Why does the Protestant Bible have 66 Books, while the Catholic Bible have 73?

[kartoonista]

Point taken. I know you're trying your best to change (just allow some time para makita naman nung iba yun). Just relax and chill in the meantime. Check your PM.

[Barakoman]

acknowledged.....

---------------
BTW, just curious, do youa have any comment on this thread's topic?

[akolouthos]

Roman Catholic Church convened the Council of Trent and on April 8 1546, by a vote of 24 to 15 with 16 abstentions, a decree (De Canonicis Scripturis) was issued in which, for the first time in the history of the Church, the question of the contents of the Bible was made an absolute article of faith and confirmed by anathema. (http://www.ntcanon.org/closing-west.shtml)

DoctorNO:

>The OT was originally cannonized by the Jewish council. About this time the newly formed >Catholic church Christian sect compiled the bible, thinking at first not to include the Jewish >scriptures but decided to include it anyway.

>A few years later, after careful study the Jewish Council decided to remove some of the books >originally included in their cannon due to its questionable sources and attributes....these >disqualified books are the Deutorocanonicals.

>Martin Luther simply went by the Jewish Councils decision and so the Protestant bible today >have less books than the Catholic bible.

This post is not meant to denigrate the teachings in the Bible (Catholic or Protestant) but we can see that the composition of the Bible was made by men. The decision to fix the number of books in the Bible was made through voting. If my source above is to be believed, more than half did not even agree to the composition.

To accept the Bible as if it is something that dropped from Heaven and is to be accepted as fixed for all times until the Second Coming is worth re-examining.

[abuGian]

2A. Who Decided What to Include in the Bible?

The question concerning how it was decided which books would become part of the Bible is the question of canonicity. A discerning person would want to know why some books were included in the canon while others were excluded.

1B. Meaning of the Word Canon

The word canon comes from the root word reed (English word cane, Hebrew form ganeh, and Greek form kanon). The reed was used as a measuring rod, and came to mean “standard.”The third-century church father Origen used the word “canon to denote what we call the ‘rule of faith,’ the standard by which we are to measure and evaluate.” Later the term meant a “list” or “index” (Bruce, BP, 95). As applied to Scripture, canon means “an officially accepted list of books.” (Earle, HWGOB, 31)It is important to note that the church did not create the canon; it did not determine which books would be called Scripture, the inspired Word of God. Instead, the church recognized or discovered, which books had been inspired from their inception. Stated another way, “a book is not the Word of God because it was accepted by the people of God. Rather it was accepted by the people of God because it is the Word of God. That is, God gives the book its divine authority, not the people of God. They merely recognize the divine authority which God gives to it.” (Geisler/Nix, 210).*

2B. Tests for the Inclusion in the Canon
From the writings of biblical and church history we can discern at least five principles that guided the recognition and collection of the true divinely inspired books. Geisler and Nix present the principles as follows (Geisler/Nix, GIB, 223-231):

1. Was the book written by a prophet of God? “If it was written by a spokesman for God, then it was a the Word of God.”

2. Was the writer confirmed by acts of God? Frequently miracles separated the true prophets from the false ones. “Moses was given miraculous powers to prove his call of God (Ex. 4:1-9). Elijah triumphed over the false prophets of Baal by a supernatural act (1 Kin. 18). Jesus was “attested to … by God with miracles and wonders and signs, which God performed through Him’ (Acts 2:22)…. [A] miracle is an act of God to confirm the Word of God given through a prophet of God to the people of God. It is the sign to substantiate his sermon; the miracle to confirm his message.”

3. Did the message tell the truth about God? “God cannot contradict Himself (2 Cor. 1:17-18). Nor can He utter what is false (Heb. 6:18). Hence, no book with false claims can be the Word of God.” For reasons such as these, the church fathers maintained the policy, “if in doubt, throw it out.” This enhanced the “validity of their discernment of the canonical books.”

4. Does it come with the power of God? “The Fathers believed the word of God is ‘living and active’ (Heb. 4:12), and consequently ought to have a transforming force for edification (2 Tim. 3:17) and evangelization (1 Pet. 1:23). If the message of a book did not effect its stated goal, if it did not have the power to change life, then God was apparently not behind the message.” (Geisler, GIB, 228) The presence of God’s transforming power was a strong indication that a given book had His stamp of approval.*

5. Was it accepted by the people of God? “Paul said of the Thessalonians, ‘We also constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God’s message. You accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God’ (1 Thes. 2:13). For whatever subsequent debate there may have been about a book’s place in the canon, the people in the best position to know its prophetic credentials were those who knew the prophet who wrote it. Hence, despite all later debate about the canonicity of some books. The definitive evidence is that which attests to its original acceptance by the contemporary believers.” (Geisler, GIB, 229) When a book was received, collected, read, and used by the people of God as the Word of God, it was regarded as canonical. This practice is often seen in the Bible itself.One instance is when the apostle Peter acknowledges Paul’s writings as Scripture on par with Old Testament Scripture. (2 Pet. 3:16)[McDowell, Josh, The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), 20-22.]

http://thebereans.net/arm-qa-bib-auth.shtml

[akolouthos]

>>“a book is not the Word of God because it was accepted by the people of God. Rather it was accepted by the people of God because it is the Word of God. That is, God gives the book its divine authority, not the people of God. They merely recognize the divine authority which God gives to it.” (Geisler/Nix, 210).

