Christian Discussion Thread V

[The Alexanderians]

One of them sources their claims in history...

Right, it sources cities as being founded in 2500 BCE. However Wiki places those cities in 1500 BCE and less. Like I said, not an archaeological.

OR! Or, or bare with me now it could be Wiki's fault.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Right, it sources cities as being founded in 2500 BCE. However Wiki places those cities in 1500 BCE and less. Like I said, not an archaeological.

OR! Or, or bare with me now it could be Wiki's fault.

that's what I'm saying. I'm not an archaeologist so I have no way of knowing who's correct.

What I do know is this, the Hebrew religion, the El worshipers began to distinguish itself ethnically from the Canaanites circa 1500 BCE. Before that they were indistinguishable. Early Canaanite writings dating to the 30th century BCE prove that the Canaanites were in Egypt at some point, which gives credence to the idea that the Hebrews, being canaanites came out of egypt back into Canaan.

The Biblical calenders, and Archaeological calenders are somewhat add odds then.

unless Joshua and samual led Israel for 600 years, the biblical exegesis would put the exodus at around 1550 BCE Which fits with the emergence of the Hebrews, but there's no archaeological evidence to support a mass migration at that time. Now perhaps years are longer in the Bible than we think but i don't know how to begin to account for that. there's a 600 year gap between the likely exodus in the 2200 BCE and the biblical one.


I dunno if Menassa can correct me, cause I could also be completely wrong in my mathematics.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

If let's say, someone added on a scriptural work. What kind of criterion do the Early Christians use to judge if that work is still valid?

And, if the Early Christians has no problem with someone adding some minor touches on a work, what would be their reaction be if someone also omitted minor parts of a scriptural work?

Well the first thing to remember is that to Early Christians, these works that would later become the NT weren't "Scripture." They were letters, lessons, and stories circulated by the Early Christians as being good, and coming directly from the Church Fathers. I.e. most scholars agree Mathew was a leader of the Church in Antioch, Mark was Peter's scribe, Luke was Paul's companion. The Johannine Works authorship have been debated for almost as long as Christianity has existed. Then there's the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, and Jude. The authority of any of these lessons, would be from Apostle who wrote it not because they were "scripture" (Kind of why Solae scriptura is a bust, it was never a part of Christianity before Luther. Authority has always been vested in the Church)

So now these tests for these works would be mostly three fold, because in 1st century AD it would be hard to track down a particular Apostle and ask him if he really wrote something. So they'd be something like this:

1. Who was supposed to have written it?
2. Does what's written keep the spirit of the supposed author? Is this something he would say, does it jive with other works or things that person has said?
3. Does this jive with the already established views of the community of faith, and does the community of faith accept it?


Quite often people would write in and Apostles name, whether to gain credibility or whatever. But do to lack of proofing mechanics, it would be taken at face value. And as long as tests 2 and 3 were good, test 1 was pretty lenient.



Now, as for adding, it wouldn't be much different.

1.Does the addition keep the spirit of the author and work?
2.Does the addition jive with the community of faith?

In particular Mark 16, this addition was most likely a result of the synoptic problem, and an attempt to make mark more like Mathew and Luke. It was probably taken from the Q, M, or L source. So while it wasn't original to the work, the community felt it passed those tests enough to be included.

As for omitting, the question would be why? Was that passage necessary? Wrong? Redundant? The problem determining this is that as we don't have the Originals we don't know where something was omitted or not. It's not, however, all that important, as these reductions would also have been accepted by the Community of Faith.

This trend does tend to continue a bit. We see this with modern cannon. The Catholic and Orthodox community accept the Canon as unalterable, as Canon is considered closed. However a different community of faith, Protestants, have agreed on the redaction of the Apocrypha. Regardless of which community of faith you belong to, you can accept that the current versions have been accepted by the Community of Faith.

Though I think I'll not suddenly start on debating you on the nature of "Sola Scriptura" on your response, your answer is to be expected. The current canons we indeed use (Oh, I forgot, you Catholics accept the Apocrypha) are well the result of unanimous acceptance on part of the Early Christians.

Even then with the acceptance of the Community of Faith, back to the original topic that spawned this response, there's still no good reason to support handing anaconda and cobra snakes in the church.

What is everyone's view on the Darby Bible translation? A good translation or heretical?

