Bible versions

[neo of the mind]

New here to the forum.

I would like to discuss the varying English Bible versions and the affect it has had. I will start off by saying that I use the King James version all the time and reluctantly have to read a different version at church. I go to a Baptist church that, as far as I know, has used the NKJV for a significant period of time and probably the KJV in the past, say 15 to 20 years ago.

I decided to attend and be a part of this church knowing that the NKJV was used. I prayed and thought about it and finally came to the decison that if I kept looking for the perfect church, I wouldn't find it.

That being said, the pastor now uses an assortment of different Bible versions during the sermon and like almost every other pastor I have listened to, "belittles" the KJV is some form or fashion every sermon. The other aspect, which ties into that is the pastor's mention of "greek" and "hebrew" and that it "really means this" and so forth kind of comments.

Bear with me, almost to the punchline...so my point is, in America, we all use different Bibles and almost all pastors are "correcting" the Bibles people are holding as not being accurate in some way....has the growth from using the KJV version of th Bible to "100" different versions hurt or helped the church?

I used to use the Strong's concordance a lot to view the meanings, but I personally came to the realization that If I had doubt in what I was holding as being 100% accurate and given and preserved from God, then I would have that in the back of my mind at all times. It wasn't a good feeling for me to have, so I decided that I was going to use the KJV Bible and not question it's accuracy, but defend it and accept it.

[sub_zer0]

New here to the forum.

I would like to discuss the varying English Bible versions and the affect it has had. I will start off by saying that I use the King James version all the time and reluctantly have to read a different version at church. I go to a Baptist church that, as far as I know, has used the NKJV for a significant period of time and probably the KJV in the past, say 15 to 20 years ago.

I decided to attend and be a part of this church knowing that the NKJV was used. I prayed and thought about it and finally came to the decison that if I kept looking for the perfect church, I wouldn't find it.

That being said, the pastor now uses an assortment of different Bible versions during the sermon and like almost every other pastor I have listened to, "belittles" the KJV is some form or fashion every sermon. The other aspect, which ties into that is the pastor's mention of "greek" and "hebrew" and that it "really means this" and so forth kind of comments.

Bear with me, almost to the punchline...so my point is, in America, we all use different Bibles and almost all pastors are "correcting" the Bibles people are holding as not being accurate in some way....has the growth from using the KJV version of th Bible to "100" different versions hurt or helped the church?

I used to use the Strong's concordance a lot to view the meanings, but I personally came to the realization that If I had doubt in what I was holding as being 100% accurate and given and preserved from God, then I would have that in the back of my mind at all times. It wasn't a good feeling for me to have, so I decided that I was going to use the KJV Bible and not question it's accuracy, but defend it and accept it.

I read the NASB updated edition, and I have a NIV Prophecy Study Marked Bible. The NASB, I chose however is the most literal and accurate rendering of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available.

[Missouri Mule]

The KJV is the one most commonly used but I like the NIV better. More readable and understandable. But one of the latest versions I think is horrible and I'm not sure what one is particularly. Something like "New Revised" or something that goes to great lengths to use the modern venacular of today. It just turned me off.

But I say this as one who is not religious. My interest is more of the history of the Bible and what it means to us in the modern age.

[Leo]

Well, I am an atheist, so the Bible has no meaning for me except as a piece of literature. Don't get me wrong, I respect the religious beliefs of others, I just don't share them.

But I have been brought up as a 'good little Church of England boy' so I am slightly familiar with the King James version of the Bible.

I am also interested in language, and I have discussed the language of the King James version with our English master.

He is of the opinion that, irrespective of whether you are religious or not, the King James Bible is a wonderful piece of literature. He maintains the various later 'plain English' versions lose both the romance and some of the spirituality of the content.

I tend to agree. When I used to attend Sunday School, I was always quite interested in the poetical language used in the Bible. I didn't always understand it all, but you only have to ask the vicar.

And like there are some great quotations which come from the KJ version, and which are now part of everyday English.

I once looked at a 'plain English' version and it was so dull and uninteresting. Nothing like this -

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.

A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted"

or

"Consider the lilies in the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin.

Solomon in all his glory, was not arrayed like one of these."

And I didn't have to look that up. :)

[JoeR]

Isn't the KJV based on faulty translations?

[Leo]

Isn't the KJV based on faulty translations?

AFIK, all versions are based on faulty translations. But again, with no disrespect intended to the religious here, what does that matter? The Bible is based on a collection of myth and fable, and one myth is as valid as another. The language and romance it imparts is what matters. :)

[FlyingGuineapig]

If you want to compare different versions, there's
http://www.biblegateway.com/
which allows you to compare. For example, Genesis 6:4

New International
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

King James Version
4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

American Standard
The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.

Young's Literal
4The fallen ones were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when sons of God come in unto daughters of men, and they have borne to them -- they [are] the heroes, who, from of old, [are] the men of name.

[heel31ok]

tough they do not believe the Bible, I have heard where the believers in Islam think they will have 72 versions after they die.Or something like that.

[Bassman]

One advantage the newer translations have over the AV is the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and older manuscripts. Unfortunately, the original autographs have long since vanished. The basic thrust here is this: aside from the truly corrupt translations (NWT, Douay-Rheims, and all of the "PC" perversions), the central thrust is the essential tenents of the faith.

[Dangerrmouse]

One advantage the newer translations have over the AV is the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and older manuscripts. Unfortunately, the original autographs have long since vanished. The basic thrust here is this: aside from the truly corrupt translations (NWT, Douay-Rheims, and all of the "PC" perversions), the central thrust is the essential tenents of the faith.

All thrusting aside, are the "tenents" on a long or short-term lease?

[heel31ok]

All thrusting aside, are the "tenents" on a long or short-term lease?
that is entirely up to them. I personally prefer long term.

[julierep]

I like the NLT (New Living Translation), easy to read, yet still poetic.

[julierep]

If you want to compare different versions, there's
http://www.biblegateway.com/
which allows you to compare. For example, Genesis 6:4

New International
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

King James Version
4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

American Standard
The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.

Young's Literal
4The fallen ones were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when sons of God come in unto daughters of men, and they have borne to them -- they [are] the heroes, who, from of old, [are] the men of name.

Interesting you mentioned this. I was just reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_angel

which mentions this very verse. An interesting read.

[Cedars]

There are strengths and weaknesses in each of the various versions of the Bible; and according to the following link, there is no reason why one cannot collect several versions as long as they are aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each -- it may even give us a better sense of what is being said in a passage by comparing several different translations. I especially appreciate the way this link ended with: "So, which Bible is the best? Perhaps the best answer is this: The one you’ll read."

http://www.catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp

[neo of the mind]

sub_zer0 - "The NASB, I chose however is the most literal and accurate rendering of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available." - most accurate renderings...what are you basing that statement on?

Leo -"I once looked at a 'plain English' version and it was so dull and uninteresting." I would tend to agree with that and expand on the thought that when I read versions other than the KJV, it just doesn't seem right.

FlyingGuineapig- Well my topic isn't really about the comparisons as it is about the simple concept of whether having so many different english translations has been a good thing for the church.

Bassman -"Unfortunately, the original autographs have long since vanished." Hmmm, It's well know that the ORIGINALS were destroyed, just like the ten commandments and that God had actually commanded that some "original" books were to be burned. They were re-written though by command of God. So, from this God isn't hung up on the originals being extant as so long as they are re-written or exact copies made.
I think Bible shows that God kept his writen words going by this means. That being said, if we don't have the "originals" does that mean we have something less?

Leo part2 "AFIK, all versions are based on faulty translations. But again, with no disrespect intended to the religious here, what does that matter? The Bible is based on a collection of myth and fable, and one myth is as valid as another. The language and romance it imparts is what matters." - well I guess it's expected and is normal for all professed Atheists to make statements such as this. I think the key point, which you point out is "AFIK", As far as you know (Which I give you credit for saying.).....AFIK, the Bible is not based on a collection of myth and fable. So how do we come to common ground? As an avowed Atheist, what would it take for you to rethink your position?

Cedars -You make a good point.

Thanks all for input so far, I would still like to discuss my original intent of the topic. I'll expand the thought more, with what I think.

I think that having numerous different translations in English, for the sake of scope, is not a good thing for the "church". I think it is a continuation of the discussion between eve and the serpent. It comes down to the Devil bringing doubt in what God said and using that to add, change or subtract God's words. I think the church had a unified front so to speak with the KJV until the 1800s when some individuals felt the need to upset that unification.
The main crux of the reason for the change has been that the language of the KJV was outdated and noby could understand it. That of course doesn't make any sense considering that the reading level of the KJV is lower than all subsequent translations. I can read it just fine and where I have a problem with some words, I just look it up. So back on track, if you think it has helped having numerous translations or hurt, all say ye. :)

[sub_zer0]

sub_zer0 - "The NASB, I chose however is the most literal and accurate rendering of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available." - most accurate renderings...what are you basing that statement on?