Pardon me, does this not look like circular reasoning?

So who is to be believed, the Protestants who say the Word of God is contained in 66 books or the Catholics who say that the Word of God is in 73 books? And they’re talking about the same God.

>>Was the book written by a prophet of God? “If it was written by a spokesman for God, then it was a the Word of God.”

So why can’t two apostles even agree on the genealogy of Jesus? Marcion of Sinope believed that the genealogy was written to justify the OT prophesy of the Messiah.


>> Did the message tell the truth about God? “God cannot contradict Himself (2 Cor. 1:17-18). Nor can He utter what is false (Heb. 6:18). Hence, no book with false claims can be the Word of God.” For reasons such as these, the church fathers maintained the policy, “if in doubt, throw it out.” This enhanced the “validity of their discernment of the canonical books

Regarding Heb 6:18

Isaiah 6:9-13
Jehovah commissioned Isaiah to deceive His people so He could punish them.

1Kings 22:22-23
Jehovah put a lying spirit into the mouths of His prophets.

I am reading on Marcion so maybe you could disabuse my mind. Marcion and the other “heretics” were declared as such because they lost out. If they won, the other side would be the “heretics”.

My main difficulty is this: granting what you said about the tests applied, why did the church still have to vote on it. And notice that the dissenters outnumber those in favor when they voted on the books of the New Testament. Earlier in fact, the Book of Revelation was not even included. Wasn’t there even a Book of Revelation by PETER?

There’s a thesis that says the threat from the churches established by Marcion forced the Roman Church to come up with the Bible to counter it. And they threw in the Book of Revelation just in case somebody has a mind to mess with it (the Bible) in the future. A conjecture, but plausible.

1 Peter 3:15

[ilustrado]

Originally posted by akolouthos
So why can’t two apostles even agree on the genealogy of Jesus? Marcion of Sinope believed that the genealogy was written to justify the OT prophesy of the Messiah.

I beg to differ on this point. As you will see from Mod kartoonista's thread Understanding the Gospels you will understand why it's contrary to your point above:

Originally posted by kartoonista
Birth stories
The birth stories are all from Mary’s angle, in contrast to Matthew’s focus on Joseph. It gives a very different feel to the narrative. Luke has more human interest and gives intimate details of the conception and delivery, even mentioning the swaddling clothes. Luke includes a genealogy of Jesus as Matthew does, but his is drawn from Mary’s side and goes back further, to Adam. Legally, Jesus is a descendant of David through Joseph, but his physical descent is traced through Mary, also to King David. So Jesus is a royal prince twice over.

So as you can see there was no disagreement on the part of the two writers. You can read more about it here.

[abuGian]

Pardon me, does this not look like circular reasoning?

The statement is proven by extrabiblical evidences:

1.Its Honesty
2.Its Preservation
3.Its Claims For Itself
4.Its Miracles
5.Its Unity
6.Its Historical And Geographical Accuracy
7.Its Endorsement By Christ
8.Its Prophetic Accuracy
9.Its Survival
10.Its Power To Change Lives

So who is to be believed, the Protestants who say the Word of God is contained in 66 books or the Catholics who say that the Word of God is in 73 books? And they’re talking about the same God.

#5.
------------------JEWS-------CATHOLICS------EVANGELICALS
OT---------------accepted-----accepted---------accepted
Apocrypha-------rejected-------accepted---------rejected
NT---------------rejected------accepted---------accepted

The OT is unanimously accepted.
The Apocrypha is rejected 2/3
The NT is accepted 2/3

So why can’t two apostles even agree on the genealogy of Jesus? Marcion of Sinope believed that the genealogy was written to justify the OT prophesy of the Messiah.

This was already refuted here in ROT/PEX it has it’s own thread brought by a Muslim named Menj

Anyway the answer isposted here.

As for the other contradictions, they’re treated in these sites:

http://thebereans.net/contra-main.shtml
http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm
http://www.tektonics.org/scripdex.html
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~werdna/...ns/cindex.html
http://www.unhindered.com/apolo/cont...ns/index.shtml
http://www.inerrancy.org/
http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/ntprob.html
http://hometown.aol.com/KingDavid8/C...ctionsICP.html
http://www.geocities.com/sm_man87/bib_contra.html
http://www3.pei.sympatico.ca/reese.c...radictions.htm
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/a...d/answered.htm
http://members.aol.com/twarren20/bibcontradic.html
http://www.faithofgod.com/contradictions.htm
http://www.dyeager.org/skeptic/
http://64.70.161.16/contradict.htm
http://www2.bibelcenter.de/bible/contradictions.php3
http://www.bible-infonet.org/Challen...s/01_01_08.htm
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/faqs.htm

[akolouthos]

Thank you AbuGian and Ilustrado for your patient replies. I can see the mark of a true Christian in both of you.