It was written by John Nelson Darby who was a priest in the Church of Ireland (Anglican) and was displeased with the church's corruptions, so he decided to return to biblical Christianity and founded his own congregation. He strongly encouraged the use of the KJV, but wrote the Darby version as a very literal version used for study purposes. It is regarded as one of the most accurate bible translations, while some say Darby was a false teacher who detracted from the Word of God.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/darby.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darby_Bible

There's a reason most stick to the standard Bible versions, like ESV, NASB, KJV and NIV.

OR! Or, or bare with me now it could be Wiki's fault.

that's what I'm saying. I'm not an archaeologist so I have no way of knowing who's correct.

What I do know is this, the Hebrew religion, the El worshipers began to distinguish itself ethnically from the Canaanites circa 1500 BCE. Before that they were indistinguishable. Early Canaanite writings dating to the 30th century BCE prove that the Canaanites were in Egypt at some point, which gives credence to the idea that the Hebrews, being canaanites came out of egypt back into Canaan.

The Biblical calenders, and Archaeological calenders are somewhat add odds then.

unless Joshua and samual led Israel for 600 years, the biblical exegesis would put the exodus at around 1550 BCE Which fits with the emergence of the Hebrews, but there's no archaeological evidence to support a mass migration at that time. Now perhaps years are longer in the Bible than we think but i don't know how to begin to account for that. there's a 600 year gap between the likely exodus in the 2200 BCE and the biblical one.


I dunno if Menassa can correct me, cause I could also be completely wrong in my mathematics.

Or, it could be that present Egyptian chronology is wrong. Many reputable scholars proposed reducing Egyptian chronology by 250 to 350 years. The Sothic theory, the current Egyptian chronology used has been shown by many scholars to be a problematic one. If we go by revised Egyptian chronology, the Exodus could have been placed in the Egyptian 12th dynasty.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well the first thing to remember is that to Early Christians, these works that would later become the NT weren't "Scripture." They were letters, lessons, and stories circulated by the Early Christians as being good, and coming directly from the Church Fathers. I.e. most scholars agree Mathew was a leader of the Church in Antioch, Mark was Peter's scribe, Luke was Paul's companion. The Johannine Works authorship have been debated for almost as long as Christianity has existed. Then there's the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, and Jude. The authority of any of these lessons, would be from Apostle who wrote it not because they were "scripture" (Kind of why Solae scriptura is a bust, it was never a part of Christianity before Luther. Authority has always been vested in the Church)

So now these tests for these works would be mostly three fold, because in 1st century AD it would be hard to track down a particular Apostle and ask him if he really wrote something. So they'd be something like this:

1. Who was supposed to have written it?
2. Does what's written keep the spirit of the supposed author? Is this something he would say, does it jive with other works or things that person has said?
3. Does this jive with the already established views of the community of faith, and does the community of faith accept it?


Quite often people would write in and Apostles name, whether to gain credibility or whatever. But do to lack of proofing mechanics, it would be taken at face value. And as long as tests 2 and 3 were good, test 1 was pretty lenient.



Now, as for adding, it wouldn't be much different.

1.Does the addition keep the spirit of the author and work?
2.Does the addition jive with the community of faith?

In particular Mark 16, this addition was most likely a result of the synoptic problem, and an attempt to make mark more like Mathew and Luke. It was probably taken from the Q, M, or L source. So while it wasn't original to the work, the community felt it passed those tests enough to be included.

As for omitting, the question would be why? Was that passage necessary? Wrong? Redundant? The problem determining this is that as we don't have the Originals we don't know where something was omitted or not. It's not, however, all that important, as these reductions would also have been accepted by the Community of Faith.

This trend does tend to continue a bit. We see this with modern cannon. The Catholic and Orthodox community accept the Canon as unalterable, as Canon is considered closed. However a different community of faith, Protestants, have agreed on the redaction of the Apocrypha. Regardless of which community of faith you belong to, you can accept that the current versions have been accepted by the Community of Faith.

Though I think I'll not suddenly start on debating you on the nature of "Sola Scriptura" on your response, your answer is to be expected. The current canons we indeed use (Oh, I forgot, you Catholics accept the Apocrypha) are well the result of unanimous acceptance on part of the Early Christians.

Even then with the acceptance of the Community of Faith, back to the original topic that spawned this response, there's still no good reason to support handing anaconda and cobra snakes in the church.

