Hoddie Posted December 3, 2016 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 423 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 244 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/07/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted December 3, 2016 A question from the Catholics here on Worthy Christian..... Can you tell/show us where you got your Canon of Scripture? I'm talking about the Canonical books that are those books which have been acknowledged as belonging to the list of books considerd to be inspired and to contain a rule of faith and morals. This question has been asked on numerous occasions in the past, and more recently in the now closed Lourdes thread. Many have claimed to have answered this question, but have failed to show any historical or Scriptural evidence to back it up. Back on the last page (pg.8) Hazard made an intersting comment coming from someone that adheres to the sola scriptura doctrine. as Follows. Hazard: "The term "canon" is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the bible. The difficulity in determining the biblical canon is that the bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible." Now if the bible does not give a list if the books that belong in the bible as Hazard states, how do Sola Scripturists determine that the books that are in the bible truly belong there? From a Protestant/nondenominational perspective, and if its not in the bible, by who's or what authority determined it? Do those of you that beleive the bible alone holds all truth, and is sufficient as a sole rule of faith agree with Hazard? If so, doesn't this contradict the premise of Sola Scriptura? Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willa Posted December 4, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 68 Topic Count: 185 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 14,224 Content Per Day: 3.33 Reputation: 16,647 Days Won: 30 Joined: 08/14/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2016 "Masoretic Text--Wikipedia The 2000 years old En-Gedi Scroll, found in 1970 but which had not had its content reconstructed until recently, found that the Book of Leviticus text in the En-Gedi scroll is 100% identical to the Hebrew text of the Book of Leviticus in the Masoretic Text.[5] The En-Gedi scroll is the first time a biblical scroll has been discovered in an ancient synagogue's holy ark, where it would have been stored for prayers, and not in desert caves like the Dead Sea Scrolls.[6]" Our 66 books of the Old Testament were taken from the Masoretic text, which is much more ancient than was originally thought, and which are preserved very accurately. It is true that Paul used the Greek text, but he was preaching to people who used the Koine Greek as their trade language. He also quoted a passage from the apocrypha in Jude which the people must have been familiar with but that doesn't mean the apocrypha is sacred writings. He also quoted Plato, but that doesn't make Plato's writings sacred The early Bibles were a collection of scrolls. The New Testament was also a collection of scrolls. Some of the collections differed from one area to another because the people could verify the authors in different areas. The core was pretty much the same with questions concerning some of the books toward the end of the New testament. The Egyptian Bible still differs from the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox New Testaments. It contains many more books of questionable origin as does the Ethiopian New Testament. They contain what we might call New Testament Apocrypha. Protestants use the Greek Orthodox New Testament otherwise known as the Majority Text, or the Byzantine text. The Textus Receptus was the basis of the King James Version. It is also based on the Greek Church's text but the translator was martyred before he could finish translating it into English; so a little bit of the New Testament, like the Revelation, was taken from the Roman or Alexandrian (Egyptian) text. Therefore Textus Receptus has a little bit of a mixture. Young's Literal Translation is a good reference for it. I use the New King James Version which is also Textus Receptus. ALT3 is based on the latest Majority text. (Analytical Literal Translation 3rd Edition). The American Standard Version of 1901 is one of the best translations of the Alexandrian Text. The WEB version is also based on it with edits that agree with the Majority text. NASV and ESV are based on ASV. Are you completely confused? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted December 4, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 596 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,047 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,792 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2016 1 hour ago, Hoddie said: A question from the Catholics here on Worthy Christian..... Can you tell/show us where you got your Canon of Scripture? Barns and Nobel and I just walked up to the check out stand paid for it and left. Why do you ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezra Posted December 4, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 134 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 8,142 Content Per Day: 2.36 Reputation: 6,612 Days Won: 20 Joined: 11/02/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2016 2 hours ago, Hoddie said: Can you tell/show us where you got your Canon of Scripture? Easy. The apostolic churches already had the Tanakh (Old Testament) since Christian churches came out of Jewish synagogues. Christ defined the canon of the OT as (1) the Law of Moses, (2) the Prophets, and (3) the Psalms. Those 24 Hebrew books are exactly the same as the 39 books in the Protestant OT. The Gospels, Acts and epistles were circulated among all the churches, and in fact you will find many epistles with instructions to have them read in other churches. So the books of the Bible were already in circulation by the end of the first century, and a New Testament canon was already in place before the end of the second century. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/muratorian.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoddie Posted December 4, 2016 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 423 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 244 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/07/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted December 4, 2016 5 hours ago, Willa said: "Masoretic Text--Wikipedia Hmmm.... Wikipedi huh? Well Willa, maybe you (or your source, Wikipedia) can explain why in Acts 7:14 St. Stephen says that Jacob came to Joseph with 75 people. The Masoretic Hebrew version of Genesis 46:27 says "70," while the Septuagint’s says "75," the number Stephen used. After pondering on this, wouldn't you agree Acts 7 provides an interesting piece of evidence that justifies the Apostolic use of the Septuagint? If not.... why not? After you respond to this, I'll address the rest of your post Are you completely confused? Not at all, but we'll soon see about you. Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoddie Posted December 4, 2016 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 423 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 244 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/07/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted December 4, 2016 5 hours ago, other one said: Barns and Nobel and I just walked up to the check out stand paid for it and left. So in other words, you got nothing! Go figure. Why do you ask? Sure you want to go there? Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marilyn C Posted December 4, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 30 Topic Count: 266 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 13,188 Content Per Day: 3.50 Reputation: 8,487 Days Won: 12 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/06/1947 Share Posted December 4, 2016 5 minutes ago, Hoddie said: Hmmm.... Wikipedi huh? Well Willa, maybe you (or your source, Wikipedia) can explain why in Acts 7:14 St. Stephen says that Jacob came to Joseph with 75 people. The Masoretic Hebrew version of Genesis 46:27 says "70," while the Septuagint’s says "75," the number Stephen used. After pondering on this, wouldn't you agree Acts 7 provides an interesting piece of evidence that justifies the Apostolic use of the Septuagint? If not.... why not? After you respond to this, I'll address the rest of your post Not at all, but we'll soon see about you. Peace Hi Hoddie, Just popped in here. Seems to me that 70 persons of the house of Jacob went to Egypt, (Gen. 46: 70) & there they met up with the rest of the family, (5) in Egypt. (Acts 7: 14) `Then Joseph sent & called his father Jacob & all his relatives TO HIM, 75 people. ` (altogether) Acts 7: 14) Those of the family in Canaan came together with the ones in Egypt. (70 + 5 = 75) Marilyn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoddie Posted December 4, 2016 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 423 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 244 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/07/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted December 4, 2016 4 hours ago, Ezra said: Easy. The apostolic churches already had the Tanakh (Old Testament) since Christian churches came out of Jewish synagogues. Christ defined the canon of the OT as (1) the Law of Moses, (2) the Prophets, and (3) the Psalms. Those 24 Hebrew books are exactly the same as the 39 books in the Protestant OT. The Gospels, Acts and epistles were circulated among all the churches, and in fact you will find many epistles with instructions to have them read in other churches. So the books of the Bible were already in circulation by the end of the first century, and a New Testament canon was already in place before the end of the second century. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/muratorian.html Then you should have no problem showing this to be true using your sola scriptura formula. Which reminds me, how come nobody has said if they agreed or dis-agreed with Hazards statement? Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezra Posted December 4, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 134 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 8,142 Content Per Day: 2.36 Reputation: 6,612 Days Won: 20 Joined: 11/02/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2016 21 minutes ago, Hoddie said: Then you should have no problem showing this to be true using your sola scriptura formula. The fact that the canon exists indicates that it was brought together and preserved by the Holy Spirit working through Christians. And Sola Scriptura means that we do not need to go to the Apocrypha or so-called Holy Tradition to obtain further Divine teaching. Scripture is entirely sufficient for every need of the Christian. 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Tim 3:15-17). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted December 4, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 596 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,047 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,792 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2016 6 hours ago, Hoddie said: So in other words, you got nothing! Go figure. Sure you want to go there? the the whole point of my post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts