Why does the book of Revelation say that you can anoint your eyes with medicine to cure blindness?

[Origen]

The early church used the Old Latin for the first 4 centuries. Is that not true? If so, then what did they use?

You said:

Both Latin and Greek Bibles have been found from the first four centuries, and they all contained Tobit. You can’t show one that didn’t.

You said these Latin "Bibles HAVE BEEN FOUND" and that they date from the first four centuries.

If they have indeed been found as you claimed then you ought to have no problem furnishing that information since you should know.

UNLESS your claim is false and you made it up on the spot. Therefore you would not be able to provide the information because no such information exists.

So in order to know which of those choices is correct.

Therefore provide the names of these Old Latin Bibles that contain Tobit from the first four centuries.

 

[NathanH83]

You said:

You said these Latin "Bibles HAVE BEEN FOUND" and that they date from the first four centuries.

If they have indeed been found as you claimed then you ought to have no problem furnishing that information since you should know.

UNLESS your claim is false and you made it up on the spot. Therefore you would not be able to provide the information because no such information exists.

So in order to know which of those choices is correct.

Therefore provide the names of these Old Latin Bibles that contain Tobit from the first four centuries.

What version of the Bible did the early church use?
Can you show any Christian Bible that omitted Tobit prior to the 1800’s?

 

[Origen]

What version of the Bible did the early church use?
Can you show any Christian Bible that omitted Tobit prior to the 1800’s?

Don't care. I care about the accuracy and honesty of your claim.

You said these Latin "Bibles HAVE BEEN FOUND" and that they date from the first four centuries.

If they have indeed been found as you claimed then you ought to have no problem furnishing that information since you should know.

UNLESS your claim is false and you made it up on the spot. Therefore you would not be able to provide the information because no such information exists.

So in order to know which of those choices is correct.

Therefore provide the names of these Old Latin Bibles that contain Tobit from the first four centuries.

 

[NathanH83]

Don't care. I care about the accuracy and honesty of your claim.

You said these Latin "Bibles HAVE BEEN FOUND" and that they date from the first four centuries.

If they have indeed been found as you claimed then you ought to have no problem furnishing that information since you should know.

UNLESS your claim is false and you made it up on the spot. Therefore you would not be able to provide the information because no such information exists.

So in order to know which of those choices is correct.

Therefore provide the names of these Old Latin Bibles that contain Tobit from the first four centuries.

Why do you keep asking the same question that I already answered? Please stop. You’re just being annoying.

 

[TonyC7]

What do you mean?

The early churches used either the Greek Septuagint, or Latin translations of the Septuagint, called the Old Latin.

In 400 AD, Jerome made a new translation of the Bible in to Latin. It was called the New Latin, also called the Vulgate. But it was NOT a translation of the Septuagint. It was translated from Hebrew. It was the first time in 400 years that a Latin Christian Bible was translated from the Hebrew instead of from the Greek Septuagint.

Thus, the Old Latin was used by the early church for the first 400 years of Christianity.

Scholars today DO have copies of the Old Latin. And they DO contain Tobit. As to those specific manuscripts and their dates, I don’t know. But that doesn’t mean that what I said is untrue. The early churches WERE using the Old Latin during the first 4 centuries. So I really don’t understand what you’re trying to get at.

Do you think that the early churches were using something else? If so, what? Explain yourself. What do you mean?

So you ADMIT that you don’t know what the manuscripts are that pre-date the 4th century. Thus, you made a false claim that you cannot substantiate.

If we don’t have any manuscripts of either Latin or Greek codices used by early church fathers, then how do you know that the book of Tobit or ANY Apocryphal book was used and accepted by the early church fathers? How do we know that Tobit wasn’t added in the 4th and 5th centuries by Roman Catholicism?

You have ASSUMED that the early church had Tobit among their scriptures, simply because the Old Latin manuscripts that date AFTER the 4th century contain it. That is an assumption on your part -an assumption which you CANNOT substantiate with evidence.

 

[Josiah]

Its not silly it's "ipso facto", provide an alternative theory that suggest that Tobit wasn't included in the Christian bibles throughout the majority of Christian history.

You can't and you won't and you know it

ANDREW....


Friend, this is absurd apologetics.


Illustration #1. The thesis (claim, position, argument) is this: There are 13 million little purple people living on Venus. The one presenting the thesis has EXCLUSIVE, SOLE responsibility to prove the position true to the level claimed. It is not...it is NEVER...the responsibility for OTHERS to prove it wrong (indeed, could you?). It is absurd to ASSUME that the proposition MUST be correct because you can't prove that there are not 13 million purpose people living on Mars.


