What year was it when Protestants first started to remove books from the Holy Bible?

[NathanH83]

I’m guessing some time in the 1500’s?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[atpollard]

Never.
They stopped including non-scripture within the covers of the Holy Bible.
It was more like deciding to delete or include a map of the Middle East in the appendix.

The four Gospels were bound together in one scroll collection by the second century and accepted by every Christian Church. All of the letters of Paul, plus Hebrews was collected together in a second scroll that also had universal acceptance and was read as scripture by the second century. That really only leaves a few letters in the modern New Testament that were not already collected together and universally recognized by people that knew the Apostles. Anything that contradicts this apostolic core deserves to be rejected and anything that affirms this apostolic core is worth studying.

That is why the Apocrypha is interesting, but not Scripture.
Better to affirm the Gospels and reject the Apocrypha than to affirm the Apocrypha and reject the Gospels.

 

[NathanH83]

Never.
They stopped including non-scripture within the covers of the Holy Bible.
It was more like deciding to delete or include a map of the Middle East in the appendix.

The four Gospels were bound together in one scroll collection by the second century and accepted by every Christian Church. All of the letters of Paul, plus Hebrews was collected together in a second scroll that also had universal acceptance and was read as scripture by the second century. That really only leaves a few letters in the modern New Testament that were not already collected together and universally recognized by people that knew the Apostles. Anything that contradicts this apostolic core deserves to be rejected and anything that affirms this apostolic core is worth studying.

That is why the Apocrypha is interesting, but not Scripture.
Better to affirm the Gospels and reject the Apocrypha than to affirm the Apocrypha and reject the Gospels.

And what year was that when they removed these books that were previously declared to be divine scripture?
1500 something?
It was in the 1500’s, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[atpollard]

And what year was that when they removed these books that were previously declared to be divine scripture?
1500 something?
It was in the 1500’s, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They were NEVER declared divine scripture.
That is the point.

Just like the Map of Israel in the Appendix is never divine scripture, whether my Bible has one or not.

 

[atpollard]

The exact date will vary with the printing and translation and denomination and specific book you are referring to.
Some books were NEVER in European Bibles, but were in Oriental Orthodox Bibles.
Some books were removed from the Latin to German translation.
Some were included and others removed from Wycliffe and Tyndale and the King James (1611).
Catholic Bibles differ from Anglican which differ from Lutheran ... even with the same translation.

However, the Reformation in the late 1400’s through the 1500’s is generally when many churches moved from “what books have traditionally been included” to “what books are actually Scripture” as the criteria for what belongs in a Bible.

 

[NathanH83]

They were NEVER declared divine scripture.
That is the point.

Just like the Map of Israel in the Appendix is never divine scripture, whether my Bible has one or not.

If they were never declared to be divine scripture…. Then why were they declared to be divine scripture?

Council of Rome - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Because in 382, they were declared to be divine scripture.
Click on the link, and scroll down to the part where they were declared to be divine scripture.
If you can’t find it, then I can post a screen shot of the part where they were declared to be divine scripture.

Sooo…. When were they taken out again?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

They were NEVER declared divine scripture.
That is the point.

Just like the Map of Israel in the Appendix is never divine scripture, whether my Bible has one or not.

382 AD. Council of Rome.
Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Tobias, Judith, 2 books of Maccabees. All declared to be divine scripture.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[atpollard]

If they were never declared to be divine scripture…. Then why were they declared to be divine scripture?

Council of Rome - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Because in 382, they were declared to be divine scripture.
Click on the link, and scroll down to the part where they were declared to be divine scripture.
If you can’t find it, then I can post a screen shot of the part where they were declared to be divine scripture.

Sooo…. When were they taken out again?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I stand corrected.
It breaks my heart to learn that the Church chose to reject the teaching of the Gospels and Paul and have their ears tickled with apostasy so soon after Jesus’ Disciples left them.

Truly:

“These people draw near to Me with their mouth,​

And honor Me with their lips,​

But their heart is far from Me.”​

[Matthew 15:8 NKJV]​

 

[atpollard]

Sooo…. When were they taken out again?

You clearly are not really asking a question here (given the depth of research you so quickly present), so I leave you with a final quote more appropriate to the intentions of your heart:

Proverbs 6:16-19 [NKJV]
These six things the LORD hates,​

Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:​

​

A proud look,​

A lying tongue,​

Hands that shed innocent blood,​

A heart that devises wicked plans,​

Feet that are swift in running to evil,​

A false witness who speaks lies,​

And one who sows discord among brethren.​

 

[Origen]

I stand corrected.

Don't be. Remember "the one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." There are several serious historical problems with the information.

As this site points out.

Decree of Gelasius on the Canon of Scripture

"For the past century most scholars have agreed with Ernst von Dobschütz's conclusion that all the various forms of the decree derive from the independent work of an anonymous Italian churchman in the sixth century."

Also see:

Tertullian : F.C.Burkitt, Review of The decretum Gelasianum, Journal of Theological Studies 14 (1913) pp. 469-471

It is point out: "The really decisive point is that in I 3, in the part most directly associated with Damasus, there is a quotation of some length from Augustine in Joh. ix 7 (Migne, xxxv 146l).1 As Augustine was writing about 416, it is evident that the Title Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei is of no historical value."