From the people who produced the Bible:

Since its completion in 1971, the New American Standard Bible has been widely acclaimed as “the most literally accurate translation” from the original languages. Millions of people, students, scholars, pastors, missionaries, and laypersons alike, have trusted the NASB, learning from it and applying it to the challenges of their daily lives. With the NASB, anyone can discover what the original text really says, word for word, because it is considered the most literal translation of the Bible in the English language, consistently following the oldest and best manuscripts.

The updated NASB continues this commitment to accuracy, while increasing clarity and readability. Vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structure have been carefully updated for greater understanding and smoother reading. The updated NASB remains the most literally accurate Bible in the English language.

Bassman -"Unfortunately, the original autographs have long since vanished." Hmmm, It's well know that the ORIGINALS were destroyed, just like the ten commandments and that God had actually commanded that some "original" books were to be burned. They were re-written though by command of God. So, from this God isn't hung up on the originals being extant as so long as they are re-written or exact copies made.
I think Bible shows that God kept his writen words going by this means. That being said, if we don't have the "originals" does that mean we have something less?

The originals may have been destroyed but we have no idea by who or when. Where is your proof that God commanded that some original books were to be burned?

There other more realistic ways to prove that because the originals are not here we can be sure we have accurate copies.

[Dangerrmouse]

There other more realistic ways to prove that because the originals are not here we can be sure we have accurate copies.

What are these "more realistic ways"?

[steveksux]

What are these "more realistic ways"?Blind faith. Blind faith that the people who destroyed the original copies made accurate copies. :confused:

Why destroy the originals and then make perfectly accurate copies? Why not keep the originals?

The only way it makes sense is if the copies were not accurate, so the originals had to be destroyed to prevent exposure.

Randy

[Dangerrmouse]

If the nasb remains the most literally accurate bible, why did it need updating? Was it not literally accurate enough? Surely it was inerrant in the first place?

[sub_zer0]

What are these "more realistic ways"?

I have said this before, but the find of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

With the find of a full scroll of Isaiah and its words being near identical to what we already had proves that the copies of copies were reliable. The clincher for that is that the scroll we found was 1000 years older than what we ever had.

If the nasb remains the most literally accurate bible, why did it need updating? Was it not literally accurate enough? Surely it was inerrant in the first place?

No Dangerrmouse. I clearly states the reason for it: "The updated NASB continues this commitment to accuracy, while increasing clarity and readability. Vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structure have been carefully updated for greater understanding and smoother reading."

They are trying to make it better, improving on what they had. It was not as good you are right, but in regards to the grammer and such. Quit making such a big deal to make something better for the average reader trying to get close to God.

[Bassman]

Hmmm, It's well know that the ORIGINALS were destroyed, just like the ten commandments and that God had actually commanded that some "original" books were to be burned. They were re-written though by command of God. So, from this God isn't hung up on the originals being extant as so long as they are re-written or exact copies made.
I think Bible shows that God kept his writen words going by this means. That being said, if we don't have the "originals" does that mean we have something less?

Absolutely not. You brought up a very good point.

As languages evolve, words change meaning, and form changes. For example, nobody says:"thee" or "thou" in common language today. Which is the key reason not to buy into the "King James Only" argument.

[Dangerrmouse]

They are trying to make it better, improving on what they had. It was not as good you are right, but in regards to the grammer and such. Quit making such a big deal to make something better for the average reader trying to get close to God.

Just as circular as before. The people who produced it say it is better because they produced it.

[sub_zer0]

Just as circular as before. The people who produced it say it is better because they produced it.

You are hilarious! You do anything to make me look bad, even when I am simply saying they are trying to make this sacred text read better for people like you.

It is better because they understand language better and saw mistakes they made in the grammer and such in the earlier version. They chose to update it.

[heel31ok]

Blind faith. Blind faith that the people who destroyed the original copies made accurate copies. :confused:

Why destroy the originals and then make perfectly accurate copies? Why not keep the originals?

The only way it makes sense is if the copies were not accurate, so the originals had to be destroyed to prevent exposure.

Randy
It is just like last night when aliens broke into my house and replaced all my furniture with exact replicas.

[Leo]

Leo part2 "AFIK, all versions are based on faulty translations. But again, with no disrespect intended to the religious here, what does that matter? The Bible is based on a collection of myth and fable, and one myth is as valid as another. The language and romance it imparts is what matters." - well I guess it's expected and is normal for all professed Atheists to make statements such as this. I think the key point, which you point out is "AFIK", As far as you know (Which I give you credit for saying.).....AFIK, the Bible is not based on a collection of myth and fable. So how do we come to common ground? As an avowed Atheist, what would it take for you to rethink your position?


My atheism is not ideological. It is based upon a lack of empirical proof of the existence of God, an afterlife, or any of the major events contained in the early books of the Bible. In logic and reason, as well as in law, this is evidence that no such entity exists, and the Creation myths are common to many cultures.

I wrote AFIK advisedly, because as far as I, or anyone else knows, as opposed to believes, none of this stuff happened.

It is not my intention to belittle your, or anyone else's beliefs, so I do not intend to further concern myself with anything other than the language of the various versions of the Bible. Which I understand this thread to be about. :)

[julierep]

Just as circular as before. The people who produced it say it is better because they produced it.

I can tell you why I like it better. Try reading the KJV and then try reading one like the NLT, it is smoother reading. The dialect of text changes over many years and because we do not speak poetically anymore, it is much easier to read if put into the dialect of what we use today. Just like Shakespeare, I know many LOVE to read it the way he wrote it, however, when put into a dialect I a more familiar with, everything starts to come together and make more sense. Its easier to read and understand the message.

[Dangerrmouse]

You are hilarious! You do anything to make me look bad, ...


You need no help from me. :p

[neo of the mind]

sub_zer0 - regarding what I stated, in that God commanded some books of the Bible to be destroyed, I misspoke in a way, but read Jeremiah 36 and you will see that God gave direction fully knowing what would occur to the written scriptures and didn't blink. That is why I don't think people should be hung up on the originals or that people should state that the "originals" were perfect and by implication, say that today we don't have the words of God available to us. Notice I said "words" of God and not word of God. Having the word of God implies that we have, sorta or close to what he said or the general idea, but not his exact words, which I do not believe to be the case. If you were giving such instructions with such importance, would you give exact details and allow them to be changed or would you ensure that your instructions would be preserved precisely?



Leo, you also said "My atheism is not ideological."...you may not consider it ideological but it is still a belief. Everyone believes in something. As far as empirical data goes -

As far as having empirical proof of the existence of God. I do believe it exists in the scope of the world around us, it's everywhere. There is no logical explanation for the physcial world and what we comprehend as reality to exist, excluding a Creator. You also have to understand that EVEN if God showed those that have doubt or refuse to consider his existence, physical proof before their eyes, they would soon discount it later as the Israelites showed after they left Egypt for example.

The other aspect, which is more important is that God wants us to have faith in his existence through the works and life of Jesus Christ. If we were to have the covenant of the ark and the contents it contained, which would have the ten commandement tablets and the original Law written by Moses, in our possession, then they would possibly be used as the focus of Christians faith instead of Christ.
The books of the Bible are used as a foundation and/or direct and indirect evidence of who Jesus is. The miracles, the historical details, it is all in relation to Jesus and that is it's sole purpose.

So my opinion is that God has clearly shown his creation that there is a Creator, that his creation was a perfect system, that this system, though in a condition of Entropy, was designed to be perpetually self sustaining. That the Entropy has mainly affected the creation of man, specifically man's spiritual and moral clarity.

I'll end with a comment on Leo's last statement -"concern myself with anything other than the language of the various versions of the Bible. Which I understand this thread to be about."

Actually, the topic is not about the languages of the various versions at all. The topic is do people think that the fact that there are numerous English translations put forth sine the 1800s was/is a good thing for the church or a bad thing. I have already pointed out that the negatives are at minimum, a difficulty in having corporate reading in churches and the constant "re-interpretation" by pastors during sermons because instead of relying on the text everyone is looking at, they want to tell you what a different translation says as being more accurate or want to tell you what the hebrew or Greek said. This in effect is putting the Protestant denominations back to Catholicism, where the priests told us what the words or God were versus allowing for the common people to read for themselves.

P.S. Oops, forgot this by Leo -"I wrote AFIK advisedly, because as far as I, or anyone else knows, as opposed to believes, none of this stuff happened." - Of course you realize that that is not a true statement. That would be a true statement coming from somebody who must believe there is no God. A true statement coming from an Agnostic would be, "AFIK, this stuff may or may not have happened." A true statement from a Christian would be, AFIK, all of this stuff happened.

Leo, could you tell me what the difference is between knowing something and believing something? Give me one example of something you know but don't believe and give me one example of something you believe but don't know.

[Leo]

neo of the mind - I understand that you enjoy religious beliefs, and I respect that fact.