Illustration #2. Thesis: Mary the mother of our Lord - was allergic to fish. The one presenting that position, claim, argument has the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE responsibility to prove that is true. It is not the responsiblity of ANYONE else to prove it wrong.


What our brother does (SO OFTEN) is not only absurd apologetics but reveals something very important: His hand is empty, he has nothing, so he tries to reverse the argument. "Well PROVE there are not 13 million purpose people on Venus! PROVE Mary was not allergic to fish!" This comes AFTER he ignores and evades questions and points (and yes often facts).... AFTER he tries to change the subject (called 'the shell game' in debate)... then when it's obvious he has nothing to support his remarkable claim, we get this. His next step is to start a new thread.... SEEMING to be about something else...and the whole thing repeats itself. He can't support his claims (they really are just variations on the same claim) - and he makes that VERY obvious. Sometimes this is because he's flat out wrong (our brother Origen is particularly good at noting this) and sometimes because it's just baseless speculation and personal opinion stated as fact.




.




.

 

[NathanH83]

ANDREW....


Friend, this is absurd apologetics.


Illustration #1. The thesis (claim, position, argument) is this: There are 13 million little purple people living on Vensus. The one presenting the thesis has EXCLUSIVE, SOLE responsibility to prove the position true to the level claimed. It is not...it is NEVER...the responsibility for OTHERS to prove it wrong (indeed, could you?). It is absurd to ASSUME that the proposition MUST be correct because you can't prove that there are not 13 million purpose people living on Mars.


Illustration #2. Thesis: Mary the mother of our Lord - was allergic to fish. The one presenting that position, claim, argument has the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE responsibility to prove that is true. It is not the responsiblity of ANYONE else to prove it wrong.


What our brother does (SO OFTEN) is not only absurd apologetics but reveals something very important: His hand is empty, he has nothing, so he tries to reverse the argument. "Well PROVE there are not 13 million purpose people on Venus! PROVE Mary was not allergic to fish!" This comes AFTER he ignores and evades questions and points (and yes often facts).... AFTER he tries to change the subject (called 'the shell game' in debate)... then when it's obvious he has nothing to support his remarkable claim, we get this. His next step is to start a new thread.... SEEMING to be about something else...and the whole thing repeats itself. He can't support his claims (they really are just variations on the same claim) - and he makes that VERY obvious. Sometimes this is because he's flat out wrong (our brother Origen is particularly good at noting this) and sometimes because it's just baseless speculation and personal opinion stated as fact.




.




.

You sound like an atheist with their “flying spaghetti monster” illustration. Always trying to shift the burden of proof onto the other person.

 

[NathanH83]

ANDREW....


Friend, this is absurd apologetics.


Illustration #1. The thesis (claim, position, argument) is this: There are 13 million little purple people living on Vensus. The one presenting the thesis has EXCLUSIVE, SOLE responsibility to prove the position true to the level claimed. It is not...it is NEVER...the responsibility for OTHERS to prove it wrong (indeed, could you?). It is absurd to ASSUME that the proposition MUST be correct because you can't prove that there are not 13 million purpose people living on Mars.


Illustration #2. Thesis: Mary the mother of our Lord - was allergic to fish. The one presenting that position, claim, argument has the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE responsibility to prove that is true. It is not the responsiblity of ANYONE else to prove it wrong.


What our brother does (SO OFTEN) is not only absurd apologetics but reveals something very important: His hand is empty, he has nothing, so he tries to reverse the argument. "Well PROVE there are not 13 million purpose people on Venus! PROVE Mary was not allergic to fish!" This comes AFTER he ignores and evades questions and points (and yes often facts).... AFTER he tries to change the subject (called 'the shell game' in debate)... then when it's obvious he has nothing to support his remarkable claim, we get this. His next step is to start a new thread.... SEEMING to be about something else...and the whole thing repeats itself. He can't support his claims (they really are just variations on the same claim) - and he makes that VERY obvious. Sometimes this is because he's flat out wrong (our brother Origen is particularly good at noting this) and sometimes because it's just baseless speculation and personal opinion stated as fact.




.




.

We can show all these different manuscripts of ancient Christian Bibles, every one including the book of Tobit. Not one can we find omitting the book of Tobit (not prior to 1885).

And yet, you claim the burden of proof is on us to prove Tobit belongs in the Bible?

Ha!

The burden of proof is on the ones who claim that Tobit doesn’t belong in the Bible.

We’re not the ones claiming there’s purple people eaters on Venus, or flying spaghetti monsters, or whatever insane illustration that you might come up with.

We’re agreeing with the multiple early church council meetings, agreeing with the earliest of Church fathers, some of whom were directly discipled by Paul himself, and we’re agreeing with every single Bible that we know about today prior to 1885 which included the book of Tobit.

As for those fringe books like the Prayer of Manasseh, or 4 Esdras, or Enoch…..who knows? I’m undecided about those types of things. It’s hard to tell due to so much disagreement.

But when it comes to the core books like Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees… I’ll agree with the majority view of the Christian faith for the majority of Christianity that these books belong. Especially books like Tobit, where nobody can even find a single manuscript missing it. Codex Vaticanus is missing Maccabees. Why can’t we find anything missing Tobit?

Oh, but the burden of proof is on me? I’m the one who has to prove that the church was right to include Tobit for 1800 years?

Oh, yea, the burden of proof is not on the ones who removed Tobit in the 19th century (for the first time EVER in Christian history). No, they’re not the ones with the burden of Proof. It’s me and Andrew who have the burden of proof. We’re the ones who have to prove the church was right for 1800 years.

Riiiiiight….

 

[Origen]

Why do you keep asking the same question that I already answered?

You know the answer to that question. I would like to know the names of these Latin Bibles from the first four centuries that you claimed where FOUND. Such a discovery would be a very important find.

Please stop. You’re just being annoying.

I have no doubt it is for you, however I care about the accuracy and honesty of your claim. You could just admit the truth.

 

[Josiah]

We’re agreeing with the multiple early church council meetings

You are agreeing on ONE small detail of ONE obscure meeting of ONE diocese of the Western (Roman) Church.... yet you don't accept as authoritative the meetings of this denomination. You want us to accept meetings you reject. How silly.

And these 4 meeting did NOT approve the list of books that you insist every publishing house in the world include in every tome it markets with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover.

, agreeing with the earliest of Church fathers

Even if true, you don't accept the opinion of the ECF on what books publishing houses must be legally required to put into the tomes it markets. You REJECT their opinion... or you would be fighting for the Didache (which far more support than the Prayer of Manasseh which you do), you'd be fighting for the Epistle of Barnabus, the Shepherd of Hermes, and several others. But you don't accept the opinion of the ECF... yet you demand that we do (but ONLY when and where you do). How absurd. How silly.

Oh, but the burden of proof is on me?

it ALWAYS belongs to the one making the claim.... never, N.E.V.E.R. on the one who is not. Why do you protest this? Because you have nothing to substantiate your claim, you can't support it. Thus the dodges, the evasions, the turning the tables, the shell game.

I’m the one who has to prove that the church was right to include Tobit for 1800 years?

Start by proving the THE CHURCH included all the books (and only the books) lisyd in Article 6 of the 1563 Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (the specific books you insist publishing houses must be legally required to put in every Bible they market).... what Ecumenical Ruling Body of All Christianity declared that specific set of books to be mandated to appear in all such tomes.... give us the date and place of that meeting, specify that Ruling Body, show that the list it declared is the same as that in Article 6 of the 39 Articles. You keep insisting "it" put "these" books into every tome with "BIBLE" on the cover.... but for over a year, you have REFUSED to tell what WHAT ruling body.. WHAT meeting declared this list of books found in Article 6 (and thus the 1611 KJV). AND for over a year, you have REFUSED to tell us WHAT status this mysterious body at this unidentified Ecumenical Council gave to these... as just something to include (similar to maps?) or as inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God? You REFUSE to state who, what, where and the status of the books (you FINALLY identified - the list found nowhere else than in Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the singular Church of England).

Oh, yea, the burden of proof is not on the ones who removed Tobit in the 19th century

Yes. The "burden of proof" is on you for your claims of putting IN and taking OUT. But for over a year, you have stubbornly REFUSED to prove either - or even try. You have (rarely) shared the personal opinion of some person that you don't accept as authoritative and often disagree with but nothing about the putting IN or taking OUT. And of course, you craftfully dodge the whole question of AS WHAT?

Yes. You claim these books were removed from Article 6. But for over a year, you've not only REFUSED to prove who put these books (the ones listed in Article 6, the ones found in the KJV of 1611) INTO every tome publishing houses market..... and then REFUSE to prove who changed Article 6 of the 39 Articles, what Ruling Body of Christianity REMOVED books listed in Article 6... books included in the KJV of 1611. You shout endlessly about putting IN without ever proving this... and whine constantly about this REMOVING without ever even attempting to prove this removal.

We’re the ones who have to prove the church was right for 1800 years.

Yes, obviously.

You need to substantiate your claim that THE CHURCH put IN the list of books that were in the 1611 KJV Bible - just give the date and place of the Ecumenical Council of the Ruling Body of all Christianity that did that - and verbatim quote it declaring the exact list of books found in Article 6 of the 1563 Thirty-Nine Articles of the singular Church of England (the books you indicate were always "IN").... show that thus every tome marketed since that had those (and only those) books in it... and that all of them had the identical same status.

Then prove your claim that THE CHURCH took OUT a bunch of books (list them, please), contradicting the earlier meeting of the self-same, just give the place and date of this Ecumenical Council of the Ruling Body of All Christianity that officially did this... verbatim quote this authoritative meeting where it REMOVED certain listed books.

Otherwise, your whole premise of books IN and taken OUT is absurd. You keep talking (endlessly) about what The Church did with NOTHING to show that. You haven't even attempted to substantiate your claims. You just repeat them - over and over and over and over and over and over- for over a year now - and when others reply, you dodge, evade, ignore, try to turn the tables and play the shell game. Why? Because your claims are baseless (or in some cases, factually wrong).



.

 

[Josiah]

ANDREW.... NATHAN.....



There are common MYTHS found among Christians concerning our Sacred Writings....


Some Roman Catholics today perpetuate the entirely baseless claim that Jesus told the 12 Apostles EXACTLY what books are and are not Scripture... the Apostles told the singular Catholic Church that precise list... and in the 15th (or 16th) Century, the RCC finally told the world. It's the list of books approved at the RCC's meetings at Florence and Trent in Italy. Every Christian knew this list of books it's just that Catholic Bibles often didn't follow it. This is pure MYTH. I nice pious thought, perhaps, but completely without any substantiation. Not so, but history itself suggests otherwise (for example, CATHOLIC ECF themselves debate this issue - silly if they all knew the exact list Jesus gave, gave ironically declades before 27 of them were even written).


Some Modern American "Evangelicals" today perpetuate the entirely baseless claim that in 33 AD, The Holy Spirit informed all Christians (a mass email?) of exactly what books are inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (all accepted equally so that all Christians had the identical same Bible (the content identical) but at it's little meeting at Trent, Italy, the RCC added 7 books so as to support it's unique dogmas via Sola Scriptura. This is equally a MYTH, just as baseless as the popular modern Catholic myth. History itself suggests otherwise.

Nathan perpetuates (endlessly... like a broken record) an unusual variation of the modern "Evangelical" myth....with the very same COMPLETE lack of any substantiation or truthfulness.... that this mass email's list was Article 6 of the 1563 Thirty-Nine Articles of the singular Church of England (the table of contents of the 1611 KJV Bible of that singular denomination). While Nathan fights for several more books (including the Prayer of Manasseh and the Letter of Jeremiah) than most Evangelicals, it's the same myth but with even less support.




Here's the (inconvenient) reality....


1. Unlike the Sacred Writings of Judaism and Islam, in Christianity this is (and always has been) a matter of TRADITION, without ANY authoritative ruling of the religion. Sorry. No mass email from the Holy Spirit in 33 AD. Sorry, nothing that remotely suggests all the Apostles have this specific list of books to the singular RCC (but not the EOC) which kept it a secret until the 15th or 16th Centuries. Not the RCC's list... not the Church of England's list... not Calvin's list. TRADITION. In Christianity, the ONLY thing that even remotely approaches a binding meeting of the Christ are the Seven Ecumenical Councils (and American Evangelicals typically deny this) but NONE of them took up this issue.


2. This TRADITION - while amazingly strong and universal - has NEVER been perfect or totally universal. The very fact that there are SEVERAL DIFFERENT Bibles among Christians EVEN TODAY leans credence to this point. True - it's amazing to see the embrace of 66 books (by modern count) but ALL CHRISTIANS, all Christianity, has never had ONE universal view here. And the various quotes that you two, Origen and I have given in these threads prove this. It's a STRONG tradition - but not totally universal and not perfect (Tradition seldom is).


3. I personally find it interesting that this was never a problem until 500 years ago, of all the FIGHTS in Christianity for 1500 years, this DISAGREEMENT was never a problem, never really disputed. West and East condemned and anthematized and excommunicated each other for CENTURIES for many thigns - but their DIFFERENT Bibles was never a subject of such. WHY? Well, it seems no one really cared much about the disputed books.... wny should they fight over whether these are canonical if no one uses them as such? No one can find anything in them of consequence in terms of the norming of disputed dogmas?


4. This Tradition evolved... AND STILL IS. For example, Nathan's assumption that any book found in a tome with the word "BIBLE" on the cover is thus EQUAL to all the others if a (relatively) new part of this tradition. Even in Luther's day, Christians seem to have considered the NT as more canonical than the OT... and books in the NT were on two levels of canonicity - those spoken for and those spoken against. And there were books beyond the 39 (we we count) in the OT that were considered DEUTEROcanonical (rather than canonical like the others), "deutero" = lesser, secondary, under, submissive to), the reality is the books Nathan is fighting for (Article 6 of the Church of England) were specifically labled as DEUTEROcanonical or "apocrypha" - books recommended to read and permitted to us but NOT at all like the rest, NOT inerrant, NOT canonical, NOT the inspired words of God. ONLY helpful, useful (indeed, LOTS of stuff is). Nathan seems unaware that his assumption (any book found in a tome with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover is thus officially among the inerrant, canonical, inspired words of God) is a very new one. And quite false.


5. It's interesting that the dispute among modern Catholics and American Evangelicals doesn't focus on what is actually the more important apocrypha - the NEW TESTAMENT one. Because we find FAR more support for books like the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabus, the Shepherd of the Hermes than we do for books Nathan fights for (The prayer of Manasseh, A Letter of Jeremiah). Or even the Epistle to the Leodiceans that appeared in many Bibles for over 1000 years.


Continues in post # 93



.

 

[NathanH83]

You know the answer to that question. I would like to know the names of these Latin Bibles from the first four centuries that you claimed where FOUND. Such a discovery would be a very important find.


I have no doubt it is for you, however I care about the accuracy and honesty of your claim. You could just admit the truth.

You’re being redundant.

I told you ALREADY that I don’t know the exact names or dates of specific manuscripts.

All I know is that when studying the book of Tobit, I read a commentary that said the the Old Latin copies of the Bible had the longer (and more accurate) version of Tobit, which is more consistent with Codex Sinaiticus and with the Hebrew and Aramaic copies among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

But the article I read didn’t provide any specifics about what those Old Latin manuscripts are called or when they’re dated. All I know is that the OLD Latin is what was used by the early church before Jerome’s NEW Latin came along around 400 AD.

That’s all I know. Ok?

So if you have more helpful information to add, then feel free. If not, then stop asking the same redundant question that I’ve already answered twice now.

 

[Josiah]

.

ANDREW.... NATHAN.....



Where Nathan and Andrew are correct ...


+ Yes, some material has largely fallen out of use by most Protestants, things like the Prayer of Manasseh, A Letter of Jeremiah, 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151.... (and also The Didache and some "New Testament Apocrypha). Yes. Several of the books found in the "Apocrypha" section of Article 6 of the 1563 Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (the books they insist must be legally required to be in all Bibles) WERE used and quoted by some Christians and found in some books marketed... some were in some lectionaries. Yup. Some still ARE in some lectionaries of the two largest Protestant families - Lutheran and Anglican... but admittedly neither use them as much as they once did. And Calvinists and American Evangelicals often don't use them (and sometimes don't even know about them). Correct. Today, "Evangelicals" still use lots of "extra" stuff but it's far more likely to be clips of TV shows or movies, modern inspirational stories, song lyrics, quotes from Max Lucado, etc.


Where Nathan and Andrew are wrong....

+ No, Christianity never declared the specific 15 books they insist upon as "IN" the set of Scriptures (or any others for that matter) ... and then contradicted itself to take some OUT. This "IN" and "OUT" action of "all Christians" of "the church" or "Christianity" is completely false, pure MYTH - neither ever happened. And that some unidentified Body ripped out 15 books from Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the singular Church of England is also false, pure myth. Article 6 has NEVER been deleted, edited or changed...

+ Wrong. Anyone can still buy Bibles with those specific 15 books IN them. No Ruling Body EVER took anything out. The Anglican Church and Martin Luther actually had MORE IN their tomes than the Catholic Councils at Florence or Trent, MORE than those tiny regional meetings they quote but whose authority they reject. And the claim that Christians don't read books if they are not included in a tome with the word "BIBLE" written on the cover is just absurd. I personally doubt that the pastors of our two friends prohibited them to read anything other than Calvin's 66 books.... or that any publishing house in the world is legally prohibited from including anything other than Calvin's 66 in any tome marketed with the word "BIBLE" on the cover. Lots of absurd claims on this. And if either wants a Bible WITH these 15 books IN them, they are EASILY available - in paperback hardback and leather covered editions, Amazon Prime can get it to them tomorrow with free shipping, they don't even have to leave their house. And I doubt again that anyone told them they can't read these 15 books (or any book for that matter).

+ No, just because they can find 2 or 3 or even 10 Christians with an opinion does NOT mean THEREFORE this is the official position of Christianity. You can probably find 10 Christians who believe in alien abduction or that the landing on the moon never happened,sorry, individual opinions may indicate a larger view but they do NOT indicate official or universal or authoritative actions. And it seems absurd to quote Cbristian persons and meetings they do NOT accept as authoritative or necessarily correct; since they don't consider them necessarily correct then it's silly to insist that we do (at least on one point they think so - that's agreeing with THEM, not the meeting).


It seems our brothers are very disturbed by something in their church or denomination. And perhaps they have a valid point. But that's THEIR church and/or denomination - NOT CHRISTIANITY and not anyone here. Perhaps they need to switch to Anglicanism or Lutheranism. Or just go to Amazon.com and buy an edition they like. They are easy to buy, cheap, and can be delivered to their door tomorrow: NO ONE has forbidden it. NO ONE has taken OUT anything.



My thoughts....


IMO, we can (and should) rejoice in an amazing tradition in Christianity that embraces 66 books (by our count) as our Holy Writings (inerrent, fully canonical, divinely inspired). Perhaps no definitive ruling has been made on this in nearly 2000 years because it has never been needed - this Tradition is so solid. I think that's wonderful and worthy of praise.

Yes, this Tradition has never been COMPLETELY perfect or universal.... but the differences appear to be in 7-20 or so books that seem to be of little consequence and perhaps not embraced as inerrent, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated but simply as good and helpful, as DEUTEROcanonical. Christians are still VERY open of using supportive and helpful stuff that is not canonical - Catholics like to use historic stories and examples of the saints.... American Evangelicals love to use TV shows, movies, song lyrics and various illustrations. It seems not unusual for Bible tomes to include extra stuff - beautiful artwork in lettering and wonderful pictures, inspirational stories, prayers, historical stuff... and more recently: maps, concordances, notations, cross referencing (MOST of the stuff in the tome I use is NOT regarded as canonical). I think this is fine.... and yes, personally, I give special consideration to what some Christians regarded (and prehaps still do) as such.

Listen to any Evangelical sermon or Bible study are you are likely to hear ALL KINDS of things used, read, quoted - clips of TV shows or movies, snippets from some popular book, lyrics to a song, LOTS of stuff considered helpful, useful, inspirational. Doesn't mean ERGO Christianity declared all this to be canonical Scripture.





- Josiah



.

 

[NathanH83]

.

ANDREW.... NATHAN.....



Where Nathan and Andrew are correct ...


+ Yes, some material has largely fallen out of use by most Protestants, things like the Prayer of Manasseh, A Letter of Jeremiah, 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151.... (and also The Didache and some "New Testament Apocrypha). Yes. Several of the books found in the "Apocrypha" section of Article 6 of the 1563 Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (the books they insist must be legally required to be in all Bibles) WERE used and quoted by some Christians and found in some books marketed... some were in some lectionaries. Yup. Some still ARE in some lectionaries of the two largest Protestant families - Lutheran and Anglican... but admittedly neither use them as much as they once did. And Calvinists and American Evangelicals often don't use them (and sometimes don't even know about them). Correct. Today, "Evangelicals" still use lots of "extra" stuff but it's far more likely to be clips of TV shows or movies, modern inspirational stories, song lyrics, quotes from Max Lucado, etc.


Where Nathan and Andrew are wrong....