What is everyone's view on the Darby Bible translation? A good translation or heretical?

It was written by John Nelson Darby who was a priest in the Church of Ireland (Anglican) and was displeased with the church's corruptions, so he decided to return to biblical Christianity and founded his own congregation. He strongly encouraged the use of the KJV, but wrote the Darby version as a very literal version used for study purposes. It is regarded as one of the most accurate bible translations, while some say Darby was a false teacher who detracted from the Word of God.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/darby.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darby_Bible

There's a reason most stick to the standard Bible versions, like ESV, NASB, KJV and NIV.

that's what I'm saying. I'm not an archaeologist so I have no way of knowing who's correct.

What I do know is this, the Hebrew religion, the El worshipers began to distinguish itself ethnically from the Canaanites circa 1500 BCE. Before that they were indistinguishable. Early Canaanite writings dating to the 30th century BCE prove that the Canaanites were in Egypt at some point, which gives credence to the idea that the Hebrews, being canaanites came out of egypt back into Canaan.

The Biblical calenders, and Archaeological calenders are somewhat add odds then.

unless Joshua and samual led Israel for 600 years, the biblical exegesis would put the exodus at around 1550 BCE Which fits with the emergence of the Hebrews, but there's no archaeological evidence to support a mass migration at that time. Now perhaps years are longer in the Bible than we think but i don't know how to begin to account for that. there's a 600 year gap between the likely exodus in the 2200 BCE and the biblical one.


I dunno if Menassa can correct me, cause I could also be completely wrong in my mathematics.

Or, it could be that present Egyptian chronology is wrong. Many reputable scholars proposed reducing Egyptian chronology by 250 to 350 years. The Sothic theory, the current Egyptian chronology used has been shown by many scholars to be a problematic one. If we go by revised Egyptian chronology, the Exodus could have been placed in the Egyptian 12th dynasty.

The versions we use, are the result of "majority" acceptance by Church Leaders, not unanimous. Clearly my use of "community of faith" was too vague. Laity would have little to do with determining what was valid or not. Bishops and and other fathers would. And not every group circulated the same works. The Gnostics and such had their own works, rejected by the majority of the eary Christians. But also, You have to remember, in the early Church, the spoken word of a a Church father was infinitely more important than anything written. To the early church these weren't scripture they were were communicative works.

As for the canon we use today, it is not the result of unanimous decision amoung early Christians, it was the result of multiple councils of Church Fathers. Early Christian fathers circulated several reading lists that were contested, but even these weren't canon. Codifying canon took several hundred years.

On the nature of apocrypha, as a matter of semantics. It's not that the Catholics accept the Apocrypha. Christianity has accepted the Apocrycha for well over a thousand years. Protestantism, to distinguish itself from its Catholic origins, gradually phased the Apcrypha out until it was finally removed in the 19th century.

[Menassa]

One of them sources their claims in history...

Right, it sources cities as being founded in 2500 BCE. However Wiki places those cities in 1500 BCE and less. Like I said, not an archaeological.

Problem therein is it's not good to look at ancient history like we look at modern history. Ancient History is mostly P.R. as evident from Sennacherib.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

The versions we use, are the result of "majority" acceptance by Church Leaders, not unanimous. Clearly my use of "community of faith" was too vague. Laity would have little to do with determining what was valid or not. Bishops and and other fathers would. And not every group circulated the same works. The Gnostics and such had their own works, rejected by the majority of the eary Christians. But also, You have to remember, in the early Church, the spoken word of a a Church father was infinitely more important than anything written. To the early church these weren't scripture they were were communicative works.

As for the canon we use today, it is not the result of unanimous decision amoung early Christians, it was the result of multiple councils of Church Fathers. Early Christian fathers circulated several reading lists that were contested, but even these weren't canon. Codifying canon took several hundred years.

On the nature of apocrypha, as a matter of semantics. It's not that the Catholics accept the Apocrypha. Christianity has accepted the Apocrycha for well over a thousand years. Protestantism, to distinguish itself from its Catholic origins, gradually phased the Apcrypha out until it was finally removed in the 19th century.

My problem is not that I know much, but like you, I made mistakes in wording. I used "unanimous" when of course, only the majority were involved and also the various Church councils. Might be a problem of me trying to speak English fluently when English is not even my first language so I used poor wording and did not hesitate to explain well.