I have indicated my disinclination to debate religious beliefs because I do not think that it is a subject that lends itself to objective discussion. I also think it is an area where believers may be easily offended. So please respect my concern for your feelings, and the feelings of others who may share similar beliefs, by not pressing me further on this matter. :)

[Leo]

I can tell you why I like it better. Try reading the KJV and then try reading one like the NLT, it is smoother reading. The dialect of text changes over many years and because we do not speak poetically anymore, it is much easier to read if put into the dialect of what we use today. Just like Shakespeare, I know many LOVE to read it the way he wrote it, however, when put into a dialect I a more familiar with, everything starts to come together and make more sense. Its easier to read and understand the message.

I can easily understand your point, Julie, but my own view is concerned solely with the Bible as literature. The King James version is a magnificent work in that respect. All the others are so prosaic as to be of little interest to me.

And as for Shakespeare, I know it takes some effort to read and comprehend fully, but is it not the work of literature to exercise our minds and imagination simultaneously? To read Shakespeare in any other form than the language of the Bard, is not to read Shakespeare at all. You might as well view a Disney animation of a Shakespearean story. :)

[neo of the mind]

Leo - ok...didn't think my last questions to you would have fallen under that category....

How about just responding to my original topic and that was about the fact that there are numerous english translations and whether that is a good thing or a bad thing for those that profess it to be true?

As an example, if a professor taught Einstein's general theory of relativity by using various documentation that stated the general idea in application but different in form or the documentation contradicted other documentation or the professor would "correct" the documentation as he went by stating that Einstein actually wrote this in older documentation? If he upheld one piece of documentation to prove one point but cast it aside as being incorrect in another area. Would that help a student form a solid opinion?

I would agree with you 100% on the literature aspect. One thing that people don't seem to know, is that a lot of the language used in the KJV version WAS not in common use at the time it was written. The "Thees" and "Thous" were used to be accurate as possible to the 1st person singular, 2nd person plural, etc.


sub_zer0 - Need to clarify my previous statement about God commanding scripture to be destroyed. Jeremiah 51:59-61 should cover that along with my earlier comments about Jeremiah

[julierep]

I can easily understand your point, Julie, but my own view is concerned solely with the Bible as literature. The King James version is a magnificent work in that respect. All the others are so prosaic as to be of little interest to me.

And as for Shakespeare, I know it takes some effort to read and comprehend fully, but is it not the work of literature to exercise our minds and imagination simultaneously? To read Shakespeare in any other form than the language of the Bard, is not to read Shakespeare at all. You might as well view a Disney animation of a Shakespearean story. :)

Yes, while I know this to be true, my point was showing why the writing of the bible has become far closer to our own language, so that it may be understood better. It would be much easier to read Shakespeare if it was in laymens terms, wouldnt you agree? Sure, it works the mind to read it in its original form but this wasnt the intent of the bible.

[ultramegZsioint]

I heard the Hebrew version is real accurate ;) but I can’t understand a thing without the commentary.

[neo of the mind]

I heard the Hebrew version is real accurate ;) but I can’t understand a thing without the commentary.

You could read the Old Testament in the KJV, it is a translation of the Hebrew. You woudn't have to rely on a commentary, ie. another person but instead could read for yourself what it says.

[steveksux]

tough they do not believe the Bible, I have heard where the believers in Islam think they will have 72 versions after they die.Or something like that.Is that 72 versions of the Bible, or 72 versions of the Koran that they get when they die a martyr? ;) :D

Randy

[neo of the mind]

Is that 72 versions of the Bible, or 72 versions of the Koran that they get when they die a martyr? ;) :D

Randy

I will consider your posts to reflect the opinion that having multiple English versions has a negative effect. Thanks.

[neo of the mind]

I heard the Hebrew version is real accurate ;) but I can’t understand a thing without the commentary.

I will consider your posts to reflect the opinion that having multiple English versions has a negative effect. Thanks.

That's two to the negative.

[burntgorilla]

It would be much easier to read Shakespeare if it was in laymens terms, wouldnt you agree?

Oh, don't get me started on all these attempts to modernise Shakespeare. They had a version on Have I Got News For You, and I swear it was an abomination. Shakespeare is not that hard to read, once you get used to the constructions. If you're not going to read it in the original version, or one close to it, I see no reason for reading it at all.

[julierep]

Oh, don't get me started on all these attempts to modernise Shakespeare. They had a version on Have I Got News For You, and I swear it was an abomination. Shakespeare is not that hard to read, once you get used to the constructions. If you're not going to read it in the original version, or one close to it, I see no reason for reading it at all.

Ok, well then lets take Beowolf for an example. Written how it was, very hard to follow.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Beowulf is an interesting example - I didn't really care for it in school, but read a recent translation a few years back (the "Beowulf : A New Verse Translation" by Seamus Heaney) and thought it was great.

The problem with having only one Bible translations is - how do you limit the list? Should people be prohibited from reading the original KJV because some of the Hebrew translations are iffy? Pick the KJV and then argue over what parts of it aren't quite right? Pick and pretend that nothing is wrong with the translation and work to surpress anyone who points out differently? Should there be no translations at all, and everyone read Hebrew/Greek/etc?

[neo of the mind]

Beowulf is an interesting example - I didn't really care for it in school, but read a recent translation a few years back (the "Beowulf : A New Verse Translation" by Seamus Heaney) and thought it was great.

The problem with having only one Bible translations is - how do you limit the list? Should people be prohibited from reading the original KJV because some of the Hebrew translations are iffy? Pick the KJV and then argue over what parts of it aren't quite right? Pick and pretend that nothing is wrong with the translation and work to surpress anyone who points out differently? Should there be no translations at all, and everyone read Hebrew/Greek/etc?

FGp- That's a good point. How do you limit the list..... I guess if you had a original legal tender one dollar bill and then somebody printed up 50 other one dollar bills that had varying differences from the original and each other. I think I would just pick and use the orignal one dollar bill.

I don't want to get into defending the KJV accuracy just yet. That will come soon enough.

But what you are pointing out is 'what can now be done about it.', All I am asking is this and I will word it again in a different way hoping to get a response.

Has the impact of having different English translations of the Bible been beneficial to the church? Yes or No. Please explain either way.

If after 41 posts, there is not one attempt to answer the question, I will stop asking. :rolleyes:

[FlyingGuineapig]

FGp- That's a good point. How do you limit the list..... I guess if you had a original legal tender one dollar bill and then somebody printed up 50 other one dollar bills that had varying differences from the original and each other. I think I would just pick and use the orignal one dollar bill.

OK, so which Bible is the original? It would have to be in Greek/Hebrew. As soon as you say "translation", it's not an original. It's like you had a original legal tender one dollar bill, and made a 50 copies of it. You're trying to decide which of the 50 copies is the true one. They're copies. Just cause one was copied first, it isn't the true translation/copy. (Not to mention KJV wasn't the first copy).

Has the impact of having different English translations of the Bible been beneficial to the church? Yes or No. Please explain either way.
Yes. First, children should be exposed to the Bible, and something like the "Goldren Children's Bible" is often a childhood favorite book (was one of mine). If you're not going to allow the children to read the Bible, or first learn Hebrew/Greek or "Shakespean" English, that's probably a disservice to them.

Second, even some adults will not wish to learn Greek/Hebrew or Shakespean" English.

Third, as literature, there's been enormous usage of the Bible in quotes and such.

Forth, some people vastly prefer a historically accurate translation to one which is traditional but with known mistakes.

[neo of the mind]

FPg- thanks for a response on the actual question.

The first translation of something is an original. The KJV was the first translation from the specific hebrew and greek texts that were used and the methods that the translators used. So it is an original.

"Yes. First, children should be exposed to the Bible, and something like the "Goldren Children's Bible" is often a childhood favorite book (was one of mine). If you're not going to allow the children to read the Bible, or first learn Hebrew/Greek or "Shakespean" English, that's probably a disservice to them."

So what did Children do before the ASV was introduced in 1901?

"Second, even some adults will not wish to learn Greek/Hebrew or Shakespean" English."

To answer this and part of your "First" - You refer to the KJV as if it's a foreign language and that the "Shakespean english" makes up a majority of the words. This is not true and other than a few of the archaic words, most can be determined by the context, even if you didn't have a dictionary at your disposal. Like I had pointed out before, the KJV has the lowest grade level score then any English Bible translation after it.

"Third, as literature, there's been enormous usage of the Bible in quotes and such." - Not certain as to what the point of this comment is, maybe you can elaborate on this more, please.

"Forth, some people vastly prefer a historically accurate translation to one which is traditional but with known mistakes." - this of course is up for debate considering that no mistakes have ever been proven in regards to the KJV. Spelling and typographical changes aside.

[FlyingGuineapig]

That's your rebuttal?

I find it weak and insufficient.

As I read your words, I am only that much more convinced of the rightness of my views, and the ignorance of yours.

Provide me evidence to convince me otherwise, or you have failed!

:rolleyes:

[neo of the mind]

That's your rebuttal?

I find it weak and insufficient.

As I read your words, I am only that much more convinced of the rightness of my views, and the ignorance of yours.

Provide me evidence to convince me otherwise, or you have failed!

:rolleyes:

ok, consider that I failed :rolleyes: I won't discuss the topic with you and you can move on then.

If anyone else would like to discuss the topic, I am willing.

