If you could rewrite the Bible what would you change?

[thereselittleflower]

     It's not digressing at all Patriot.  It is very pertinent to the discussion of what is canon and what is not canon.

If you don't know where the list comes from that's ok - just say so.   The vast majority of christians have no idea where the canon comes from or what it actually is.   We say "The Canon of Scripture" but really know nothing of its history or what it really means.

 

The word "canon" comes directly from the actual "canons" of councils which decided many things in the Early Church.  These "canons" were numbered.   Each "canon" dealt with a different issue.   Each "canon" represents a decision made on that particular issue.  

"Canon" 1 might be regarding some question of attire for instance.  In one council, there could be 30, 40, 50 or more "canons"  ie decisions, about all sorts of things.   Some of these councils in the Early Church took up the question of what was to be accepted as scripture, and so included among all those canons on the many varied topics they would consider and make decisions on, was the "canon" of scripture.    

These Early Church councils found a need to set what was to be accepted as scripture apart from other writings that were not to be considered scripture - and the purpose of these "canons" was to signify and determine, VERY SPECIFICALLY, what could be read AS SCRIPTURE in the Mass. 

 

So when I ask you where do you get your list, or canon, of New Testament scripture, I am trying to find out a few things such as:

• Do you know where "the canon" of scripture comes from?
• Do you know where your list of New Testament scriptures come from?
• Do you now that the very same canons that give you the list of your New Testament scriptures ALSO give us the list of Old Testament scriptures?
• Do you know that the list of Old Testament scriptures IN THESE VERY SAME CANONS contain all 7 deuterocanonical books you call apocrypha?
• Do you know the actual lists of the books of the Old Testament and how they were laid out?
• Do you know that these 7 deuterocanonicals were placed in their respective places among the rest of the Old Testament scriptures and were not reserved for a middle section in the bible?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[thereselittleflower]

Patriot, so we are talking about the same thing, here are some of the decisions regarding the "Canon" of scripture from councils in the Early Church.  This is why we say  "The Canon of" scripture:

 

 

• "Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.'. The canonical books are:---Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena(Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:---the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted."
  Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393), in HCC,2:400
  
  "[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, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paraleipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John."
  Council of Carthage III, Canon 47 (A.D. 397),in DEN,39-40

 

This is what is meant by  "The Canon of" scripture.   Notice that they are "Canon 36" and "Canon 47" respectively.

 

To make it easier to follow the lists above:

 

"four books of Kings" = First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings.

"Paraleipomena" = Chronicles.

"five books of Solomon." = Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus.

"two books of Esdras" = Ezra and Nehemiah.

 

The 7 deuterocanonicals in the lists above would be:

• Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus (included in the 5 books of Solomon)
• Part of Daniel
• Tobias
• Judith
• I and II Maccabees

 

And notice they are included among the rest of the Old Testament canon, (not separated out into their own section).

 

And notice this is the same canon Trent affirmed over a millennium later.  Nothing new, nothing changed.

 

 

[The_Patriot21]

It is digressing if you are refusing to answer the point at hand. You made an assertion. At this point you need to either back it up with verifiable evidence or you need to admit that you were wrong about the history of these books. I am tired of meaningless debates with people who refuse to present evidence or admit they made a mistake. You can do one or the other or this debate is over, because I will not continue until you do.

[thereselittleflower]

12 minutes ago, the_patriot2015 said:

It is digressing if you are refusing to answer the point at hand. You made an assertion. At this point you need to either back it up with verifiable evidence or you need to admit that you were wrong about the history of these books. I am tired of meaningless debates with people who refuse to present evidence or admit they made a mistake. You can do one or the other or this debate is over, because I will not continue until you do.

It's ok   It think I made my point about the canon in which I gave historical evidence as to what was and was not declared to be in "the canon" of scripture and when this happened (more than a millennium before Trent).

 

I find it very odd how people will refer to "the canon" of scripture and accept all the New Testament books included in "the canon"  by the Early Church as listed in "the canons" above, but ignore books included in the Old Testament list in the very same "canons" the New Testament list is found in and claim they were never "canon."

 

 

[post]

lol i think if anyone is planning on re-writing the Bible they probably need to change this

Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.
(1 Corinthians 4:6) 

[Hippie333]

I have just been kinda wondering... what more books than are in the Bible now are needed>?  Is mostly a pointless discussion... I have always maintained that if God wished for more or less than what is in there now... it would be made so? My God created the Universe... getting a book to read as he wishes seems like an easy task no ?    What would I change about the Bible .. "nothing" .... what would I change about this conversation? ... the fact people want to change it now.. or think they can/should/ would.

God Bless,

Hip

 

[The_Patriot21]

46 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

It's ok   It think I made my point about the canon in which I gave historical evidence as to what was and was not declared to be in "the canon" of scripture and when this happened (more than a millennium before Trent).

 

I find it very odd how people will refer to "the canon" of scripture and accept all the New Testament books included in "the canon"  by the Early Church as listed in "the canons" above, but ignore books included in the Old Testament list in the very same "canons" the New Testament list is found in and claim they were never "canon."

 

 

You made no point. At all. It's irrelevant where the books of the NT came from-as I have said previously, the current 66 books all jive. All the books of the apocrypha do not. And I am disinclined to believe anything you say about the canon-seeing how wrong you were about the apocryphal books history. The books are heresy, the Bible is not.

[thereselittleflower]

Just now, the_patriot2015 said:

You made no point. At all. It's irrelevant where the books of the NT came from-as I have said previously, the current 66 books all jive. All the books of the apocrypha do not. And I am disinclined to believe anything you say about the canon-seeing how wrong you were about the apocryphal books history. The books are heresy, the Bible is not.

How is it irrelevant?    You even included them in the statement  "the current 66 books."

How am I wrong about their history?

I gave  you history about "the canon" of scripture.   This is something you can verify for yourself.

The same people who gave us the list of New Testament books gave us the list of Old Testament books in their decisions  - the particular "canon" of the respective council.  Why do people accept the New Testament list but not the Old Testament list contained in the same  "canon"  ?

 

Should we not be talking about "the canon" of scripture, which, by direct association, includes these councils of the Early Church and all the books they included?

Should we be talking about  "something else" of scripture?    I am quite confused by your posts right now.  I am not sure what you mean when you speak of the history of scripture and the books in our bible if you are saying these lists aren't historical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Teditis]

I agree that the Apocrypha books don't belong in the Bible... but I believe that Therese made her point clearly and succinctly that people used to believe that they belonged to it. 

[RustyAngeL]

On 12/27/2015 at 6:48 PM, oldzimm said:

I can't rewrite the Bible, I'm not qualified. (but then who is)

Amen and Amen Oldzimm!