On the issue of the Catholic-Protestant battle on the Apocrypha, I never knew of Protestantism discarding the Apocrypha to differentiate itself from Catholicism. Changes in liturgy made by the Protestant Reformers (such as Ulrich Zwingli) might be something the Protestants did to differentiate from the Catholic tradition, but not the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was thrown away by Protestants simply because we Protestants believe it is not a part of the Canon and un-inspired, not to differentiate from Catholicism.

[Lleu llaw Gyffes]

Right, it sources cities as being founded in 2500 BCE. However Wiki places those cities in 1500 BCE and less. Like I said, not an archaeological.

Problem therein is it's not good to look at ancient history like we look at modern history. Ancient History is mostly P.R. as evident from Sennacherib.

MOSTLY
There are indeed, huge inscriptions, "I am Ozymandias, king of kings", which are spin; there are also little chits "Jack son of Hermione owes 5 cows tax" which are probably true.

El Amarna letters are diplomatic letters from Canaanite princes "Help, help, the Barbarians are invading."

[Nordengrund]

The versions we use, are the result of "majority" acceptance by Church Leaders, not unanimous. Clearly my use of "community of faith" was too vague. Laity would have little to do with determining what was valid or not. Bishops and and other fathers would. And not every group circulated the same works. The Gnostics and such had their own works, rejected by the majority of the eary Christians. But also, You have to remember, in the early Church, the spoken word of a a Church father was infinitely more important than anything written. To the early church these weren't scripture they were were communicative works.

As for the canon we use today, it is not the result of unanimous decision amoung early Christians, it was the result of multiple councils of Church Fathers. Early Christian fathers circulated several reading lists that were contested, but even these weren't canon. Codifying canon took several hundred years.

On the nature of apocrypha, as a matter of semantics. It's not that the Catholics accept the Apocrypha. Christianity has accepted the Apocrycha for well over a thousand years. Protestantism, to distinguish itself from its Catholic origins, gradually phased the Apcrypha out until it was finally removed in the 19th century.

My problem is not that I know much, but like you, I made mistakes in wording. I used "unanimous" when of course, only the majority were involved and also the various Church councils. Might be a problem of me trying to speak English fluently when English is not even my first language so I used poor wording and did not hesitate to explain well.

On the issue of the Catholic-Protestant battle on the Apocrypha, I never knew of Protestantism discarding the Apocrypha to differentiate itself from Catholicism. Changes in liturgy made by the Protestant Reformers (such as Ulrich Zwingli) might be something the Protestants did to differentiate from the Catholic tradition, but not the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was thrown away by Protestants simply because we Protestants believe it is not a part of the Canon and un-inspired, not to differentiate from Catholicism.

I read that the bible did originally include the apocrypha, but was later added by the Catholic Church as a counter reaction go the Reformation.

[Coulee Croche]

I read that the bible did originally include the apocrypha, but was later added by the Catholic Church as a counter reaction go the Reformation.

If that were the case then the Orthordox wouldnt have the Apocrypha in their Canon considering how any response to the Reformation was done after the Great Schism. Usually the evidence to support this claim (that i have frequented) is the Council of Trent, the same Council that is not recognized by the Orthodox.
The bible was discussed during the Councils of Carthage, Rome, and Nicea, (i wanna say im missing one) before the Shism around 300-400 A.D. The apocrypha having been already circulated among Early Christians.

[The Archregimancy]

unless Joshua and samual led Israel for 600 years, the biblical exegesis would put the exodus at around 1550 BCE Which fits with the emergence of the Hebrews,

Towards the end of the Second Intermediate Period? During the final years of the 15th Dynasty? Seriously? Does no one see the obvious flaws in that proposition?

but there's no archaeological evidence to support a mass migration at that time.

Well, no; there wouldn't be, would there?

Or, it could be that present Egyptian chronology is wrong. Many reputable scholars proposed reducing Egyptian chronology by 250 to 350 years. The Sothic theory, the current Egyptian chronology used has been shown by many scholars to be a problematic one. If we go by revised Egyptian chronology, the Exodus could have been placed in the Egyptian 12th dynasty.

In the Middle Kingdom? Sorry, but the quality of historical discussion's really gone downhill in this thread.