+ No, Christianity never declared the specific 15 books they insist upon as "IN" the set of Scriptures (or any others for that matter) ... and then contradicted itself to take some OUT. This "IN" and "OUT" action of "all Christians" of "the church" or "Christianity" is completely false, pure MYTH - neither ever happened. And that some unidentified Body ripped out 15 books from Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the singular Church of England is also false, pure myth. Article 6 has NEVER been deleted, edited or changed...

+ Wrong. Anyone can still buy Bibles with those specific 15 books IN them. No Ruling Body EVER took anything out. The Anglican Church and Martin Luther actually had MORE IN their tomes than the Catholic Councils at Florence or Trent, MORE than those tiny regional meetings they quote but whose authority they reject. And the claim that Christians don't read books if they are not included in a tome with the word "BIBLE" written on the cover is just absurd. I personally doubt that the pastors of our two friends prohibited them to read anything other than Calvin's 66 books.... or that any publishing house in the world is legally prohibited from including anything other than Calvin's 66 in any tome marketed with the word "BIBLE" on the cover. Lots of absurd claims on this. And if either wants a Bible WITH these 15 books IN them, they are EASILY available - in paperback hardback and leather covered editions, Amazon Prime can get it to them tomorrow with free shipping, they don't even have to leave their house. And I doubt again that anyone told them they can't read these 15 books (or any book for that matter).

+ No, just because they can find 2 or 3 or even 10 Christians with an opinion does NOT mean THEREFORE this is the official position of Christianity. You can probably find 10 Christians who believe in alien abduction or that the landing on the moon never happened,sorry, individual opinions may indicate a larger view but they do NOT indicate official or universal or authoritative actions. And it seems absurd to quote Cbristian persons and meetings they do NOT accept as authoritative or necessarily correct; since they don't consider them necessarily correct then it's silly to insist that we do (at least on one point they think so - that's agreeing with THEM, not the meeting).


It seems our brothers are very disturbed by something in their church or denomination. And perhaps they have a valid point. But that's THEIR church and/or denomination - NOT CHRISTIANITY and not anyone here. Perhaps they need to switch to Anglicanism or Lutheranism. Or just go to Amazon.com and buy an edition they like. They are easy to buy, cheap, and can be delivered to their door tomorrow: NO ONE has forbidden it. NO ONE has taken OUT anything.



My thoughts....


IMO, we can (and should) rejoice in an amazing tradition in Christianity that embraces 66 books (by our count) as our Holy Writings (inerrent, fully canonical, divinely inspired). Perhaps no definitive ruling has been made on this in nearly 2000 years because it has never been needed - this Tradition is so solid. I think that's wonderful and worthy of praise.

Yes, this Tradition has never been COMPLETELY perfect or universal.... but the differences appear to be in 7-20 or so books that seem to be of little consequence and perhaps not embraced as inerrent, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated but simply as good and helpful, as DEUTEROcanonical. Christians are still VERY open of using supportive and helpful stuff that is not canonical - Catholics like to use historic stories and examples of the saints.... American Evangelicals love to use TV shows, movies, song lyrics and various illustrations. It seems not unusual for Bible tomes to include extra stuff - beautiful artwork in lettering and wonderful pictures, inspirational stories, prayers, historical stuff... and more recently: maps, concordances, notations, cross referencing (MOST of the stuff in the tome I use is NOT regarded as canonical). I think this is fine.... and yes, personally, I give special consideration to what some Christians regarded (and prehaps still do) as such.

Listen to any Evangelical sermon or Bible study are you are likely to hear ALL KINDS of things used, read, quoted - clips of TV shows or movies, snippets from some popular book, lyrics to a song, LOTS of stuff considered helpful, useful, inspirational. Doesn't mean ERGO Christianity declared all this to be canonical Scripture.





- Josiah



.

What would it take to convince you that at least some of the “apocryphal” books belong in the Bible?

After all, don’t you think it would be a crime in God’s sight to start printing Bibles that omitted the book of Esther, as Mileto and Athanasius would have us believe Esther is non-canonical?

 

[Josiah]

What would it take to convince you that at least some of the “apocryphal” books belong in the Bible?

1. They ARE in some Bibles..... I gave you a link to just one of the publishing companies that offers a tome with 66 books PLUS a UNIQUE set of "apocrypha" books as listed in Article 6 of the 1563 Thirty-Nine Articles of the singular Church of England that you stated should be required to be in every tome with the word "BIBLE" printed on the cover. Yup. THERE. Readily available. Easy to buy. In leather bound, hard bound or paperback editions. With NOTHING else there, no maps or cross references or concordances - just as you insist, EXACTLY the 81 books listed in Artical 6 - nothing less, nothing more. Your claim that such bibles are forbidden to be published is wrong.


