ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Number Of Books In Bible

Where is it written that the bible should only have 66 books?
Who determined and when was it determined that the bible should only have 66 books?

Join Our Christian Singles and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---francis on 5/11/12
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog



The bible with several books was established around 325 ad.
The protestants through protesting removed some of the books thus changing the word of God.
We have to remember that nothing happens that God does not know about.
We also know that anything to do with rebellion and such is not from God.
So, this tells me the protestants should never have removed those books from the Bible.
Does no one realize that the enemy(satan) is here to divide the church body to make it weaker?
I have realized that. That is what he did when the great schism happened and when the protestant movement happened. Dividing God's people. Once we stop being blind to this very real fact, we can get on with believers believing God.
---ginger on 5/17/12


Eloy:

Yes, you did post "your own" etymology of the word "catholic". Your etymology disagrees with others, and it is wrong.

Web search for dictionary catholic universal finds many references to dictionaries deriving "catholic" from "universal".

Web search for dictionary catholic castle finds many hits, but NONE show an etymology of "catholic" derived from "castle".

I have many witnesses. You have zero. Guess who meets the biblical standard for truth, and who does not?

(Deutronomy 17:6, 19:15, Matthew 18:16, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19, Hebrews 10:28, Revelation 11:3 - themselves seven witnesses to the legitimacy of this criterion.)
---StrongAxe on 5/16/12


Francis, Come on now. Maccabees is already substantiated as NonScripture, for it fails to pass the criteria set for acceptance, as I have already posted: "In II Maccabees 15:11-14 contains the heresy that deceased saints are interceding in heaven for those on earth. But the Bible in I Tm.2:5+ Hb.4:14-16+ 8:1,2 teaches that it is the Lord Jesus Christ, our great High Priest, whom alone is the only Mediator for us in Heaven, and not any deceased saints." Therefore since maccabees contains false doctrine, which plainly contradicts the Holy Scripture, the writing must be rejected as Unholy.
---Eloy on 5/16/12


strongax, I already posted the etymology of the latin word "catholic", which if I recall correctly in my research years ago on the origins of NonChristian religions, the latin word was also akin to the latin word "cathedral".
---Eloy on 5/16/12


"Roman Catholic" is an ambiguous term!
---1st_cliff on 5/16/12




Eloy:

You said: "catholic" ( < Latin: kata + aula + -icus), "of castle, follower of church".

Which dictionary says this? Latin: kata? Latin only used K to write Greek names.

My dictionary says (condensed):

1. broad or wide-ranging
2. universal, involving all
3. of whole Christian body or church

Origin:
1300-1350, Middle English < Latin catholicus < Greek katholikos general, equivalent to kathol ( ou ) universally (contraction of kata holou according to the whole, see cata-, holo-) + -ikos -ic

This means "universal", and has nothing to do with "castles". The key part is "holou", not "kata".
---StrongAxe on 5/16/12


whenever any writing contradicts the doctrine already in the Holy Scripture, it is an UnHoly writing proven to not be from God. ---Eloy on 5/16/12
No disagreements here.

But look at what I posted:
1: The little horn is Antiochus Epiphanes
2: the cleansing of the samctuary done by the order of Judas Maccabeus:
3: feast of dedications was the feast in which Jesus took part
4: That saints in heaven can interceed on our behalf.

These are beliefs held by most denominations, and the book of maccabees support these doctrines strongly

unless you are saying that these doctrines are ALL wrong?
---francis on 5/16/12


francis, No Francis, whenever any writing contradicts the doctrine already in the Holy Scripture, it is an UnHoly writing proven to not be from God. This standard of gaging writing has nothing to do with personal acceptance or rejection, but instead the doctrines from God are already established in the Holy Writ, and therefore when another writing is presented to the people it is judged accordingly against the Holy Scripture already proven to be from God. And if the content of the presented writing contradicts the Holy word, then that by itself is grounds and fundamental proof of NonInspired writing.
---Eloy on 5/16/12


And Maccabees has already been proven to be riddled with false doctrines,
---Eloy on 5/16/12

My point: one man's false doctrines is another man,s truth. Which is why some bibles have the maccabeees.

Demoninations which belive that:
1: The little horn is Antiochus Epiphanes
2: the cleansing of the samctuary done by the order of Judas Maccabeus:
3: feast of dedications was the feast in which Jesus took part
4: That saints in heaven can interceed on our behalf.

should have no problems with maccebbes as part of their bible. Because these doctrines are in maccabees
---francis on 5/16/12


francis, You continue to err, for Holy Scripture is not up for any private debates, but the writing must pass the criteria established. And Maccabees has already been proven to be riddled with false doctrines, and therefore wholly condemned by orthodox Judaism and Christianity: maccabees has failed to pass the criteria, and has been proven to not be from God, and is not Holy Scripture.
---Eloy on 5/16/12




God's children know that what is our Father's word, and that what is a stranger's word. For example, when you compare a counterfeit dollar bill side-by-side to a genuine bill, at face value on the surface the copy or fake money may appear to look-like the real money, but at closer examination it becomes very evident that the copy is not a genuine bill. The same thing applies to God's word in comparison to man's word, at face value man's word may mimic or imitate God's word, but on closer examination we can clearly see that it is not God's word, nor derived from God.
---Eloy on 5/16/12


Eloy, I just pray that God will bless you and open your heart someday.
---Catholicus on 5/16/12