[Nuverikstan]

The versions we use, are the result of "majority" acceptance by Church Leaders, not unanimous. Clearly my use of "community of faith" was too vague. Laity would have little to do with determining what was valid or not. Bishops and and other fathers would. And not every group circulated the same works. The Gnostics and such had their own works, rejected by the majority of the eary Christians. But also, You have to remember, in the early Church, the spoken word of a a Church father was infinitely more important than anything written. To the early church these weren't scripture they were were communicative works.

As for the canon we use today, it is not the result of unanimous decision amoung early Christians, it was the result of multiple councils of Church Fathers. Early Christian fathers circulated several reading lists that were contested, but even these weren't canon. Codifying canon took several hundred years.

On the nature of apocrypha, as a matter of semantics. It's not that the Catholics accept the Apocrypha. Christianity has accepted the Apocrycha for well over a thousand years. Protestantism, to distinguish itself from its Catholic origins, gradually phased the Apcrypha out until it was finally removed in the 19th century.

My problem is not that I know much, but like you, I made mistakes in wording. I used "unanimous" when of course, only the majority were involved and also the various Church councils. Might be a problem of me trying to speak English fluently when English is not even my first language so I used poor wording and did not hesitate to explain well.

On the issue of the Catholic-Protestant battle on the Apocrypha, I never knew of Protestantism discarding the Apocrypha to differentiate itself from Catholicism. Changes in liturgy made by the Protestant Reformers (such as Ulrich Zwingli) might be something the Protestants did to differentiate from the Catholic tradition, but not the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was thrown away by Protestants simply because we Protestants believe it is not a part of the Canon and un-inspired, not to differentiate from Catholicism.

Actually, there is no real reason given as to why we threw out the apocrypha. I heard that the first major publication to do so was in the late 1800s by England when they wrote their revised version. I have come to accept them as scripture, because I can find no clear evidence as to why they were taken out, and where they say things contradictory to the Bible.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

unless Joshua and samual led Israel for 600 years, the biblical exegesis would put the exodus at around 1550 BCE Which fits with the emergence of the Hebrews,

Towards the end of the Second Intermediate Period? During the final years of the 15th Dynasty? Seriously? Does no one see the obvious flaws in that proposition?

but there's no archaeological evidence to support a mass migration at that time.

Well, no; there wouldn't be, would there?

Or, it could be that present Egyptian chronology is wrong. Many reputable scholars proposed reducing Egyptian chronology by 250 to 350 years. The Sothic theory, the current Egyptian chronology used has been shown by many scholars to be a problematic one. If we go by revised Egyptian chronology, the Exodus could have been placed in the Egyptian 12th dynasty.

In the Middle Kingdom? Sorry, but the quality of historical discussion's really gone downhill in this thread.

Care to enlighten us mere mortals?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The versions we use, are the result of "majority" acceptance by Church Leaders, not unanimous. Clearly my use of "community of faith" was too vague. Laity would have little to do with determining what was valid or not. Bishops and and other fathers would. And not every group circulated the same works. The Gnostics and such had their own works, rejected by the majority of the eary Christians. But also, You have to remember, in the early Church, the spoken word of a a Church father was infinitely more important than anything written. To the early church these weren't scripture they were were communicative works.

As for the canon we use today, it is not the result of unanimous decision amoung early Christians, it was the result of multiple councils of Church Fathers. Early Christian fathers circulated several reading lists that were contested, but even these weren't canon. Codifying canon took several hundred years.

On the nature of apocrypha, as a matter of semantics. It's not that the Catholics accept the Apocrypha. Christianity has accepted the Apocrycha for well over a thousand years. Protestantism, to distinguish itself from its Catholic origins, gradually phased the Apcrypha out until it was finally removed in the 19th century.

My problem is not that I know much, but like you, I made mistakes in wording. I used "unanimous" when of course, only the majority were involved and also the various Church councils. Might be a problem of me trying to speak English fluently when English is not even my first language so I used poor wording and did not hesitate to explain well.

On the issue of the Catholic-Protestant battle on the Apocrypha, I never knew of Protestantism discarding the Apocrypha to differentiate itself from Catholicism. Changes in liturgy made by the Protestant Reformers (such as Ulrich Zwingli) might be something the Protestants did to differentiate from the Catholic tradition, but not the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was thrown away by Protestants simply because we Protestants believe it is not a part of the Canon and un-inspired, not to differentiate from Catholicism.

See that creates an interesting conundrum of how Protestants can claim it isn't part of the Canon when not a single Protestant that ever lived was involved in the Canonization process? They can't. The Canon was closed long before Protestantism was ever a thing, and as the Protestants didn't shape the bible, they don't really get to say what's Canon and What's not.

Now they can say it's not Canon, to them but that would distancing themselves from the Catholic Tradition no?

As for uninspired, well inspiration is an interesting matter of debate, (I'd wager no book of the bible is by itself "inspired") but even Martin Luther didn't dare toss the Apocrypha out. He questioned their inspiration, but dare not remove them, instead creating a third block between the Old and New Testaments. The KJV rose to prominence among Protestants but EVENT IT still had the Apocrypha between the Old and the New. The Apocrypha remained until the 19th century where the rise of fundamentalism, the Second Great Awakening and further distancing of Protestants from Catholicism caused the American Protestants to ditch the Apocrypha all together.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

My problem is not that I know much, but like you, I made mistakes in wording. I used "unanimous" when of course, only the majority were involved and also the various Church councils. Might be a problem of me trying to speak English fluently when English is not even my first language so I used poor wording and did not hesitate to explain well.

On the issue of the Catholic-Protestant battle on the Apocrypha, I never knew of Protestantism discarding the Apocrypha to differentiate itself from Catholicism. Changes in liturgy made by the Protestant Reformers (such as Ulrich Zwingli) might be something the Protestants did to differentiate from the Catholic tradition, but not the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was thrown away by Protestants simply because we Protestants believe it is not a part of the Canon and un-inspired, not to differentiate from Catholicism.

Actually, there is no real reason given as to why we threw out the apocrypha. I heard that the first major publication to do so was in the late 1800s by England when they wrote their revised version. I have come to accept them as scripture, because I can find no clear evidence as to why they were taken out, and where they say things contradictory to the Bible.

There is also the question as to whether they have the right to throw them out. The Holy Bible is a product of the Apostolic Church. Protestants, for lack of a better word, appropriated it for their own uses, when they left.

[Aelex]

Actually, there is no real reason given as to why we threw out the apocrypha. I heard that the first major publication to do so was in the late 1800s by England when they wrote their revised version. I have come to accept them as scripture, because I can find no clear evidence as to why they were taken out, and where they say things contradictory to the Bible.

There is also the question as to whether they have the right to throw them out. The Holy Bible is a product of the Apostolic Church. Protestants, for lack of a better word, appropriated it for their own uses, when they left.

Here come my major problem with protestantism. How can you interpret litteraly a book which had been cutted off at various and translated, in this order, from greek to latin to french and eventually to english ? It's why Sola Scriptura, which isn't a stupid idea in itself, is sadly an idea impossible to applicate without a lot of intellectual gymnastic.

[Lleu llaw Gyffes]

300 BC ish Ptolemy pharoah of Egypt ordered that the Hebrew Scriptures be translated into Greek. One generation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

Septuagint included both Old Testament and Apocrypha.

400 AD ish St Jerome translated the Septuagint from Greek to Latin. two generations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

800 ish Alfred king of Wessex translated the Vulgate into Saxon three generations

1500 ish St Luther translated the Old Testament from Hebrew to German One generation Luther noticed that Apocryoha wasn't part of the Hebrew Text so he went on to translate the Greek text of New Testament into German One generation

1600 ish James king of Britain ordered the Bible be translated into English using the Hebrew text of Old Testament and Greek text of the New Testament One generation

Anglican definition of the Apocrypha: article VI and the other books, as Jerome says, the Church reads them for example of life and morals, but NOT to establish doctrine. Other Prod denominations have different definitions.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

There is also the question as to whether they have the right to throw them out. The Holy Bible is a product of the Apostolic Church. Protestants, for lack of a better word, appropriated it for their own uses, when they left.

Here come my major problem with protestantism. How can you interpret litteraly a book which had been cutted off at various and translated, in this order, from greek to latin to french and eventually to english ? It's why Sola Scriptura, which isn't a stupid idea in itself, is sadly an idea impossible to applicate without a lot of intellectual gymnastic.

Because that is incorrect. The Modern translations are not translations of a translation of a translation. They're all translated from the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

[Menassa]

Here come my major problem with protestantism. How can you interpret litteraly a book which had been cutted off at various and translated, in this order, from greek to latin to french and eventually to english ? It's why Sola Scriptura, which isn't a stupid idea in itself, is sadly an idea impossible to applicate without a lot of intellectual gymnastic.