2. IF you had been reading my posts to you, you'd KNOW what everyone else does.... I NEVER REMOTELY said that there should be international law mandating that every publishing company in the world be limited to putting just 66 books in any tome with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover - NOTHING else permitted - no other helpful material, no additional books or articles or notations, no maps, no concordance, nothing - just 66 books. Nope. In FACT, I noted that Luther's translation has one MORE book in it than those little, regional, non-authoritative obscure meetings around 400 that you reference, one MORE than modern RCC Bibles (although I admit 7 fewer than you insist must be legally mandated) they are IN Luther's translation. Luther and Lutherans do NOT mandate an international law forbidding them to be included between the covers of a tome with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover.




It always amazes me how you can respond to a post without responding to it AT ALL, without ANY implication that you read it, evading and ignoring EVERYTHING in it. Truly amazing. I've been posting at sites like this for over 20 years and I've never met a poster more persistent at evading than you.




.

 

[NathanH83]

1.
2. IF you had been reading my posts




.

I would tell you why I don’t read most of what you post. But if I tell you why, then Lamchenn will delete it and call it “flaming” (a weird term in my opinion).

 

[FredVB]

You say you are rich. You think you have become wealthy and don’t need anything. But you don’t know that you are really miserable, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked. I advise you to buy gold from me—gold made pure in fire. Then you will be rich. I tell you this: Buy clothes that are white. Then you will be able to cover your shameful nakedness. I also tell you to buy medicine to put on your eyes. Then you will be able to see.
-Revelation 3:17-18

Bible Gateway passage: Revelation 3:17-18 - Easy-to-Read Version

You say you are rich. You think you have become wealthy and don’t need anything. But you don’t know that you are really miserable, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked. I advise you to buy gold from me—gold made pure in fire. Then you will be rich. I tell you this: Buy clothes that are white. Then...

www.biblegateway.com

It seems to me that this is a false doctrine. Because the act of putting magical potions on your eyes to cure blindness is a form of magical incantations. The Bible condemns magic!

This is an endorsement of sorcery and witchcraft!

The way to understand such things in the book of Revelation is to recognize it is full of symbolism representing true things. We might see it right away from early on in it with first reading it. Who are the seven spirits of God? If we say it is the Holy Spirit, there is only that Spirit of God, not multiple ones. But numbers used in Revelation are all generally symbolic, and there is more symbolism, as there was being shown from the book of Daniel. Clothes in heaven is symbolic, that representing perfect righteousness, that is incorporated on us in Heaven as Jesus Christ has, through Christ, and we have nothing for any shame to bear. What we put on our eyes represents seeing essential truth, which there is in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[atpollard]

So Tobit is bad and should be taken out of the Bible.

Tobit was not included in the OT (Just like the tale of Gilgamesh), so it should not be included in the OT portion of the Bible.
Tobit does not meet the criteria for the books chosen to be included in the New Testament (just like Josephus‘ Histories), so it should not be included in the NT portion of the Bible.
Tobit was found by some to have some value for providing “spiritual and historic” context (like Maccabees) so it was included in the non-Testament section of some Bibles.

I do not see what the problem or issue is.

Revelation was written by the Apostle John and met the criteria for inclusion in the NT portion of the Bible.

I do not see what the problem or issue is.

 

[atpollard]

We can show all these different manuscripts of ancient Christian Bibles, every one including the book of Tobit. Not one can we find omitting the book of Tobit (not prior to 1885).

I don’t think that ALL of the surviving manuscripts are

1. Complete Bibles
2. Survive fully intact.

So your claim that EVERY manuscript contains the book of Tobit seems like hyperbole and a very “suspect” fact.
However, I cannot even NAME 10 surviving manuscripts, so I am not the person to confirm or refute your bold statement.

 

[NathanH83]

I don’t think that ALL of the surviving manuscripts are

1. Complete Bibles
2. Survive fully intact.

So your claim that EVERY manuscript contains the book of Tobit seems like hyperbole and a very “suspect” fact.
However, I cannot even NAME 10 surviving manuscripts, so I am not the person to confirm or refute your bold statement.

I was talking about Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus. There’s other Bible manuscripts too. I don’t know a single one of them omitting Tobit. At least before the 1500’s. I’d love for someone to show one.