[Leo]

Leo - ok...didn't think my last questions to you would have fallen under that category....

How about just responding to my original topic and that was about the fact that there are numerous english translations and whether that is a good thing or a bad thing for those that profess it to be true?

As an example, if a professor taught Einstein's general theory of relativity by using various documentation that stated the general idea in application but different in form or the documentation contradicted other documentation or the professor would "correct" the documentation as he went by stating that Einstein actually wrote this in older documentation? If he upheld one piece of documentation to prove one point but cast it aside as being incorrect in another area. Would that help a student form a solid opinion?

I would agree with you 100% on the literature aspect. One thing that people don't seem to know, is that a lot of the language used in the KJV version WAS not in common use at the time it was written. The "Thees" and "Thous" were used to be accurate as possible to the 1st person singular, 2nd person plural, etc.



Thank you for understanding my reluctance to discuss spiritual beliefs.

Provided there is no substantial variation of content, or that the revised versions more accurately tell the story, I can see no more problems with different forms of English translation, than I can with translation into other languages.

Substantial variation of content - a statement that Jesus of Nazareth was married to Mary Magdalene who bore him several children, for example - could cause confusion in disseminating the message meant to be imparted.

But with the exception of correcting errata, I can see no good reason for producing new versions purely on the basis of language. People can get off their ample bottoms and look up a word occasionally - it might increase the average vocabulary of 26 words. :D

[Leo]

Yes, while I know this to be true, my point was showing why the writing of the bible has become far closer to our own language, so that it may be understood better. It would be much easier to read Shakespeare if it was in laymens terms, wouldnt you agree? Sure, it works the mind to read it in its original form but this wasnt the intent of the bible.

Julie, again I understand the point you are making. But language is a very complex and varied thing. To hold that something should be 'far closer to our own language, so that it may be understood better' is sensible in principle, but not easy to achieve in fact.

The English language, as it is spoken in the UK, the USA, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (let alone the Commonwealth and other 'foreign' climes where it is widely used) varies much more than most Americans realise. (I had enough problems with things like 'boots', 'lifts', and 'coach stations', being understood when I visited your fair land, to realise this myself.)

In some ways it is preferable to have slightly archaic language which is recognised as such, but has a commonality in the various jurisdictions in which English of some sort is spoken.

And neither the language of the King James Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, nor that of Shakespeare is that incomprehensible.

Let us examine some random but common examples from each.

This from the Bible:

"Charity suffereth long, and is kind, charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up."

I have deliberately chosen a verse which is not always clearly understood, (principally because not everyone realises that 'charity' is used as another word for 'love') and all the words in italics are not in modern usage.

But most people are literate enough to realise the 19th century meaning of 'charity', and it does not take a genius to translate 'suffereth', 'envieth' and 'vaunteth', into 'suffers', 'envies' and 'vaunts' (or 'boasts', in modern speech). So no insurmountable comprehension problems there.

From the Book of Common Prayer:

"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff comfort me."

For all the 'thys' and 'thees' none of this is difficult to understand.

From Shakespeare:

"Then he will strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say, "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Ol men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day."

Not difficult to understand, is it? Especially to say - someone who was on the beaches at Normandy in 1945.

In fact, in some instances, the Bible or Shakespeare translated into current American idiom would be more difficult for the average Briton, Australian or New Zealander to read, than in slightly archaic English. :D

[Patriot]

New here to the forum.

Welcome!

KJV.

As well, check you the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST). For example, KVJ 1 Samuel 18:10 reads "...that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul..." and the JST corrects that wrong translation to "...which is not of God..." a significant difference.

Some JST scriptures (http://scriptures.lds.org/jst/contents)

[Izdaari]

I enjoy and find it useful to have several different translations available. My perspective is that of a born-again Christian, Protestant but of no particular denomination, and theologically conservative on the basics of the faith, but liberal on social issues and lifestyle, and eclectic in that I draw on Zen and Taoism for insights not contained in the Western traditions and which I don't find to conflict with Christianity. I'll comment on just the Bible versions I'm most familiar with.

I like the KJV for its literary qualities, but don't trust the accuracy of the translation or that they were made from the best manuscripts; the best available at the time, true, but others have been found since, and scholarship has improved. Nor do I find the archaic language particularly accessible for daily reading. I would definitely feel hindered if I had only the KJV, but literararily deprived if I didn't have it.

The NASB is good as a study resource, being one of the most literal and accurate versions, but the emphasis on literalness results in many awkward phrasings and sometimes hinders rather than helps understanding the original intent.

The NIV and TNIV (Today's New International Version) are what I like for daily reading. They're as accurate as today's scholarship can make them, and they read well. They're a good balance. TNIV is a little too PC in gender neutrality and stuff like that, but other than that I think its phrasings are a little more felicitous than NIV.

The Message is more of a paraphrase than a translation, but that's good too so long as you remember that the paraphrase is one man's interpretation. IMO it's the most readable of all, but I'd check anything in it against one or more of the other versions.

[burntgorilla]

Ok, well then lets take Beowolf for an example. Written how it was, very hard to follow.

Tough. Read it alongside a more modern version if you want. Ulysses is hard to read, but you wouldn't want that simplified, would you?

[heel31ok]

Tough. Read it alongside a more modern version if you want. Ulysses is hard to read, but you wouldn't want that simplified, would you?
that is because he was always drunk but he still became president.

[steveksux]

that is because he was always drunk but he still became president.What does Bush have to do with this debate?

[neo of the mind]

Welcome!

KJV.

As well, check you the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST). For example, KVJ 1 Samuel 18:10 reads "...that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul..." and the JST corrects that wrong translation to "...which is not of God..." a significant difference.

Some JST scriptures (http://scriptures.lds.org/jst/contents)


but apparently JS didn't feel the need to correct....

Judg 9:23

23 Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:

Point being, God directs everything. Most Christians know that evil does not originate from God but rather evil is allowed to function when it is in sync with God's plans and will. You consider that 1 Samuel 18:10 , in the KJV needed to be corrected or that it was in error. I don't.

[julierep]

Julie, again I understand the point you are making. But language is a very complex and varied thing. To hold that something should be 'far closer to our own language, so that it may be understood better' is sensible in principle, but not easy to achieve in fact.

The English language, as it is spoken in the UK, the USA, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (let alone the Commonwealth and other 'foreign' climes where it is widely used) varies much more than most Americans realise. (I had enough problems with things like 'boots', 'lifts', and 'coach stations', being understood when I visited your fair land, to realise this myself.)

In some ways it is preferable to have slightly archaic language which is recognised as such, but has a commonality in the various jurisdictions in which English of some sort is spoken.

And neither the language of the King James Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, nor that of Shakespeare is that incomprehensible.

Let us examine some random but common examples from each.

This from the Bible:

"Charity suffereth long, and is kind, charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up."

I have deliberately chosen a verse which is not always clearly understood, (principally because not everyone realises that 'charity' is used as another word for 'love') and all the words in italics are not in modern usage.

But most people are literate enough to realise the 19th century meaning of 'charity', and it does not take a genius to translate 'suffereth', 'envieth' and 'vaunteth', into 'suffers', 'envies' and 'vaunts' (or 'boasts', in modern speech). So no insurmountable comprehension problems there.

From the Book of Common Prayer:

"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff comfort me."

For all the 'thys' and 'thees' none of this is difficult to understand.

From Shakespeare:

"Then he will strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say, "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Ol men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day."

Not difficult to understand, is it? Especially to say - someone who was on the beaches at Normandy in 1945.

In fact, in some instances, the Bible or Shakespeare translated into current American idiom would be more difficult for the average Briton, Australian or New Zealander to read, than in slightly archaic English. :D

For me, its not too hard to follow. But there are a lot of people who are not as educated and try as they may, it just doesnt come together for them. Then, there is of course, those who follow a study tool that is more common to them as far as language is concerned. Its like taking instructions and instead of putting them in something only a handyman may understand, it comes with laymens terms that any woman :D might understand.

[Leo]

For me, its not too hard to follow. But there are a lot of people who are not as educated and try as they may, it just doesnt come together for them. Then, there is of course, those who follow a study tool that is more common to them as far as language is concerned. Its like taking instructions and instead of putting them in something only a handyman may understand, it comes with laymens terms that any woman :D might understand.

LOL! Fair 'nuff. I just feel that when we try to simplify things, we often lose some of the meaning or value.

Anyway, did anyone ever tell you that you are a hot looking chick? :D

[heel31ok]

What does Bush have to do with this debate?
Ulysses Bush?
Head for the mountains.

[julierep]

LOL! Fair 'nuff. I just feel that when we try to simplify things, we often lose some of the meaning or value.

Anyway, did anyone ever tell you that you are a hot looking chick? :D

:o :lol:

[Cedars]

...The first translation of something is an original. The KJV was the first translation from the specific hebrew and greek texts that were used and the methods that the translators used. So it is an original.
A translation ("original translation" or not) is not actually an ORIGINAL -- what it was translated from (assuming that the "original" itself was not translated) is the original. It sounds as if you are confusing an "original translation" with an actual original.

[sub_zer0]

A translation ("original translation" or not) is not actually an ORIGINAL -- what it was translated from (assuming that the "original" itself was not translated) is the original. It sounds as if you are confusing an "original translation" with an actual original.

Technically we have copies of copies of the original autographs. heh

[Bassman]

Oh, don't get me started on all these attempts to modernise Shakespeare. They had a version on Have I Got News For You, and I swear it was an abomination. Shakespeare is not that hard to read, once you get used to the constructions. If you're not going to read it in the original version, or one close to it, I see no reason for reading it at all.
Would that be in the Original Klingon? :p :D ;)

(Dah'Bah,Dah' Beh)

[Bassman]

OK I just had to get that stab in :D

[Kong]

But what you are pointing out is 'what can now be done about it.', All I am asking is this and I will word it again in a different way hoping to get a response.

Has the impact of having different English translations of the Bible been beneficial to the church? Yes or No. Please explain either way. … :


No, not to the Catholic Church. I think the Bible was originally in Latin and it was a big sin to translate it into English. Now translated into many languages everyone is free to read and interpret their own meaning into the message. This takes authority away from church leaders – bad for the Catholic Church but now we have beliefs ranging from the bizarre to the insanely deviated. In my final conclusion it is not a question of being a good or bad thing but just a natural change of things (the English Bible).

My favorite versions are KJ, and NRS. I like the language of King James but sometimes the New Revised Standard makes for better arguments. I think supplementary textbooks on history, linguistics, and religion help provide beneficial insights into understanding biblical writings.

On the other hand, Jesus brings us a clear and simple teaching. I especially like the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7.

[sub_zer0]

No, not to the Catholic Church. I think the Bible was originally in Latin and it was a big sin to translate it into English. Now translated into many languages everyone is free to read and interpret their own meaning into the message. This takes authority away from church leaders – bad for the Catholic Church but now we have beliefs ranging from the bizarre to the insanely deviated. In my final conclusion it is not a question of being a good or bad thing but just a natural change of things (the English Bible).

The Bible was originally in Hebrew and Greek, not Latin.

The point is, what we have now in any form is more than 98% textual purity. The other 3% is minor variation and does NOT affect doctrine.

On the other hand, Jesus brings us a clear and simple teaching. I especially like the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7.

I thought once translated anybody could interpret how they wanted? How could Jesus teach so clear then?

[Kong]

The original Catholic Church’s bible was in Latin I thought. I have always heard that the priests, Popes and such always learned Latin to read and do their thing in the old days (before King James). Parts of the bible are derived from Hebrew and Greek but when was the “bible” as we know it today created?

I thought once translated anybody could interpret how they wanted? How could Jesus teach so clear then? Point taken. Clear to me may be clear as mud to someone else.

[sub_zer0]

The original Catholic Church’s bible was in Latin I thought. I have always heard that the priests, Popes and such always learned Latin to read and do their thing in the old days (before King James). Parts of the bible are derived from Hebrew and Greek but when was the “bible” as we know it today created?

The Bible as far as the Christian canon is concerned consists of 66 books: 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. The writing of the Bible took about 1600 years, was written in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) by about 40 different authors from all walks of life and is internally consistent throughout.

[Kong]

The writing of the Bible took about 1600 years, was written in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) by about 40 different authors from all walks of life and is internally consistent throughout.What part does Latin have to play in all this? What do you mean by “internally consistent” this sounds like medical terminology to me.

[sub_zer0]

What part does Latin have to play in all this? What do you mean by “internally consistent” this sounds like medical terminology to me.

Hehe.

To be honest, perhaps it has to do with the Latin Vulgate MSS?

I mean scripture doesn't contradict scripture by internally consistent.

[Izdaari]

What part does Latin have to play in all this? What do you mean by “internally consistent” this sounds like medical terminology to me.Latin plays no part in it, except that Latin is the language of the Catholic Church, and they did (maybe still do, among the priesthood anyway?) use a Latin translation of the Bible, as well as conduct services in Latin.

[sub_zer0]

Latin plays no part in it, except that Latin is the language of the Catholic Church, and they did (maybe still do, among the priesthood anyway?) use a Latin translation of the Bible, as well as conduct services in Latin.

There ya go Kong :)

[Kong]

I was taught that Latin was used by the Church to maintain purity and control of biblical teachings. Once the bible was translated into English the way was made clear for the Protestant reformation. Is the KJV a translation from the Latin version?

[sub_zer0]

I was taught that Latin was used by the Church to maintain purity and control of biblical teachings. Once the bible was translated into English the way was made clear for the Protestant reformation. Is the KJV a translation from the Latin version?

Only one, Codex Bezae was available to the translators of the 1611 King James Version. Revised versions, today, are based on these earlier and better manuscripts.

Codex Bezae (c. 450 or 550) This is the earliest known biblical copy in two languages, Greek and Latin. It contains the Gospels and Acts with a small section of 3 John in Latin

[Cedars]

Where did you people get your misinformation from about the Catholic Church? Anti-Catholic Weekly?

The Catholic Church has never had a problem with Christians reading scripture. In fact, the KJV was not the first English translation. The first English translation was the Rheims New Testament published in 1582, and the Douy-Rheims was completed in 1609, making it older than the KJV, which was not published until 1611.

And by the way, it was not the Catholic Church that worried about authority. It was the Protest-ants who broke away from the Catholic Church who protested Church authority (and obviously still do) and instead invented the doctrine of sola scriptura (which doctrine is not even supported by scripture itself).

During the Reformation, primarily for "doctrinal" reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.

While there are some (Roman) Catholic churches who prefer the Latin, most Roman Catholic (here in America, anyway) use English (and some of the songs from Psalms is sometimes sung in Latin or Greek). My father was of the Maronite Catholic Church, and the Mass there is in English and Aramaic or Syriac.

[sub_zer0]

During the Reformation, primarily for "doctrinal" reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.


There is a good reason why those were not considered Christian canon and now considered apocrypha.

“The Council of Trent (1545-63) was the first official proclamation of the Roman Catholic Church on the Apocrypha, and it came a millennium and a half after the books were written, in an obvious polemical action against Protestantism” (Geisler and Nix, p. 269).

Hardly since the beginning. The Old and New Testament Christian canon were set in stone way before this. Not only that but since the Jews decided not to canonize these works should be considered very important.

Another reason Protestants (Christians essentially) reject the apocrypha as canon is that the Old Testament apocryphal books included in the Catholic Bible do not pass the test of authenticity on one or more account.

[Cedars]

There is a good reason why those were not considered Christian canon and now considered apocrypha.

“The Council of Trent (1545-63) was the first official proclamation of the Roman Catholic Church on the Apocrypha, and it came a millennium and a half after the books were written, in an obvious polemical action against Protestantism” (Geisler and Nix, p. 269).

Hardly since the beginning. The Old and New Testament Christian canon were set in stone way before this. Not only that but since the Jews decided not to canonize these works should be considered very important.

Another reason Protestants (Christians essentially) reject the apocrypha as canon is that the Old Testament apocryphal books included in the Catholic Bible do not pass the test of authenticity on one or more account.
That is absolutely false, sub_zero. The Fathers quoted from these Catholic O.T. books just as they did the other books in the Bible. Pay particular attention to the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage III as they were all in the 4th Century, well before the 16th Century.


The Letter of Barnabas

"Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Is. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]" (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).
*
Clement of Rome

"By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]" (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).
*
Polycarp of Smyrna

"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].
. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!" (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).
*
Irenaeus

"Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying ‘No man sees us,’ shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: ‘O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart’ [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, ‘You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous’ [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]" (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [A.D. 189]; Daniel 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).
"Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, ‘Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him’ [Bar. 4:36—5:9]" (ibid., 5:35:1; Baruch was often considered part of Jeremiah, as it is here).
*

(cont.)

[Cedars]

(cont.)

Hippolytus

"What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book [of Daniel], for it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their writings. . . . [W]e ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in any transgression and risk the loss of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the judge of all and the Word himself is the eye which nothing that is done in the world escapes. Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah" (Commentary on Daniel [A.D. 204]; the story of Susannah [Dan. 13] is not in the Protestant Bible).
*
Cyprian of Carthage

"In Genesis [it says], ‘And God tested Abraham and said to him, "Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and offer him there as a burnt offering . . ."’ [Gen. 22:1–2]. . . . Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon [it says], ‘Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality . . .’ [Wis. 3:4]. Of this same thing in the Maccabees [it says], ‘Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness’ [1 Macc. 2:52; see Jas. 2:21–23]" (Treatises 7:3:15 [A.D. 248]).
"So Daniel, too, when he was required to worship the idol Bel, which the people and the king then worshipped, in asserting the honor of his God, broke forth with full faith and freedom, saying, ‘I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who created the heaven and the earth’ [Dan. 14:5]" (Letters 55:5 [A.D. 253]; Daniel 14 is not in the Protestant Bible).
*
Council of Rome

"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
*
Council of Hippo

"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
*

Council of Carthage III

"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
*

(cont.)

[Cedars]

(cont.)