Because that is incorrect. The Modern translations are not translations of a translation of a translation. They're all translated from the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

Don't a lot of translations use the Septuagint?

[Herskerstad]

There is also the question as to whether they have the right to throw them out. The Holy Bible is a product of the Apostolic Church. Protestants, for lack of a better word, appropriated it for their own uses, when they left.

Here come my major problem with protestantism. How can you interpret litteraly a book which had been cutted off at various and translated, in this order, from greek to latin to french and eventually to english ? It's why Sola Scriptura, which isn't a stupid idea in itself, is sadly an idea impossible to applicate without a lot of intellectual gymnastic.

Multiple issues with this claim.

Firstly on the grounds of the message, translation and transmission. Protestants 'generally' believe that the foremost is perfect and the word of God, but that the latter two are subject to both the imperfections be it of scholarly errors, getting lost in translation, and so on and so fourth. Meaning that while the bible is perfect, the human manuscript works that have gone in attempt to preserve such have been an ordeal, but given the manuscript wealth we have of it, we are able to reconstruct it with very little of the book being called into question. There are no parts 'missing' from that which we have, but there a certain things feared to be added on at a later date. More like having 101% of the information rather than 99%. The latter percentage is generally treated cautiously and not preached with certainty by any knowledgeable protestant or reformed minister, and why also there has been a tremendous western increase in forming libraries of scripture to make sure the most reliable aggregate of transmissions are upheld, and that the language is as relatable to the originals as it can be. Sometimes in wording, but also with further explanations which is why you find a great deal of footnotes in many of them.

Given that the message transcends culture and also languages which the early disciples and apostles showed, and how much the bible has formed of various tongues be it Wycliffe with England or Luther with Germany. It is no different than the efforts of Paul with Greece where he certainly took some much bolder steps with the words and some would claim usurped the existing connotations for some of them, nevertheless transformed the language rather than the meaning despite the rather profound issue of gnosticism which would harbor and disturb centuries.

Second major disconnect generally comes with the concept of biblical literalism. Most protestants or reformed do not believe for example that Psalm 98:8

Let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy;

means that the rivers are going to grow big, huge watery hands and clap, nor the mountains terraform lips and begin singing a hymn. Generally one looks for a literal, a moral, a allegorical or an anagogical message. Sometimes it goes beyond that and also includes ecclesiastical or eschatology, not to mention apocalyptic. All depending on the book and the passage. While there exist people who take everything literal and ignores the various methods of communication that are utilized, be it stories, sarcasm, poetry, analogies, debate, apocalyptic literature, parables, ect, and some who even believe that an English translation which the translators themselves admitted of having imperfections, they do not stand, the consensus or intellectual head of the debate however much some may wish to portray them as such. As we are claimed to hold a defense for the faith it also entails us to do a great study on it, and while Sola scriptura has in my experience generally been called up when figures that hold to dogmatically defined positions that are not found and sometimes quite challenged in scripture, then it becomes a moral standard on rejecting said tradition rather than having it enforced by hierarchy.

In sort, it introduces into a certain depth of field in study, this no one would deny, but I would think it far harder not to go by it, in which case, in not defining it as God-breathed and treating such as secondary to any number of modern definitions or dogmas that find their roots nowhere in scripture. It exists to judge for the most part the health of a church and a tradition, as if they go contrary to such IE scripture, true biblical practice they may not be considered.

[Lleu llaw Gyffes]

Given that the message transcends culture and also languages

I heard of Polynesian Islands where the only animals are pigs, so Leviticus says thou shalt not eat pig, pig, and pig, thou shalt eat pig, pig and pig.

I heard of Eskimo translations where "Ecce agnus Dei" becomes "Behold the seal-pup of God."

[Confederate Ramenia]

I heard of Polynesian Islands where the only animals are pigs, so Leviticus says thou shalt not eat pig, pig, and pig, thou shalt eat pig, pig and pig.

That's actually really deep.

I heard of Eskimo translations where "Ecce agnus Dei" becomes "Behold the seal-pup of God."

Implying that's an incorrect translation?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Because that is incorrect. The Modern translations are not translations of a translation of a translation. They're all translated from the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

Don't a lot of translations use the Septuagint?

