If the bible is the inspired Word of God, by what right did the Protestant church remove 7 books of the original bible? They were removed by men who were rebelling against the original church.
In todays world, with few exceptions, when new churches are formed they use the same bible. How then was it ok, for the men of the past, to remove those books?
Originally posted by Pudgenik If the bible is the inspired Word of God, by what right did the Protestant church remove 7 books of the original bible? They were removed by men who were rebelling against the original church.
In todays world, with few exceptions, when new churches are formed they use the same bible. How then was it ok, for the men of the past, to remove those books?
Originally posted by HandyAndy The apocryphal books: Sirach, Tobit. Wisdom. Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch.
wikipedia:
"Those canons were not challenged until the Protestant Reformation (16th century), when both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches reaffirmed them. The reformers rejected the parts of the canon that were not part of the Hebrew Bible and established a revised Protestant canon.[2] Thus, concerning the Old Testament books, what is thought of as the "Protestant canon" is actually the final Hebrew canon."
"The pre-Christian-era Jewish translation (into Greek) of holy scriptures known as the Septuagint included the writings in dispute. However, the Jewish canon was not finalized until at least 100–200 years into the A.D., at which time considerations of Greek language and beginnings of Christian acceptance of the Septuagint weighed against some of the texts."
"Those canons were not challenged until the Protestant Reformation (16th century), when both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches reaffirmed them. The reformers rejected the parts of the canon that were not part of the Hebrew Bible and established a revised Protestant canon.[2] Thus, concerning the Old Testament books, what is thought ...[text shortened]... age and beginnings of Christian acceptance of the Septuagint weighed against some of the texts."
You left out the good part:
"Among some Protestants, apocryphal began to take on extra or altered connotations: not just of dubious authenticity, but having spurious or false content, not just obscure but having hidden or suspect motives. Protestants were (and are) not unanimous in adopting those meanings. The Church of England agreed, and that view continues today throughout the Lutheran Church, the worldwide Anglican Communion, and many other denominations. Whichever implied meaning is intended, Apocrypha was (and is) used primarily by Protestants, in reference to the books of questioned canonicity. Catholics and Orthodox sometimes avoid using the term in contexts where it might be considered disputatious or be misconstrued as yielding on the point of canonicity. Very few Protestant published Bibles include the apocryphal books in a separate section (rather like an appendix), so as not to intermingle them with their canonical books."
Originally posted by Pudgenik If the bible is the inspired Word of God, by what right did the Protestant church remove 7 books of the original bible? They were removed by men who were rebelling against the original church.
The Church which joins together the old covenant with the new testament. At the root of this question is what happened (or what didn't happen, because the prophets were supposedly not prophecying) during this intertestamental period. Those few centuries BC are shrouded in darkness. Antiochus IV was a psychotic ruler who came hell-bent on destroying Jewish culture, and so my have destroyed any scriptures that were being copied. However, this led to the Maccabean uprising from which books you gather.
Originally posted by Pudgenik If the bible is the inspired Word of God, by what right did the Protestant church remove 7 books of the original bible? They were removed by men who were rebelling against the original church.
In todays world, with few exceptions, when new churches are formed they use the same bible. How then was it ok, for the men of the past, to remove those books?
Even though they were considered to be of historical significance like the writings of Josephus, they were not considered inspired writings. So the Protestants decided not to include them within the Holy Bible.
Originally posted by RJHinds Even though they were considered to be of historical significance like the writings of Josephus, they were not considered inspired writings. So the Protestants decided not to include them within the Holy Bible.
You are not addressing the issue. The issue is by what authority can the Protestant church decide that certain books which were in the Bible for over 2000 years, all of a sudden they are not inspired? Why?
The Septuagint [the Bible used by the Apostles] was around for over 200 years before Christ and contained the missing books. The 1611 KJV included these books but was removed from the KJV around the early 1800s.. thats more than 2000 years of 'apparently inspired'.
Originally posted by Rajk999 You are not addressing the issue. The issue is by what authority can the Protestant church decide that certain books which were in the Bible for over 2000 years, all of a sudden they are not inspired? Why?
The Septuagint [the Bible used by the Apostles] was around for over 200 years before Christ and contained the missing books. The 1611 KJV included thes ...[text shortened]... moved from the KJV around the early 1800s.. thats more than 2000 years of 'apparently inspired'.
It is by the authority of the Holy Spirit and the inspired scripture that those uninspired books were removed. Christ nor the apostles never referred to any of them as being part of inspired scripture.
Originally posted by RJHinds It is by the authority of the Holy Spirit and the inspired scripture that those uninspired books were removed. Christ never referred to any of them as being part of inspired scripture.
Now you sound like a JW. You have a special connection with the Holy Spirit that tells you what is inspired and what is not.
Originally posted by Rajk999 Now you sound like a JW. You have a special connection with the Holy Spirit that tells you what is inspired and what is not.
Where did I say such a thing? I was only giving my belief as to why they were removed based on my knowledge of the situation. They were never part of the Hebrew cannon, as I understand it, anyway.
"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)
Originally posted by RJHinds "The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historica ...[text shortened]... )
21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired:
http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm
Does Philip Schaff have an answer as to why the Bible included the additional books for over 2000 years and then it became uninspired?
Originally posted by Rajk999 Does Philip Schaff have an answer as to why the Bible included the additional books for over 2000 years and then it became uninspired?
You make the assumption that the Holy Bible included those books as being recognized as inspired, however that was never the case. Check out my reference for an answer.
Bible: 7 books removed by Protestant church.
25 Jan '14 17:16
Back to Top