Augustine

"The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).
"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place" (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).
*

The Apostolic Constitutions

"Now women also prophesied. Of old, Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron [Ex. 15:20], and after her, Deborah [Judges. 4:4], and after these Huldah [2 Kgs. 22:14] and Judith [Judith 8], the former under Josiah and the latter under Darius" (Apostolic Constitutions 8:2 [A.D. 400]).
*
Jerome

"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).
*
Pope Innocent I

"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . ." (Letters 7 [A.D. 408]).

(end)

[Cedars]

... but since the Jews decided not to canonize these works should be considered very important...
No, it shouldn't. It is not surprising the Jews would not canonize something that could possibly affirm Christianity. The Jews did not canonize the N.T. either.

[sub_zer0]

That is absolutely false, sub_zero. The Fathers quoted from these Catholic O.T. books just as they did the other books in the Bible.

I don't remember saying anything about the Fathers.

No, it shouldn't. It is not surprising the Jews would not canonize something that could possibly affirm Christianity. The Jews did not canonize the N.T. either.

But the apocrypha you are speaking of is considered Old Testament! The Jews wouldn't include the N.T. because it is seperate to the OT. They chose not to add the OT Catholic apocrypha books because they do not pass the test of authenticity on one or more account.

[Soc.Dem.]

But the apocrypha you are speaking of is considered Old Testament! The Jews wouldn't include the N.T. because it is seperate to the OT. They chose not to add the OT Catholic apocrypha books because they do not pass the test of authenticity on one or more account.

But the Jews themselves did not have a single unified canon of Scripture until the Council of Jamnia in AD 92!

[sub_zer0]

But the Jews themselves did not have a single unified canon of Scripture until the Council of Jamnia in AD 92!

That has no bearing on whether the Jews should of accepted these books as OT canon. There are several ways in which inclusion was determined.

The Council of Jamnia was really to re-affirm what was already accepted. Having said that, you saying the canon of the OT was closed makes my case even more. The apocrypha, or writings rejected by the Jews should be rejected by the Catholics.

[Soc.Dem.]

That has no bearing on whether the Jews should of accepted these books as OT canon. There are several ways in which inclusion was determined.

The Council of Jamnia was really to re-affirm what was already accepted. Having said that, you saying the canon of the OT was closed makes my case even more. The apocrypha, or writings rejected by the Jews should be rejected by the Catholics.

Why should the Catholics reject Scriptures rejected by the Jews after they rejected Christ?

[Cedars]

I don't remember saying anything about the Fathers.



But the apocrypha you are speaking of is considered Old Testament! The Jews wouldn't include the N.T. because it is seperate to the OT. They chose not to add the OT Catholic apocrypha books because they do not pass the test of authenticity on one or more account.
Look at WHO the "Fathers" are, sub_zero! They are Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Cyprian of Carthage, Augustine, Jerome! These people mean nothing to you? Some of these people were martyrs! They are a much better source than Geisler and Nix! Also, please note the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage III in the FOURTH CENTURY, well before the 16th century.

[sub_zer0]

Why should the Catholics reject Scriptures rejected by the Jews after they rejected Christ?

What should of happened is the Catholics accept what was already set in stone before they accepted apocrypha, the OT and NT.

[Soc.Dem.]

What should of happened is the Catholics accept what was already set in stone before they accepted apocrypha, the OT and NT.

Set it stone by a different religious entity which was fiercly in opposition to the Church.

[Cedars]

What should of happened is the Catholics accept what was already set in stone before they accepted apocrypha, the OT and NT.
I am not clear of your meaning here. The Jews had their own agenda, and it was not a Christian one.

And you do realize, don't you, that it was the Catholic Church who canonized your Bible which is minus the books thrown away by the Protestants during the Reformation?

[Kong]

Where did you people get your misinformation from about the Catholic Church? Anti-Catholic Weekly?I am not a Catholic basher on purpose but perhaps by upbringing. In my defense I have many Catholic friends and I don’t care about the differences between Catholic and Protestant. The basic beliefs and salvation principal for all Christians is the same, the belief in the Holy Trinity and salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. All I learned about the Catholic Church was taught to me in Methodist Sunday school and by my Catholic friends (I have since converted to Islam).

When I was in the Kentucky/Tennessee area (late 70’s) I has told that Catholic’s are as bad as or worse than Jews because the Pope is the anti-Christ among other things. Jews were sometimes referred to as “Christ killers” but I never paid any credence to those teachings. Protestant Christians in the area persecuted me for own beliefs while Catholics (and many Protestants) have been very tolerant of my beliefs.

In my own POV (Point of View) Christianity was a Jewish cult rejected by the Jews and then taken to and accepted by non-Jewish populations. From this POV the OT (Old Testament) is of little importance and the NT (New Testament) of great importance because the NT brings a new religion that is distinctly different from and rejected by Judaism. I am not wrong. This is just my opinion and everyone is in my opinion is allowed to have one whether or not I agree with it.

The translation of the bible into English and other languages had a great effect on Christianity. I don’t think there is any question about it. The effect has lead to the growth of both Catholic and Protestant faiths.

Hehe.

To be honest, perhaps it has to do with the Latin Vulgate MSS?

I mean scripture doesn't contradict scripture by internally consistent. No offense intended, I just couldn’t help myself but as to being “internally consistent” that is an opinion not agreed upon by all. In all honesty I don’t understand the question. What do you mean by “the Latin Vulgate MSS”? I understand the Latin Vulgar to be the common language but what is MSS? As far as I know the Latin Vulgate and the Greek and Aramaic editions of the bible are generally consistent in meaning but differ in some idiomatic and grammatical areas.

I was taught in the Methodist Church that the bible and Catholic masses were held in Latin up until King James, but maybe that was only in reference to the Roman Catholic Church.

[sub_zer0]

I am not clear of your meaning here. The Jews had their own agenda, and it was not a Christian one.

The Jews, "agenda" you speak of, is merely holding sacred and faithfully sustaining through the generations their Scriptures. Likewise Christianity grew out of Judaism and built on these Scriptures to from the New Testament as they saw Jesus as the one spoken of in the Old.

Judaism is vital to Christianity and through Jesus Christ Christianity is vital to Judaism whether they see it or not.

[Cedars]

I am not a Catholic basher on purpose but perhaps by upbringing. In my defense I have many Catholic friends and I don’t care about the differences between Catholic and Protestant. The basic beliefs and salvation principal for all Christians is the same, the belief in the Holy Trinity and salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. All I learned about the Catholic Church was taught to me in Methodist Sunday school and by my Catholic friends (I have since converted to Islam).

When I was in the Kentucky/Tennessee area (late 70’s) I has told that Catholic’s are as bad as or worse than Jews because the Pope is the anti-Christ among other things. Jews were sometimes referred to as “Christ killers” but I never paid any credence to those teachings. Protestant Christians in the area persecuted me for own beliefs while Catholics (and many Protestants) have been very tolerant of my beliefs.

In my own POV (Point of View) Christianity was a Jewish cult rejected by the Jews and then taken to and accepted by non-Jewish populations. From this POV the OT (Old Testament) is of little importance and the NT (New Testament) of great importance because the NT brings a new religion that is distinctly different from and rejected by Judaism. I am not wrong. This is just my opinion and everyone is in my opinion is allowed to have one whether or not I agree with it.

The translation of the bible into English and other languages had a great effect on Christianity. I don’t think there is any question about it. The effect has lead to the growth of both Catholic and Protestant faiths...

As a Muslim, you may not care about the differences between Catholicism and Protestanism, and perhaps that indifference to varying beliefs (sometimes conflicting) of what Christianity SHOULD be led you to Islam. I do not know. That is, of course, your choice. It comes as no surpise to me that other Christian churches "teach" about the Catholic Church. That is the problem because their teaching is usually in error. If you want to learn about the Methodist Church, you should learn from the Methodist Church; if you want to learn about the Baptist Church, you should learn from the Baptist Church; likewise, if you want to learn about the Catholic Church, you should learn from the Catholic Church. I am amazed at what some of my Protestant friends and relatives "learn" in their own churches about supposed beliefs of the Catholic Church (a major one is that we worship Mary like God -- Not True -- or that we are taught salvation is only through works -- Not True). And there are some very un-Christian attitudes which would have their congregations believe that the Catholic Church is the Wh*re of Babylon, that the pope is the anti-Christ, among other hateful beliefs. These types of smears do no service to Christianity, and it is no wonder that some Christians abandon their faith. Christ wanted all Christians to be unified in faith, and Catholic bashing is exactly the opposite of what Christ wants for us.

To say that Jews are Christ-killers (and I realize you personally are not saying this) is to ignore that all of us are guilty of sin -- Christ died for ALL of us. Some people (those of the Christ-killer philosophy) sometimes just don't see the forest for the trees.

Christianity was indeed a Jewish sect that arose within Judaism; and it was rejected by many Jews (but certainly not all, as the first Christians were Jews) and then taken to and accepted by non-Jewish populations. However, for Christianity, the OT is of GREAT importance (not just the NT) because it shows the promises of the OT are fulfilled in the NT. Christianity is not a "new religion" but it is Judaism perfected. The first Christians (Jews) realized this (and of course the OT states -- prophetically -- that Christ would not be accepted by many Jews). If all Jews HAD accepted it, we would probably all have been called Jews. Instead, the Jews wished to separate themselves from the Christianized Jews and Gentiles.

God does not make mistakes (to me, to believe in Islam is belief that God made a mistake, that He abandoned Judaism and the Jews). God had a Plan from the Beginning; this is why the OT is important (and it should be to ALL Christians). God knew from the beginning that He would send a Messiah (Jesus) -- it is written in the O.T. The Jews do not deny the prophecy of the Messiah -- they just deny that it is Jesus -- even though He fufills every prophecy (as I said, the OT prophetically states that many Jews will not accept Christ as the Messiah).

While I respect your belief in Islam, I am sure you can respect my belief in Christianity (and specifically Catholicism). It appeals to my heart, my intellect and logic that no other can satisfy.

[Cedars]

The Jews, "agenda" you speak of, is merely holding sacred and faithfully sustaining through the generations their Scriptures. Likewise Christianity grew out of Judaism and built on these Scriptures to from the New Testament as they saw Jesus as the one spoken of in the Old.

Judaism is vital to Christianity and through Jesus Christ Christianity is vital to Judaism whether they see it or not.
sub_zero, surely you realize that since the Jews REJECTED Christ AND Christianity, they would make sure that nothing of Christ and Christianity could be interpreted as true; therefore, they would canonize only what they felt important to Judaism, not Christianity (don't forget that the Jews did not canonize until AFTER Christ died). If you want to only read books canonized by the Jews, then by all means, read only those books. But as a Christian, you are missing out. The OT books (including those that were thrown out during the Protestant Reformation) were canonized in the 4th Century, not the 16th Century. Certainly the EARLY CHRISTIANS felt the worth of these books, as I pointed out already in posts #74-76, even if the Protestant Reformers did not. Personally, my trust is with the EARLY CHRISTIANS (some of whom died as martyrs) -- they are a much better source!

[julierep]

sub_zero, surely you realize that since the Jews REJECTED Christ AND Christianity, they would make sure that nothing of Christ and Christianity could be interpreted as true; therefore, they would canonize only what they felt important to Judaism, not Christianity (don't forget that the Jews did not canonize until AFTER Christ died). If you want to only read books canonized by the Jews, then by all means, read only those books. But as a Christian, you are missing out. The OT books (including those that were thrown out during the Protestant Reformation) were canonized in the 4th Century, not the 16th Century. Certainly the EARLY CHRISTIANS felt the worth of these books, as I pointed out already in posts #74-76, even if the Protestant Reformers did not. Personally, my trust is with the EARLY CHRISTIANS (some of whom died as martyrs) -- they are a much better source!

Did the Jews canonize Psalms and Isaiah? Prohesy of Christ are found in both of these. Both of these can and is interpreted as true to Christians.

[Cedars]

Yes, they are in OT. But the Jews do not recognize Christ as the Messiah. They had their own agenda. Certainly as Christians we see many things that correspond to Christ in the OT that the Jews are blind to (refuse to recognize). My point is that what the Protestant Reformers threw out as "not inspired" was in fact contrary to the writings of early Christians who believed they WERE inspired. As I said before, I would trust the opinion of the early Christians (as they were THERE) as to what was inspired rather than the Protestant Reformers some 1600 years later. The early Christian writings are a much better source.

[sub_zer0]

sub_zero, surely you realize that since the Jews REJECTED Christ AND Christianity, they would make sure that nothing of Christ and Christianity could be interpreted as true; therefore, they would canonize only what they felt important to Judaism, not Christianity (don't forget that the Jews did not canonize until AFTER Christ died).

Indeed, what they discovered as canon was included into the Hebrew scriptures but the Jews, all the while had in mind a coming Messiah and the canon was finalized before Jesus was even born.

Jesus, the Messiah hoped for but not recognized as, quoted from 24 different Old Testament books. The New Testament as a whole quotes from 34 books of the Old Testament Books. While the Jews followed what was established as canon for a hundred years or so before Christ was born, it just so happens to be the one that still fortold of Jesus!

If you want to only read books canonized by the Jews, then by all means, read only those books. But as a Christian, you are missing out. The OT books (including those that were thrown out during the Protestant Reformation) were canonized in the 4th Century, not the 16th Century. Certainly the EARLY CHRISTIANS felt the worth of these books, as I pointed out already in posts #74-76, even if the Protestant Reformers did not. Personally, my trust is with the EARLY CHRISTIANS (some of whom died as martyrs) -- they are a much better source!

You obviously do not realize the importance of the OT, do not get me wrong the NT is the New Covenant with creation from God through Jesus Christ but without the OT, there is no background to understand the need for the NT.

The Hebrew canon (Old Testament) was set in stone far before the 4th century A.D., I assume you are referring to. In fact the Hebrew canonical books are found in the Greek translation of it called the Septuagint (LXX) which was composed in Alexandria, Egypt around 250 B.C. to 150 B.C.

Now the early Christians you allude to may have felt the need to talk about these books but certainly were never considered to be added to the formalized canon of the Jewish Scriptures. To be honest, the early Christians I look up to in the fashion you speal are the apostles that wrote the NT.

[Cedars]

Indeed, they did canonize what they discovered as canon, but the Jews had in mind a coming Messiah and the canon was finalized before Jesus was even born.

Jesus, the Messiah hoped for but not recognized as, quoted from 24 different Old Testament books. The New Testament as a whole quotes from 34 books of the Old Testament Books. So, while the Jews worried about their canon, it just so happens to be the one that still fortold of Jesus!



You obviously do not realize the importance of the OT, do not get me wrong the NT is the New Covenant with creation from God through Jesus Christ but without the OT, there is no background to understand the need for the NT.

The Hebrew canon (Old Testament) was set in stone far before the 4th century A.D., I assume you are referring to. In fact the Hebrew canonical books are found in the Greek translation of it called the Septuagint (LXX) which was composed in Alexandria, Egypt around 250 B.C. to 150 B.C.

No, there was no "official" Jewish canon until AFTER Jesus was born. The Septuagint arranged books not by content but by style (narrative, poetical, and prophetic). Some writings were in Hebrew (such as Moses and other prophets) and other writings were in Greek (post-exilic Jews), thus Greek collections (including Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch --including the Letter of Jeremiah, 1-3 Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, the Book of Jubilees, 1 Esdras, and additions to Esther and Daniel.") soon had books that the Hebrew lists never saw.
This situation was not considered a serious problem since Jewish religious instruction relied on oral tradition. Jesus used the Greek Septuagint to teach. Around 70 A.D. Christians and Jews were competing (Jerusalem and the Temple were razed) and the Christians were using Jewish scripture to do it. The Jews started questioning whether the Christians' "Greek Scripture" was really Scripture.

[Cedars]

Now the early Christians you allude to may have felt the need to talk about these books but certainly were never considered to be added to the formalized canon of the Jewish Scriptures. To be honest, the early Christians I look up to in the fashion you speal are the apostles that wrote the NT.
The apostles don't state in scripture how many books there are in the O.T., now do they? But the early Christians do -- and they are a better source than the Protestant Reformers!

[julierep]

The apostles don't state in scripture how many books there are in the O.T., now do they? But the early Christians do -- and they are a better source than the Protestant Reformers!

Can we let the grudge against the Protestant Reformers go already? There are many verses in the bible that would allow the break away of something that has been tainted. We both know what it takes to be accepted by God, and it doesnt have anything to do with what church you attend.

[sub_zer0]

The apostles don't state in scripture how many books there are in the O.T., now do they? But the early Christians do -- and they are a better source than the Protestant Reformers!

Which early Christian states that these books belong in Scripture?

[Cedars]

Can we let the grudge against the Protestant Reformers go already? There are many verses in the bible that would allow the break away of something that has been tainted. We both know what it takes to be accepted by God, and it doesnt have anything to do with what church you attend.

This is no grudge, but a matter of Truth. You think the O.T. books thrown out by the Protestant Reformers were tainted?

[Cedars]

Which early Christian states that these books belong in Scripture?
Go back and read posts 74-76.

[julierep]

This is no grudge, but a matter of Truth. You think the O.T. books thrown out by the Protestant Reformers were tainted?

No, Im talking about the reason for Protestant Reformation. The only Truth is God Himself. Anyone else is just fooling themselves.

[sub_zer0]

Go back and read posts 74-76.

I would rather go by what was quoted by the apostles and Jesus than any early Christian.

[Dangerrmouse]

I would rather go by what was quoted by the apostles and Jesus than any early Christian.

How do you know what they said?

[sub_zer0]

How do you know what they said?

Read the New Testament and see what books they quoted, the NT as a whole quotes 34 OT books.

[Cedars]

No, Im talking about the reason for Protestant Reformation. The only Truth is God Himself. Anyone else is just fooling themselves.
I was merely saying that I would trust the early Christian writings over the Protestant Reformers.

[julierep]

I was merely saying that I would trust the early Christian writings over the Protestant Reformers.

Can I ask you what it is that is in the books, thrown out by the Protestant Reformation, that makes a difference to the Truth?

[Cedars]

I would rather go by what was quoted by the apostles and Jesus than any early Christian.
Really, and where in scripture does it say which books of the O.T. should be in the canon and which should not? By your own admission, you should hold no such belief because no such listing of OT canon is stated in scripture.

[Cedars]

Can I ask you what it is that is in the books, thrown out by the Protestant Reformation, that makes a difference to the Truth?
Probably the same difference it would make to you if ANY of the other OT books were thrown out?

[julierep]

Probably the same difference it would make to you if ANY of the other OT books were thrown out?

Im not asking that, Im asking what difference it would make, since obviously these others were not thrown out. Now, if all others were thrown out and there were no OT, then obviously I wouldnt believe at all. But thats not what we are dealing with here. What we are dealing with (or what I am asking) is what is the difference in the Truth that I am missing?

[Cedars]

Im not asking that, Im asking what difference it would make, since obviously these others were not thrown out. Now, if all others were thrown out and there were no OT, then obviously I wouldnt believe at all. But thats not what we are dealing with here. What we are dealing with (or what I am asking) is what is the difference in the Truth that I am missing?

What difference in the Truth would you be missing if you left out another O.T. book? Perhaps there is another book of the OT that you could live without. Or perhaps you should read those books and find out for yourself. They have as much value as the other OT books.

[julierep]

What difference in the Truth would you be missing if you left out another O.T. book? Perhaps there is another book of the OT that you could live without. Or perhaps you should read those books and find out for yourself. They have as much value as the other OT books.

Am I missing something salvation wise? Thats my question. "Truth"

[Cedars]

It is not for me to say whether or not you are saved (or I, for that matter). That is a judgment of Christ. My point is that if you believe that the OT is of value to your Christian living and understanding, then these other OT books are also of value. If you do not look upon the OT books as any value, then I don't know what to say to you.

[julierep]

It is not for me to say whether or not you are saved (or I, for that matter). That is a judgment of Christ. My point is that if you believe that the OT is of value to your Christian living and understanding, then these other OT books are also of value. If you do not look upon the OT books as any value, then I don't know what to say to you.

No, it is not for you to say whether or not I am saved, thank goodness, and I am not asking you to do so. What I am asking is if there is more to the story I am missing from what I already have in the OT? Now where do you conclude by my statements that I do not look upon the OT books as having value, when clearly I have stated above that without the OT, I wouldnt believe at all.

[Cedars]

No, it is not for you to say whether or not I am saved, thank goodness, and I am not asking you to do so. What I am asking is if there is more to the story I am missing from what I already have in the OT? Now where do you conclude by my statements that I do not look upon the OT books as having value, when clearly I have stated above that without the OT, I wouldnt believe at all.
Ah, julierep, you jump to conclusions. I did not conclude any such thing. I was merely providing "both sides of the coin," so to speak, in hopes of a better communication. Let me put it this way, in hope of clarification: To me, all books of the bible are important -- OT and NT -- and that includes these other OT books not included in the Protestant Bible. Is there more to the story? Yes, obviously because there are more books. Would there be less to the story if some of the other OT books were missing? I think so. Is it necessary to Truth? Just as much as the rest of Scripture.

Essentially, it is like someone asking you which parts of the OT should you read -- you would reply, hopefully, all of it. It is the same with these books.

[julierep]

Ah, julierep, you jump to conclusions. I did not conclude any such thing. I was merely providing "both sides of the coin," so to speak, in hopes of a better communication. Let me put it this way, in hope of clarification: To me, all books of the bible are important -- OT and NT -- and that includes these other OT books not included in the Protestant Bible. Is there more to the story? Yes, obviously because there are more books. Would there be less to the story if some of the other OT books were missing? I think so. Is it necessary to Truth? Just as much as the rest of Scripture.

Essentially, it is like someone asking you which parts of the OT should you read -- you would reply, hopefully, all of it. It is the same with these books.

That is what I am asking you. What parts of the story am I missing that are not already included in the OT as I know it?

[Cedars]

That is what I am asking you. What parts of the story am I missing that are not already included in the OT as I know it?
I do not understand. You mean you want me to tell you in a nutshell what ALL these books state rather than read it for yourself?

[julierep]

I do not understand. You mean you want me to tell you in a nutshell what ALL these books state rather than read it for yourself?

Im not asking you to tell me the entire book word for word, rather I want you to sum up the story I am missing. Give me the gist, if you will. I mean, if it is important to salvation, you should be more the willing to fill me in.

[Cedars]

You can read it for yourself:

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/

[julierep]

You can read it for yourself:

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/

Are you telling me you cant pinpoint a story that I am missing that I dont already have? Providing a whole bible does nothing for me. I asked you if I was missing a story important to my salvation, you said yes. Therefore, if you could, please give me the gist, or the scripture that includes this missing information. That is a lot to wade through to find something I dont even know what I am looking for, dont you think?

[Cedars]

Are you telling me you cant pinpoint a story that I am missing that I dont already have? Providing a whole bible does nothing for me. I asked you if I was missing a story important to my salvation, you said yes. Therefore, if you could, please give me the gist, or the scripture that includes this missing information. That is a lot to wade through to find something I dont even know what I am looking for, dont you think?
Are you telling me that you are too lazy to read for yourself? Click on the book you want to read. There is a summary of each chapter.

[Cedars]

Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings—that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings.

...and with that, I am signing off for the night.

[julierep]

Are you telling me that you are too lazy to read for yourself? Click on the book you want to read. There is a summary of each chapter.

No, but what I am concluding from you is that I am not really missing a part of the story. If I was, you would be able to tell me what it is I am looking for. If I dont know that I am missing a part of the story, how would I know when I found it, if I ever found it. So it is clear to me that you know that there is not a part of the story I am missing that is needed for salvation. If you did, then it would be your duty to point it out to me, or at least inform me of what I was missing. I know you are not to lazy to do so because I have seen many a post that you have had to continue because you ran out of space. So, is it so hard for you to maybe cut what you normally use to prove a point, and just give me a couple of lines (the gist) of what I am supposed to be looking for?

[julierep]

Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings—that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings.
What is this telling me? I still have no clue as to what I am looking for.

...and with that, I am signing off for the night.

Of course you are, no surprise :rolleyes: .

[Cedars]

Am I to tell you what to think, julierep? Can you not read and discern for yourself? Do I know what you personally are missing in your life? Do I unerrantly know what will attract you to these scriptures? Will you trust MY interpretation?

[julierep]

Am I to tell you what to think, julierep? Can you not read and discern for yourself? Do I know what you personally are missing in your life? Do I unerrantly know what will attract you to these scriptures?

You should know exactly what I am missing as part of the story I am not getting in the OT that I have as you said yourself. Therefore it is up to you to provide me what it is I am looking for. Instead of wasting all this space arguing, why cant you clue me in? Thats all I am asking, yet you are unwilling to give me what you say I am missing.

[julierep]

Am I to tell you what to think, julierep? Can you not read and discern for yourself? Do I know what you personally are missing in your life? Do I unerrantly know what will attract you to these scriptures? Will you trust MY interpretation?

Who asked you to tell me what to think? I cant recall ever saying that. However, I have asked you numerous times to point out the story that you say I am missing from the books that the Protestant Reformation threw out. Only you would know this since you claimed this.

[Cedars]

What is this telling me? I still have no clue as to what I am looking for.
I was merely providing some help on what some of the name translations are.

What are you looking for when you read any of the OT?

[Cedars]

You should know exactly what I am missing as part of the story I am not getting in the OT that I have as you said yourself. Therefore it is up to you to provide me what it is I am looking for. Instead of wasting all this space arguing, why cant you clue me in? Thats all I am asking, yet you are unwilling to give me what you say I am missing.
Hello -- you need to READ THE STORIES to know what you are missing. As I said, there are brief summaries of chapters in each book.

[julierep]

I was merely providing some help on what some of the name translations are.

What are you looking for when you read any of the OT?

I look at history and prophecy and inspiration. Yet, you tell me that the books that I dont subscribe to is another part to the story needed for salvation. So, Ill ask again, what part of the Truth to salvation am I missing? What is it that you know about salvation, provided in the books that I dont have in my bible, that I dont have?

[Cedars]

Who asked you to tell me what to think? I cant recall ever saying that. However, I have asked you numerous times to point out the story that you say I am missing from the books that the Protestant Reformation threw out. Only you would know this since you claimed this.
Exactly. Why should I tell you what to think. Read for yourself and see what YOU think.

[julierep]

Hello -- you need to READ THE STORIES to know what you are missing. As I said, there are brief summaries of chapters in each book.

No, you said I was missing part of what is needed for salvation. What I want to know is what it is that I am missing from these books that would make a difference in my salvation.

I can read stories all day long, but since you say I am missing something very important to me which has to do soley with salvation, you need to clue me in on