I'm actually not sure

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Given that the message transcends culture and also languages

I heard of Polynesian Islands where the only animals are pigs, so Leviticus says thou shalt not eat pig, pig, and pig, thou shalt eat pig, pig and pig.

I heard of Eskimo translations where "Ecce agnus Dei" becomes "Behold the seal-pup of God."

As Paul said, I became all things to all people. Shaping the message to each that he brough it to. Same can hold true for scripture

[Benuty]

Towards the end of the Second Intermediate Period? During the final years of the 15th Dynasty? Seriously? Does no one see the obvious flaws in that proposition?



Well, no; there wouldn't be, would there?




In the Middle Kingdom? Sorry, but the quality of historical discussion's really gone downhill in this thread.

Care to enlighten us mere mortals?

As a wise deity outside of Rome said "You mortals have your games, we god have ours".

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

See that creates an interesting conundrum of how Protestants can claim it isn't part of the Canon when not a single Protestant that ever lived was involved in the Canonization process? They can't. The Canon was closed long before Protestantism was ever a thing, and as the Protestants didn't shape the bible, they don't really get to say what's Canon and What's not.

Now they can say it's not Canon, to them but that would distancing themselves from the Catholic Tradition no?

As for uninspired, well inspiration is an interesting matter of debate, (I'd wager no book of the bible is by itself "inspired") but even Martin Luther didn't dare toss the Apocrypha out. He questioned their inspiration, but dare not remove them, instead creating a third block between the Old and New Testaments. The KJV rose to prominence among Protestants but EVENT IT still had the Apocrypha between the Old and the New. The Apocrypha remained until the 19th century where the rise of fundamentalism, the Second Great Awakening and further distancing of Protestants from Catholicism caused the American Protestants to ditch the Apocrypha all together.

If that were the case then the Orthordox wouldnt have the Apocrypha in their Canon considering how any response to the Reformation was done after the Great Schism. Usually the evidence to support this claim (that i have frequented) is the Council of Trent, the same Council that is not recognized by the Orthodox.
The bible was discussed during the Councils of Carthage, Rome, and Nicea, (i wanna say im missing one) before the Shism around 300-400 A.D. The apocrypha having been already circulated among Early Christians.

Protestants and Catholics certainly have different a priori assumptions on the canonization process. Part in understanding "Sola Scriptura" is that while the word of God is perfect eternally, decisions of man can be erroneous as man is sinful and man, like the Early Christians and even the Early Church Fathers. Though Catholics and Orthodox Christians give a lot of authoritative emphasis on the Early Christian councils and the writings of the Early Church Fathers, Protestants just don't, because SEE ABOVE.

A Protestant view of the Old Testament and New Testament canon is that the Old Testament canon had already been decided by the Hebrew compilers, Protestants often point out that the Deuterocanonicals or the Apocrypha had already been rejected by the Jewish Hebrews, and that, some of the writings are too late to be authentic. A similar principle lies in the Protestant NT canon.

Perhaps the main difference is that while Catholics and Orthodox Christians rely on tradition, church councils, and acceptance of the Early Christians on the canon, Protestants don't and instead rely on the validity of the text itself, with the Hebrews who compiled the OT canon beforehand and the Early Christians who compiled the NT canon as important witnesses. Protestants often point out that the Church Fathers regarding the Apocrypha as canonical are not persuasive at all, mainly because they were not Jews and does not have authority to declare what is canonical and not.

I understand that many Protestant fellows often like to say that the Catholic Church only accepted the Apocrypha as scriptural in the Council of Trent. This is false, and, of course you Catholics already knew about that the Catholic Church only "reaffirmed" books it regarded as canonical for centuries before. This is a false argument wrongly committed by several Protestants.

And, regarding alleged gradual dissatisfaction of Protestants on the Apocrypha, oh Tarsonis Survivors, don't always make things so modern. To put the books in the same book is not to unwillingly accept them. You did know that Martin Luther questioned the Apocrypha's inspiration, right? The Apocrypha being un-scriptural were already well-established in Protestantism and did not require some modern Murican Prods to fill the picture. Separating the Apocrypha from the NT and OT is already an implication that it was not considered canon. The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church established in 1563 tells that the Apocrypha can be read, but clears that it should not be applied on doctrine. The Westminister Confession of Faith made in 1646 also declares the Apocrypha as non-canonical and not inspired.