BIBLE AND THEOLOGY FORUM






Correct Addy: http://bible-forum.invisionzone.com/

is the new site, but if you click on that link, it may not go there. But if you put that addy http://Bible-Forum.InvisionZone.com in your URL box, it will go there.  The Invisionzone forum has many categories of Bible & Theology with special forums for each.  This Bravenet site here is the old general forum site.  We may eliminate that invision site because it is expensive and is not getting enough traffic.

Welcome!  You are at BibleAndTheology.com, which is the general forum for BibleAndTheology.org.  Persons are invited to post on Bible and Theology (widely interpreted).  Some postings may be chosen to be reposted on BibleAndTheology.org.  Give & receive love here. If you post here, please do not use "Anonymous" or the like. Choose your own screen names, but do not use one that you know is already being used by someone else. Please: 

1. You may debate with any ideas posted, but do not post objections to the topic, style, spelling, use of capital letters, or grammar of anyone's posting.  For example, you may debate whether the moon is made of green cheese, but kindly refrain from reviling a poster by telling him that it is politically incorrect to discuss green cheese.   

2. Do not post complaints or attacks vs. other posters.  

3. No obscene language,cuss words, or blasphemy may be used.   

4. Send complaints privately by e-mail to NellPatKay@hotmail.com.  If your posting is deleted, it could be because it violates forum rules or is just chosen for a short run on the forum.  

  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If you want the password, register your screen names by e-mail, as password may be needed again if problems arise on the Forum. CHECK OUT THE search function, which is good: it checks the content of the postings.


Note that if you paste onto the Forum, for some reason Bravenet may change your quote marks and apostrophes into something else, like little boxes or funny U's.   Thanks for coming, participating, and for showing love . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Also try out our new site:

http://bible-forum.invisionzone.com/

BIBLE AND THEOLOGY FORUM
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Deuterocanonical is a Misnomer

To start with, the concept of canonized is false.
Since "my sheep hear my voice," the acceptance of prophetic utterance & writing never waited hundreds of years for ecclesiastical councils to decide. At once the sheep recognized God's voice & were responsible for the message. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to churches; so did John. In neither case were the recipients to wait hundreds of years until they were dead for councils. They were to obey at once.

As the the LXX (Septuagint),
the existence of that Greek translation of the Tanach is irrelevant; also it is irrelevant that other books not in the Tanach were also translated to Greek. We are satisfied that eventually, at least by the 300's AD some of those other books were bound with the Bible, including books that are not in the apocrypha or deuterocanonicals of the RCC. And my modern Bible has things bound with it that are not part of scripture also. This proves nothing. (The Tanach is the Hebrew OT without the apocrypha.)

We don't know at what point in time the LXX books were bound together in a codex, instead of being separate scrolls. But I know of no evidence that codexes were much used before NT times. All of our manuscripts of the LXX are hundreds of years after the birth of Christ. I know of no evidence that there existed any codex called the LXX at the time of Christ, though we accept that the translation of the Tanach was made hundreds of years before Christ was born and existed in separate scrolls.

Since all of our mss of the LXX are long after the 1st Century AD, we have no idea how many of the refs to the OT in the NT are from the actual LXX. Since the OT was available in Greek, and many early Christians did not read Hebrew, it is obvious that many early Christians used the Greek translation, the LXX. Also, it is obvious that they knew the Greek was just a translation & that the Hebrew was the actual Word of God. They also knew that the references to the OT made in Greek in the NT were the Word of God. Thus it is probable that they changed the LXX to agree with the NT quotes / refs. Therefore, we don't know what the early LXX readings were, and we don't know that they followed the LXX. It is probable that our 4th-5th century copies of the LXX show the results of corrections made to the LXX from the NT, not that the NT followed the LXX.

To know how close the NT writers went to copying the LXX, you would have to have a pre-NT copy of the LXX, which you do not have.

What the early church used for the OT has not been proven by you, Arch. I think it is safe to assume that they used the LXX some places, but to the East where Greek was not the lingua franca, who knows.

Your saying something proves nothing. If you want to prove that the apocrypha was accepted as scripture before the Reformation, you need to prove it. Since My sheep hear my voice, & since the apocrypha is not used as authority in the NT, I don't believe true Christians by and large ever accepted it as the Word of God. I don't regard the medieval papists as Christians. Your saying that Prots removed something is just your saying it. No proof. You cannot debate your need to prove your point on that one. Let's see your proof that all the major cities of Europe had Bibles bound in one volume & that they all had the apocrypha.

I chose C:

Arch, you have not proven your case.
Prove that the apocrypha is God's Word.

Tell me, O Arch, & don't duck the question:

How do you know that the apocrypha is God's word?