Since there is a quote from Augustine dating from 416 in the document, and given the fact that the Council of Rome was held in 382, the problem is obvious.

Not only has the so-called "Decree of Gelasius" been associated both Pope Gelasius (492-496) and Pope Damasus (366-384) but also Pope Hormisdas (514-523) as well. There is more than enough evidence to doubt the authenticity of the document.

You clearly are not really asking a question here (given the depth of research you so quickly present)

That research you speak of is very shallow and one sided.

 

[NathanH83]

You clearly are not really asking a question here (given the depth of research you so quickly present), so I leave you with a final quote more appropriate to the intentions of your heart:

Proverbs 6:16-19 [NKJV]
These six things the LORD hates,​

Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:​

​

A proud look,​

A lying tongue,​

Hands that shed innocent blood,​

A heart that devises wicked plans,​

Feet that are swift in running to evil,​

A false witness who speaks lies,​

And one who sows discord among brethren.​

I really don’t know what year the books were taken out. I was hoping maybe someone on here would know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

I stand corrected.
It breaks my heart to learn that the Church chose to reject the teaching of the Gospels and Paul and have their ears tickled with apostasy so soon after Jesus’ Disciples left them.

Truly:

“These people draw near to Me with their mouth,​

And honor Me with their lips,​

But their heart is far from Me.”​

[Matthew 15:8 NKJV]​

I honestly don’t think these books teach false Catholic doctrines. I think the Catholics were just misinterpreting them. I think that when interpreted correctly, they should teach sound doctrine that harmonizes with the rest of scripture and Protestant teaching.

Maybe you should ask, “Do they really teach what I think they teach?”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

Don't be. Remember "the one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." There are several serious historical problems with the information.

As this site points out.

Decree of Gelasius on the Canon of Scripture

"For the past century most scholars have agreed with Ernst von Dobschütz's conclusion that all the various forms of the decree derive from the independent work of an anonymous Italian churchman in the sixth century."

Also see:

Tertullian : F.C.Burkitt, Review of The decretum Gelasianum, Journal of Theological Studies 14 (1913) pp. 469-471

It is point out: "The really decisive point is that in I 3, in the part most directly associated with Damasus, there is a quotation of some length from Augustine in Joh. ix 7 (Migne, xxxv 146l).1 As Augustine was writing about 416, it is evident that the Title Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei is of no historical value."

Since there is a quote from Augustine dating from 416 in the document, and given the fact that the Council of Rome was held in 382, the problem is obvious.

Not only has the so-called "Decree of Gelasius" been associated both Pope Gelasius (492-496) and Pope Damasus (366-384) but also Pope Hormisdas (514-523) as well. There is more than enough evidence to doubt the authenticity of the document.


That research you speak of is very shallow and one sided.

It sounds to me that you’re claiming that the church councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage are fictitious councils that never really took place. I would ask you if that’s what you are claiming, but since you never answer my questions about your claims, then I won’t get my hopes up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lamb]

I've done a thread clean up to avoid insults being thrown here in this thread...carry on with the topic now.

 

[eddif]

To some this will seem out of place.

spindle fibers

This is portion of genetic cell replication. God set up a system of genetic replication to avoid mistakes.

I am sure he watches over biblical duplication the same way. Examination and corrections occur throughout the process. Errant development is set aside in genetics and biblical writings.

eddif

 

[mailmandan]

Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible!

 

[NathanH83]

I've done a thread clean up to avoid insults being thrown here in this thread...carry on with the topic now.

Thank you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible!

Did you look into these claims and thoroughly examine them one by one?

I truly believe that when you actually study what these apocryphal books are ACTUALLY saying, you’ll find that they are not actually endorsing the false Catholic beliefs that you think they are, but rather, are harmonious to the rest of scripture, and actually more consistent with Protestant beliefs.

The same is true with all the supposed historical errors. When truly examined, there are legitimate answers to the supposed historical mistakes that people THINK they contain. But like I said, these issues must be examined one by one.

Most people don’t want to examine these issues one by one. Most people just want to copy and paste a link to a website, and trust that all the work has been done already.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

To some this will seem out of place.

spindle fibers

This is portion of genetic cell replication. God set up a system of genetic replication to avoid mistakes.

I am sure he watches over biblical duplication the same way. Examination and corrections occur throughout the process. Errant development is set aside in genetics and biblical writings.

eddif

There are still bad translations that exist.
I would argue that the Bible used by the early church is closer to the pure, original Bible that God intends for us to use. The Bibles we use today have some differences and problems that the Bible used in the early church didn’t have. In fact, the early church fathers specifically argued that they believe the Greek Septuagint better reflects the original Hebrew. This was a major point of contention for the early church.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible!

This is a screenshot from the website that you posted. This claim is false. The Apocrypha is alluded to in the New Testament. John 10:22 and Hebrews 11:35 allude to the Maccabees, and Hebrews 13:2 alludes to Tobit. Also, Daniel 8 and 11 are prophecies about the events fulfilled in Maccabees.

You see, that’s why the issues have to be investigated one by one. The website you posted is filled with false information.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk