council of Carthage, representing the churches in the western part of the Mediterranean world, agreed with the eastern churches on the same list. These are the earliest final lists of our present-day canon.
There are doctrinal and historical inconsistencies with a number of these books. There are no marks in these books which would attest a divine origin. . . . both Judith and Tobit contain historical, chronological and geographical errors. The books justify falsehood and deception and make salvation to depend upon works of merit. . . . Ecciesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon inculcate a morality based upon expediency. Wisdom teaches the creation of the world out of preexistent matter (11:17). Ecciesiasticus teaches that the giving of alms makes atonement for sin (3:30). In Baruch it is said that God hears the prayers of the dead (3:4), and in I Maccabees there are historical and geographical errors.
It was not until 1546, at the Council of Trent, that the Roman Catholic Church officially declared the Apocrypha to be part of the canon (with the exception of 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh). It is significant that the Council of Trent was the response of the Roman Catholic Church to the teachings of Martin Luther and the rapidly spreading Protestant Reformation, and the books of the Apocrypha contain support for the Catholic teaching of prayers for the dead and justification by faith plus works, not by faith alone.
Thus the writings of the Apocrypha are merely human words, not God-breathed words like the words of Scripture. They do have value for historical and linguistic research, and they contain a number of helpful stories about the courage and faith of many Jews during the period after the Old Testament ends, but they have never been part of the Old Testament canon, and should not be regarded as part of Scripture:
(1) they do not claim for themselves the same kind of authority as the Old Testament writings; (2) they were not regarded as God’s words by the Jewish people from whom they originated; (3) they were not considered to be Scripture by Jesus or the New Testament authors; and (4) they contain teachings inconsistent with the rest of the Bible.
***Then explain Why are 7 Books Missing from non catholic Bible in the last few centuries....***
I’ve read them. They are irrelivant pious fictions, similar to the Shepherd of Hermas, which is not in the Catholic bibles even though it is in the Sinaiaticus manuscript.
I encourage everyone to read them at lest once to see why they are not important.
"The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything. We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that it speaks of everything either directly or by implication. It tells us not only of the Christ and his work, but it also tells us who God is and where the universe about us has come from. It tells us about theism as well as about Christianity. It gives us a philosophy of history as well as history. Moreover, the information on these subjects is woven into an inextricable whole. It is only if you reject the Bible as the word of God that you can separate the so-called religious and moral instructions of the Bible from what it says, e.g., about the physical universe." -- Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1976), p.2.
Thank you so much for the information. Excellent research.
FYI: Something that I have heard and that I find interesting concerns the book of Isaiah. Many have said that it is the bible within the bible. I once knew someone who had spent many years studying Isaiah along with a fellow bible researcher. What they found was that in each of the 66 chapters of Isaiah were many corresponding teachings/truths or parallels, themes, words, and such things to each of the 66 books of the bible, in the original order of OT books. Fore example, Isaiah 1 “connects” to Genesis, Isa. 20 “connects to Job, Isa 40 to Matthew, etc.
I have their 60 page paper on just Gen - Deut, but have not had the time to sit down and really dig into it deep enough to see if I agree with all their conclusions or not. IMHO, they carry things a bit far, but I have read enough though that even if I don’t agree with all they conclude, there does seem to be an indication of such a “connection”. And I have always found it interesting that it would be a great good way to refute the “extra” books as being part of scripture.
THANKS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.