AbuGian, you just gave me a heavy load of reading assignments, he he.

Perhaps I am a gultton for punishment, but could you point me to some more websites that treat the early Church's (circa 100 - 200 CE) development from a socio-political perspective?

[akolouthos]

Is there anything in the expunged 7 books that would fundamentally alter our view of Christianity?

[abuGian]

Originally posted by akolouthos
Thank you AbuGian and Ilustrado for your patient replies. I can see the mark of a true Christian in both of you.

AbuGian, you just gave me a heavy load of reading assignments, he he.

Perhaps I am a gultton for punishment, but could you point me to some more websites that treat the early Church's (circa 100 - 200 CE) development from a socio-political perspective?

Thank you for the kind words. Please check this site: http://www.ccel.org

It contains historical accounts, refutations and exhortations from the early Christians.

[abuGian]

Originally posted by akolouthos
Is there anything in the expunged 7 books that would fundamentally alter our view of Christianity?

The Jews and the Evangelicals take them as historical pieces of documents (but that which contain Jewish myths and fables). To the Jews and the Evangelicals they show no sign of inspiration besides, they were written in what scholars call the 400 "Silent" Years--where no new revelation was expected.

[Federal_Warrior]

Buhayin muli itong very interesting topic......

[klapowcius]

why i thought you'd never ask

the catholics have 73 books because:

reason 1:
They were included in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament from the third century B.C.), which was the "Bible" of the Apostles. They usually quoted the Old Testament scriptures (in the text of the New Testament) from the Septuagint.

and reason 2:
Almost all of the Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. The deuterocanonical books were in no way differentiated from the other books in the Septuagint, and were generally regarded as canonical. St. Augustine thought the Septuagint was apostolically-sanctioned and inspired, and this was the consensus in the early Church.

but you already know that. scroll up please.

please note that by the time the church has come up with the bible, the protestant movement is not yet in existence. so technically, the bible preceeds the protestant movement. so technically, the protestant movement removed the books. that is just my chronological assessment of the events. an opinion, perhaps, but a logical opinion. but that's going ahead of myself.

reason 3:
The earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, such as Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), and Codex Alexandrinus (c.450) include all of the deuterocanonical books mixed in with the others and not separated.

but what is quaint is in the later years.

reason 4:
The practice of collecting these books into a separate unit dates back no further than 1520 (in other words, it was a novel innovation of Protestantism). This is admitted by, for example, the Protestant New English Bible (Oxford University Press, 1976), in its "Introduction to the Apocrypha," (p.iii).

reason 5:
Protestantism, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles due to their clear teaching of doctrines which had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 ff.; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 6:9-10), and intermediary intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other Reformers.

reason 6:
Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) "did not exist," and wanted to "toss it into the Elbe" river.

so the deuterocanonicals were not only deemed unuseful by the protestants, but luther also rallied to remove other parts of the bible that are now respected by the protestant movement.

okay, okay. funny story.

in revelations 8:3-4 it is said that: "And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God."

in tobit (a deuterocan removed by the protestant movement after the bible was put together) 12:15 it talks of the angel raphael: "I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One."

so why would you remove something that ties the whole story together? or is there something else that the protestants are bothered within this book (i ask this in honest curiosity)?

if the intercession of the dead saints bother the protestants, why not proceed to chuck the revelation part of the bible?

[klapowcius]

as far as i'm concerned, they can have 50 different bibles for all i care. just don't touch mine.

[DoctorNO]

Originally posted by klapowcius
as far as i'm concerned, they can have 50 different bibles for all i care. just don't touch mine.

If you dont use yours to belittle mine then we have a deal.

[klapowcius]

Originally posted by DoctorNO

If you dont use yours to belittle mine then we have a deal.

hey, as long as you folks stop telling us that we ruined the catholic bible by not removing the books, that's okay by me.

[klapowcius]

hey, i thought federal was interested in this topic.

[jmartyr]

ang tunay na kadahilanan kung bakit ang 66 lang ang dapat na kilalaning aklat sa biblia ay sapagkat hindi kinikilala ng mga hudyo ang mga aklat na isinama ng mga taga iglesia katolika.

[Ginataang_suso]

Originally posted by jmartyr
ang tunay na kadahilanan kung bakit ang 66 lang ang dapat na kilalaning aklat sa biblia ay sapagkat hindi kinikilala ng mga hudyo ang mga aklat na isinama ng mga taga iglesia katolika.

aggree!

at bilang karagdagan. ang 66 na aklat ay hindi lamang kinilala ng mga hudyo kundi pinagtibay din ng mga pariseo at mga lider hudyo sa konseho ng jamnia.

mga hudyo nga naman.

[klapowcius]

Originally posted by jmartyr
ang tunay na kadahilanan kung bakit ang 66 lang ang dapat na kilalaning aklat sa biblia ay sapagkat hindi kinikilala ng mga hudyo ang mga aklat na isinama ng mga taga iglesia katolika.

eh hindi din kinikilala ng mga judyo ang new testament. pano na yan? eh di wala ring kwenta lahat ng biblia sa mundo?

the jewish faith is different from christian faith. or did you not notice that?