Why were 14 books ripped out of the King James Bible in 1885?

page: 8
31
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




Lets not get too cute. The Holy Spirit was the real author of the text, the Biblical "authors" only held the writing utensils. The "fingerprint" of the Author is the heptadic structure underlying the text.


I understand that. Actually, some writings were given by the Chief Angel as well to the author. Of course, signed off by Father. But, these minor details are not important. (Man wouldn't have known the difference, as him and Fathers spirit feel about the same when coming down here, to man, and voice is just as strong.)

I am trying to say, how did man decide which ones were inspired or not? Did they ask the Holy Spirit which ones to include or remove?
edit on 9-7-2012 by jhill76 because: (no reason given)


Gabriel gave some scripture to Daniel. But the bigger elephant in the room would be:

Why was God impotent to prevent man from excluding works He willed to be included in the canon we hold today? Gotta love the inversion principle!




posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 


Paul was an apostle, personally anointed and taught by Christ. And I gave the NT authors who were not apostles because you asked for such. The OT was penned by either kings or prophets of YHVH.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by adjensen
 




1) A text needed an Apostolic connection - it needed to be written by an Apostle, or sourced directly from one


May I ask, how did the authorities decide that God wouldn't come to another who was not an apostle to give to write?


It wasn't a matter of God not coming to someone -- if you look at the Catholic Church, they're still open to non-private revelation. Rather, it was a matter of establishing standards and closing the Canon, since the essentials of salvation needed to be included in the texts. And it's tough to argue that one needed to have personally interacted with Christ to have the authority to speak for him.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




Why was God impotent to prevent man from excluding works He willed to be included in the canon we hold today? Gotta love the inversion principle!


This same question can be applied to almost anything in the world. Why world hunger, why wars, why rape? This is of mans doing. Does that say God is not capable to move his hand to correct these things, no.
edit on 9-7-2012 by jhill76 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jhill76
 


Paul was an apostle, personally anointed and taught by Christ. And I gave the NT authors who were not apostles because you asked for such. The OT was penned by either kings or prophets of YHVH.


So, is the below invalid?



1) A text needed an Apostolic connection - it needed to be written by an Apostle, or sourced directly from one



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jhill76
 


Paul was an apostle, personally anointed and taught by Christ. And I gave the NT authors who were not apostles because you asked for such. The OT was penned by either kings or prophets of YHVH.


So, is the below invalid?



1) A text needed an Apostolic connection - it needed to be written by an Apostle, or sourced directly from one


No, Jude was Jesus' brother, Mark wrote on behalf of Peter, and Luke wrote on behalf of Paul.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 




It wasn't a matter of God not coming to someone -- if you look at the Catholic Church, they're still open to non-private revelation. Rather, it was a matter of establishing standards and closing the Canon, since the essentials of salvation needed to be included in the texts. And it's tough to argue that one needed to have personally interacted with Christ to have the authority to speak for him.


Understood. Was there ever a debate on let's include something in between the OT, and the NT, for the ones that were deemed not inspired?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Yes, and not only Paul, Luke interviewed multiple eyewitnesses. And you can even toss Silvanus into the mix, but again he was also writing for Peter as an amanuenses.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




Why was God impotent to prevent man from excluding works He willed to be included in the canon we hold today? Gotta love the inversion principle!


This same question can be applied to almost anything in the world. Why world hunger, why wars, why rape? This is of mans doing. Does that say God is not capable to move his hand to correct these things, no.
edit on 9-7-2012 by jhill76 because: (no reason given)


All those things are not His Word. He values His Word even above His own Name. Not even in the same ballpark bro.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76
Understood. Was there ever a debate on let's include something in between the OT, and the NT, for the ones that were deemed not inspired?


Do you mean the period between the Old Testament and the New? Or do you mean just in general?

If you mean the former, I don't know. If you mean the latter, I don't know, lol.

Actually, there was a fair bit of debate, we know, but one of the first Canon lists that we have has most of the books of the New Testament listed on it. Iranaeus listed everything, except for Philemon (which a lot of people still wish wasn't include, lol,) 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude, and included one of Clement's letters and the Shepherd of Hermas, which a lot of people seemed to favour, but lost out in the end (too much of a story, in my mind.)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jhill76
 


Paul was an apostle, personally anointed and taught by Christ. And I gave the NT authors who were not apostles because you asked for such. The OT was penned by either kings or prophets of YHVH.


So, is the below invalid?



1) A text needed an Apostolic connection - it needed to be written by an Apostle, or sourced directly from one


I'd say it's correct save for perhaps Judas. He didn't need apostolic authority seeing as he was the half-brother of Christ.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jhill76
Understood. Was there ever a debate on let's include something in between the OT, and the NT, for the ones that were deemed not inspired?


Do you mean the period between the Old Testament and the New? Or do you mean just in general?

If you mean the former, I don't know. If you mean the latter, I don't know, lol.

Actually, there was a fair bit of debate, we know, but one of the first Canon lists that we have has most of the books of the New Testament listed on it. Iranaeus listed everything, except for Philemon (which a lot of people still wish wasn't include, lol,) 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude, and included one of Clement's letters and the Shepherd of Hermas, which a lot of people seemed to favour, but lost out in the end (too much of a story, in my mind.)


Remember the former is prophesied at the tail end of the Book of Daniel.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




All those things are not His Word. He values His Word even above His own Name. Not even in the same ballpark bro.


Understood. I don't want to derail this thread, we will touch on this topic later.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
And as for the Old Testament, the Catholic Bible includes a number of books that are not in the Protestant Bible (the subject of this very thread) and I think that the sole argument for their exclusion was that they were Greek texts, not Hebrew, so whether they were truly "Jewish" was called into question. Catholics like the missing books (Macabees has a bit that figures prominently into the Doctrine of Purgatory, and the additional prayers in 3 Daniel are used quite often in the rotation of the Liturgy of the Hours) but I suspect most people aren't missing much in the Apocrypha.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 


That would make sense. The Bible seems to speak on multiple levels and is regarded as doing so in alot of circles, it would only make sense that it would also be considering future generations as well. Makes me sort of playfully think about texts which have been buried, lost, discovered, and await to be discovered.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




All those things are not His Word. He values His Word even above His own Name. Not even in the same ballpark bro.


Understood. I don't want to derail this thread, we will touch on this topic later.


Agreed. Just remember it was the Psalmist who declared He magnifies His Word above all His Name.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
And as for the Old Testament, the Catholic Bible includes a number of books that are not in the Protestant Bible (the subject of this very thread) and I think that the sole argument for their exclusion was that they were Greek texts, not Hebrew, so whether they were truly "Jewish" was called into question. Catholics like the missing books (Macabees has a bit that figures prominently into the Doctrine of Purgatory, and the additional prayers in 3 Daniel are used quite often in the rotation of the Liturgy of the Hours) but I suspect most people aren't missing much in the Apocrypha.


And Martin Luther wanted to keep them, which brings to mind the old saying: "Martin Luther may have left the Catholic church but the Catholic church didn't entirely leave Martin Luther."



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

 
One of the prophecies mentioned in the New Testament is a quote from a book not in the Bible. Not looking it up right now. Something in Jude?

reply to post by jhill76
 

Well, some of it was plain historical documentation, not that there was all that much to live by. Acts comes to mind, not a lot of direct education or rules, but is there to document the first generation of Christianity, in Jerusalem, and the missionary trips of Paul. The big thing that comes from is is that Greek (Gentiles, Non-Jewish) Christians are accepted, but are not forced to follow OT laws that Christ did not directly command, besides abstaining from eating meat sacrificed to Idols--even that's expounded on under Paul. More than 1/2 the Old Testament is just historical dialogue, not a lot pertaining to laws or commands. The big reason not to ignore these? Evidence of cultural influences on commands. Evidence of people that we're still trying to find, archaeologically (few, now). (Hittites, for a long time, were doubted to exist, when in the book of Joshua they were described at least as a bunch of city-states bound together. At most? Ran more like Egypt.)

As for other books? Some are social commentary, warning about another round of captivity. Get a hold of a Bible in Chronological order, as best they can tell, and it starts to make more sense.

But in the New Testament:
Matthew 16:

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
This is Christ speaking directly to Peter, and possibly, by extension, to the whole of Apostles. 19b should read: "whatever you bind on earth has been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth has been loosed in heaven." Tense is wrong in English. It's not Peter that makes the law, but that the Law already set comes out of him. If we take Christ's word as Authoritative, from Him, then by this, we have to accept Peter.

So, if we accept Peter:
2 Peter 3:15-16

15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
Peter vouches for Paul, through the authority given to him by Christ.

This isn't the only way to "establish authority" in the scriptures. The other route is by whom has the power over miracles. That takes much longer to wrangle out. Which makes some sense. Someone who is obviously dead, who comes back to life of his own accord has the power to dictate your life to you, and it's kind of silly to stand against that, if and when it's true. Someone who makes water heave up from the earth is not someone you have the power to cross. I'm not talking about levitation, or claiming a prayer healed your cold virus, some 2 weeks later. I'm talking about being dead so long that your blood separates into layers, and you get up and walk after that. If this is real, you can't touch it.

And this just covers some of internal authority.





new topics
top topics
 
31
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join