Skip to comments.
The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible
Handsonapologetics ^
| Gary Michuta
Posted on 03/17/2012 7:26:45 AM PDT by GonzoII
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 601-617 next last
To: Salvation
With all due respect, Sal, that doesn’t in any way address my question.
41
posted on
03/17/2012 9:51:13 AM PDT
by
SuzyQue
To: Mr Rogers
"“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” - 2 Tim 3" I think it disingenuous for this verse to be spoken out of its scriptural and historical context in support of either the exclusivity of Scripture as the means of revelation or as a validation for the revision of Canon.
First, there was no single Jewish canon in the first century. Second, the largest Jewish populations lived outside of Palestine in lands in which the lingua franca was Greek. This included the Galilee, Syria and Greece. This population, the audience for much of St. Paul's writings, in fact used the Septuagint which contain the deuterocanonicals. They are referred to the Deutero or second canon because they come after the Pentateuch.
Remember, there were many other faux messiahs and prophets all claiming to be the one, none of which were ressurected. These included Simon of Peraea, Athronges, Menahem ben Judah, Simon bar Kokhba and even the Roman Emperor Vespasian. Paul's direction to adhere to Scripture, limited to the existing Old Testament, and not works in progress or yet unwritten, were the authentication of Jesus and His Gospel message Paul was teaching. Jesus was predicted over 450 times in Old Testament Scripture and this was a proof of His authenticity.
Lastly, the single biggest Protestant objection to the inclusion of the Deuterocanonicals in the Canon was an absence of a Hebrew language copy. This was proved wrong with the discovery of the Essenian manuscripts in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
42
posted on
03/17/2012 9:51:17 AM PDT
by
Natural Law
(If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
To: P.O.E.
“wouldn’t they be at least important from a scholarly perspective?”
Yes, I think they would have been. At a minimum, it helps to understand the context and background.
43
posted on
03/17/2012 9:52:11 AM PDT
by
SuzyQue
To: Mr Rogers
"Remember - the reason the Council of Trent addressed the canon was because no previous Council had done so authoritatively." That too is not true. The 4th century Councils of Rome and Carthage and the Synod of Hippo all affirmed the the present Catholic Canon. Trent was a definitive defense of the present Canon in response to the errors of the Reformation.
44
posted on
03/17/2012 9:57:40 AM PDT
by
Natural Law
(If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
To: GonzoII
The KJV is awesome, but can be a bit tedious to decipher - I use the NIV despite its “faults”.
45
posted on
03/17/2012 10:13:32 AM PDT
by
trebb
("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
To: trebb
"The KJV is awesome,..."While have difficulties with some of its translations I do give it credit for its beauty and style.
46
posted on
03/17/2012 10:18:12 AM PDT
by
Natural Law
(If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
To: Natural Law
1 - I quoted it to show that scripture - ALL SCRIPTURE - is good for teaching, and correcting. Thus a writing that is good for general reading, but that is NOT acceptable for doctrine, is NOT scripture. It just doesn’t meet the test.
2 - There WAS dispute about the canon among Jews, with the main division being those who argued for just the Pentateuch, and those including all of what we now call the Old Testament.
Jesus ended that discussion for his followers when he said, “34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.”
and, “44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
“Lastly, the single biggest Protestant objection to the inclusion of the Deuterocanonicals in the Canon was an absence of a Hebrew language copy.”
Not hardly. The objection is the same one Jerome made - that the Jews did not accept the Apocrypha as scripture. Jesus and the Apostles frequently cited the Old Testament for authority. They did not do so from the Apocrypha.
THAT is the main objection by Protestants, and it falls squarely in line with the teaching of the churches for 1500 years. The Council of Trent, in reaction to the Reformation, upped the ante on the Apocrypha - and then screwed up its listing, so that the term Deuterocanonical had to be invented in 1566.
47
posted on
03/17/2012 10:22:28 AM PDT
by
Mr Rogers
("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
To: Natural Law
If “the 4th century Councils of Rome and Carthage and the Synod of Hippo” were authoritative, then Trent would not have needed to take up the subject. Local councils were not binding. The Council of Trent was.
48
posted on
03/17/2012 10:25:19 AM PDT
by
Mr Rogers
("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
To: Mr Rogers
"that the Jews did not accept the Apocrypha as scripture."Be careful with your facts. "Some" Jews did not accept the Deuterocanonicals, most did. There were at least 5 "Jewish" Canons in the first century.
You can't ascribe an error in this to the Latin Church or even to St. Jerome. The Slavonic, the Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian and Coptic versions of the Old Testament include the Deuterocanonicals. Further, the Early Church Fathers all reference them frequently.
49
posted on
03/17/2012 10:44:07 AM PDT
by
Natural Law
(If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
To: Mr Rogers
"...were authoritative, then Trent would not have needed to take up the subject." Church history is an area that I have a fair amount of knowledge of. The Council of Trent was the 19th Ecumenical Council of the Church. It wasn't a single session or a single topic deal. It took place over a 12 year period.
Trent was hardly the first Ecumenical Council to address the Canon. The main purpose of the Council was to rebut and condemn the principles and doctrines of Protestantism and to clarify and reaffirm the doctrines of the Catholic Church on all disputed points. I think it accomplished this quite well.
50
posted on
03/17/2012 10:53:37 AM PDT
by
Natural Law
(If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
To: GourmetDan
Thanks, I’ll do some reading.
51
posted on
03/17/2012 11:02:28 AM PDT
by
SuzyQue
To: Natural Law
“”Some” Jews did not accept the Deuterocanonicals, most did.”
Jerome says you are wrong. The Jews say you are wrong. And Jesus made it clear what HE accepted - and he did not use the Apocrypha as scripture. I’ll go with the practice of Jesus...
“Trent was hardly the first Ecumenical Council to address the Canon.”
It was the first Ecumenical Council to determine the Canon. That is why it did so. If it had been addressed, once for all, earlier, then Trent would not have needed to do so. Indeed, Cardinal Cajetan would not have written the Pope as he did, if there had been binding direction before Trent.
Then Trent screwed up. The list it gave wasn’t complete. So three books of the Vulgate were moved:
“The Clementine differed from the manuscripts on which it was ultimately based in that it grouped the various prefaces of St. Jerome together at the beginning, and it removed 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses from the Old Testament and placed them as Apocrypha into an appendix following the New Testament.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgata#Clementine_Vulgate
Thus the Apocrypha became the Deuterocanon - because there had to be a way to reconcile the infallible list of Trent with the Old Vulgate that Trent also said was correct.
52
posted on
03/17/2012 11:25:53 AM PDT
by
Mr Rogers
("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
Only means “nothing objectionable” and “let it be printed”. Does not signify agreement.
To: GonzoII
54
posted on
03/17/2012 11:46:58 AM PDT
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: Mr Rogers
"Jerome says you are wrong. The Jews say you are wrong. And Jesus made it clear what HE accepted - and he did not use the Apocrypha as scripture." St. Jerome was not infallible, that is reserved collectively to the Episcopacy (Magisterium) and the Pope.
Jerome did not say the Deuterocanonicals were not Scripture, he only said that the rabbinical Jews of Jerusalem said they were not. In fact, St. Jerome wound up strenuously defended the Deuterocanonicals as inspired Scripture, writing in Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]; "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" The overwhelming majority of those that comprised the early Magisterium, the Church Fathers and other early Christian bishops regarded the deuterocanonical books as having exactly the same inspired, scriptural status as the other Old Testament books that Protestantism accepts. A few examples of this acceptance can be found in the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Third Council of Carthage, the African Code, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I (Epistle to the Corinthians), St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Hippolytus, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Pope St. Damasus I, St. Augustine, and Pope St. Innocent I.
Since you are dealing with translations of translations of translations you cannot establish that the passages from the Deuterocanonicals that are thematically the same as the Gospels did not arise as quotes. Jesus actually paraphrased much of his references to the Old Testament that you accept.
Over the 12 years and 25 sessions the Council made many decrees on nearly every aspect of Catholicism, reaffirming dogma and doctrine challenged by the Reformation and rebutting the heresies. How many of these have you studied to conclude that a pronouncement was issued ex nihilo (from nothing) to fill a gap in Catholic teaching? I would also like to know where you studied them and in what language.
55
posted on
03/17/2012 11:59:40 AM PDT
by
Natural Law
(If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
To: Mr Rogers
I have heard that one of the reasons the Jews didn't accept the apocrypha was because of Maccabees.
Apparently, the Jews could not accept those books as inspired because they put forth the Maccabee kingship as divinely anointed. But the Maccabees were not of the Davidic line so this conflicted with the rest of the OT. Do you know anything about this or can you verify?
You make interesting points about Jerome, the Council of Trent, etc. Thanks.
To: Natural Law
Over the 12 years and 25 sessions the Council made many decrees on nearly every aspect of Catholicism, reaffirming dogma and doctrine challenged by the Reformation and rebutting the heresies. Quite correct. As an armchair quarterback, I'd simply compare each heresy of Protestantism to the teachings of Simon Magus and go from there.
57
posted on
03/17/2012 2:01:45 PM PDT
by
MarkBsnr
(I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
To: MarkBsnr
"As an armchair quarterback, I'd simply compare each heresy of Protestantism to the teachings of Simon Magus and go from there." Mark, you are not suppose to pass the Vatican cheat codes unencrypted in an unsecured forum.
58
posted on
03/17/2012 2:22:18 PM PDT
by
Natural Law
(If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
To: what's up
"I have heard that one of the reasons the Jews...."Your error here is that you are referring to the Jews as though they were one single cohesive group. That is like saying that Anglicans, or Pentecostals speak for all Christians.
59
posted on
03/17/2012 2:35:16 PM PDT
by
Natural Law
(If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
To: Natural Law
I believe the Jews in general reject the idea that the Apocrypha is inspired.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 601-617 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