Apocrypha is a Misnomer

I am well aware of what the Tanakh is.
The greek LXX is not in any way irrelevant, it is what was used by the early Church.

I don't have much time right now so I'll send you here:

http://www.fisheaters.com/septuagint.html

Please read ALL of what they have there and more importantly, be open to FACTS and don't let your bias get in the way.

Once again, this discussion was ACTUALLY to see if sola scriptura was in the Bible (a point you still have not proven) though I will be happy to oblige your tangent point. You can have your questions answered on the site above.

Apocrypha or Deuteros

Arch, I am going to call them the Apocrypha. I don't share the mistaken idea of canonization that you have.

"The greek LXX is not in any way irrelevant, it is what was used by the early Church."

Arch, the LXX is irrelevant. You cannot prove that the early Church considered the apocrypha God's Word even if it was part of the LXX. Neither can you prove that all the books in the LXX mss of AD IV-V were considered part of one LXX in AD I. You cannot prove that Early Christians believed that the apocrypha was part of God's Word. But the LXX is irrelevant.

To draw logical inferences you have to reason from self-evident truths, axioms. Practically speaking, between 2 persons discussing a subject, you can reason from common ground, even if the common ground is not axiomatic.

It is axiomatic, self-evident that the 66 books are God's Word.
It is also common ground between the two of us.
That the practices of the early church were God's practices is not axiomatic, not self-evident. It is not self-evident that what the early leaders of Christendom wrote was God's Word.

You can reason from 2 axioms:
1) the God of the 66 Books exists and
2) the 66 Books is the word of God.
If u find those truths self-evident & affirm them, you can do a lot of theology.

It is not self-evident to me or axiomatic that the Early Church was infallible or that everything uttered in the Early Church by its leaders is God's Word.

I do not judge God's Word by the Early Church, but the Early Church by God's Word.

As far as I am concerned, I defend my POV, not what you think sola scriptura means. MY POV is that
1) it is self-evident that the 66 books are God's Word.
2) I have never seen and do not know of any other source of God's word readily & commonly available to men or myself.
If you have proof that something else is God's Word, you should present it.

You refer me to a site. I refer you to the Bible. If you have not yet read it through, why not start now. Get your highlighter out & mark Bibliology & Soteriology. I have done that. I marked every passage on God's Word itself (revelation, prophetic process, Thus saith the Lord, etc.) in yellow & salvation in pink.

Let the Word of God dwell in you richly.

Arch, I have been reading it over & over since 1960, marking it, studying it. I know what it says about salvation & bibliology. I know it never refers to the apocypha. It appears to me that the Lord Jesus refers to and endorses the Tanakh as such (using formulae), but not the apocrypha nor the traditions of the elders.

Deuterocanonical

Oh, interesting how that works, here let me put up my own axiomatic truths:

1) The God of 73 books exists and
2) The 73 books of the BIble are the Word of God

Do you concur?
If not then I am not bound to hold to your "axiomatic" truths either.

Re: Deuterocanonical

I have read the apocrypha; it is not self-evident that they are the Word of God. If you claim they are, I deny it. And that is where they argument may end. You have to affirm or deny axioms for yourself.

However, if it be found that clearly statements in the apocrypha contradict the Bible, then you have a problem.

So have you read the Bible & the apocrypha & see no difference? Or are you in fact talking thru your hate; you never read either?

Deuterocanonical

I see no difference between the canonical and the deuterocanonical texts.
They both seem to be the exact Word of God to me and over 1 billion other Catholics in the world.
I am sorry if you lack the ability to see that.

Re: Deuterocanonical Are you ducking the question?

Have you read all the Bible through?
Have you read the apocrypha through?

I doubt that 1 percent of the papists have ever read the Bible through.

Arch, I think I have asked you if you have read the Bible through a number of times now; are you ducking or did I miss the answer?

Re: Deuterocanonical

You honestly cannot distinguish Bel and the Dragon from the Bible?

Re: Deuterocanonical

You honestly don't see that they are one and the same?

As for your question: actually, now that I think about it, I have not read ALL of the Psalms or Proverbs. Other than that, I'm pretty sure I've got everything.
So in short, technically no, I have not read ALL of the Bible.
However, I have read so many NEUTRAL and UNBIASED commentaries on the Bible that I am fairly confident I've come across EVERY verse from the Bible in some manner!

Thanks for Your Honesty

Arch,
have you read the apocrypha?

Let the Word of God dwell in you richly.
I suggest you read the whole thing & mark 2 subjects: 1) Bibliology (yellow high light), 2) soteriology (pink high light). I have done that.
By Bibliology I mean all the statements about God's Word, thus saith the Lord, scripture, and the like.

I hope that you can see a qualitative difference between the Bible & the apocrypha, between the Bible & ecclesiastical fathers.