References supporting the 5 point criteria to validate o.t. writings:
3) Right doctrine- Is.8:20+
---Eloy on 5/16
This is where a fair challenge has been made.
each denoination has it's own doctrine, each ofcourse beliefs his doctrine to be right. I gave three doctrine in maccabees which to many christians are correct doctrine. If the doctrine is correct, then one can make a fair arguement that it is also insprired. Which would mean that maccabees, like Esther has met the criteria
---francis on 5/16/12


cluny, It is plain to see that you have not gotten your "presbyterian bi-focals" yet, for all your postings are still falsehood.
---Eloy on 5/16/12


References supporting the 5 point criteria to validate o.t. writings:
1) Inspired- Ex.34:27+ Dt.6:1-8+ Jer.30:2.
2) Virtuous- Ps.119:93,97-105,129,130,137,138,142,144,151,152,154,160+ Is.55:11.
3) Right doctrine- Is.8:20+ Jer.14:14,15+ 23:21,22.
4) Date written- sel-explanatory. The dictations were scripted from the time of Henoch up to the time of Nechemiah.
5) Usage- Ne.8:1-12.

When writings failed this criteria, they were totally rejected by the Hebraic leaders and the Jewish people, and counted as NonScripture, just as the apocrypha writings have been rightly rejected and never a part of Holy Writ.
---Eloy on 5/16/12


But the books of Maccabees ARE in the Bible, francis.

The question is why do YOU exclude them?
---Cluny on 5/15/12

I see your point
If you read my reason for including them, you will see that some christian doctrines are supported only by the Maccabees. SO my question would be to those christians who hodl those doctrines as true why would they object to have this book included

How then is this book any different from the book of Esther?
---francis on 5/16/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


Eloy:

Many Catholics have left catholicism and become evangelical Protestants. Also, many evangelical Protestants have left Protestantism and become Cathlics.

There are more Catholics who consider it "common knowledge" that Protestants are deluded than there are Protestants who consider it "common knowledge" that Catholics are deluded.

The fact that you seem to believe that anyone who believes as you do must be right, and anyone who believes otherwise must necessarily be wrong, does not make it so.
---StrongAxe on 5/15/12


catholicus, A catholic is no more a Christian, than a Roman is a Jew or an idolater a worshipper of God.
"catholic" ( < Latin: kata + aula + -icus), "of castle, follower of church".
"Christian" ( < Greek: Xristos + -ianos), "of Christ, follower of Christ".
God has no mother, God is before all things existed. Thus the only God Jesus did create the woman Mary, and Mary did not create Jesus. Mary has no divinity nor pre-existence before her Adamic birth on earth, whereas Jesus being very God created Adam and Mary and all flesh. There is no weaker vessel in the Godhead, only the Everlasting King of kings and the Lord of lords, Christ Almighty.
---Eloy on 5/15/12


\\The catholic "Hails Mary" which is idolatry, but the Christian "Hails Jesus" whom is The Lord God: It is "Hailelu-JAH!", it is "NOT Hailelu-Mary!"\\

Wrong again, as in everything youm say, Eloy.

The Hail Mary is taken from Luke 1.

And "Hallelu-" does NOT mean "Hail," but "Praise."

Eloy, have youm ever knelt before the Throne of Grace? Don't you want to be saved?

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/16/12


The Hebrew acceptance of the Biblical Old Testament books:
1) Valid authorship- the scripture had to be written by a Prophet, or holy man inspired by God.
2) Virtuous- the scripture had to be virtuous: being wonderful, enlightening, righteous, faithful, the truth, everlasting, and life-giving, (and may cause repentance- Ne.8:9-12+ Jer.23:22).
3) Right doctrine- the scripture had to be in accordance with scripture already given and proven worthy.
4) Date written- the scripture had to be written between 3507 B.C. (from the first scripting), and 458 B.C. (from Nechemiah's time).
5) Usage- the scripture had to be accepted and read in the hearing of the Hebrews.
---Eloy on 5/16/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


Eloy, I don't understand you. What do you mean by "common knowledge"? Do you mean that it is common knowledge that, for instance, Mother Teresa was not a Christian? Please clarify. And God bless you, even if we disagree.
---Catholicus on 5/15/12


---Eloy on 5/14/12

I will continue to say that you are doing a great job. yet I must puch you even further.

Adding your information to mine we now have three doctrines and one biblical event which is supported only by Maccabees

1: The little horn being Antiochus Epiphanes
2: the cleansing of the samctuary done by the order of Judas Maccabeus:
3: feast of dedications which jesus took part in
4: the beleif that saints in 4eaven can interceed on our behalf.

On the 4th point: Since many christians already believe that at the moment you die you go to heaven, and can see and hear what happens on earth, why not include maccabees to strengthen that already existing belief?
---francis on 5/15/12


catholicus, It is common knowledge to all that catholics are not Christian, for there are a lot of ex-catholics that have left their religion and have become Christians. The catholic "Hails Mary" which is idolatry, but the Christian "Hails Jesus" whom is The Lord God: It is "Hailelu-JAH!", it is "NOT Hailelu-Mary!"
---Eloy on 5/15/12


Eloy, of course Catholics, and Orthodox too, are Christians. Whatever makes you think they are not?
---Catholicus on 5/15/12


Shop For Church Resources


Leon, that is not true at all.

The books that were taken out by the protestant movement were taken out to protest the church.
Notice "PROTESTant". I am not RCC or orthodox, but I have read some of the "extra" books as you call them. And they are certainly in keeping with the rest of the Bible that I know. I read them because my church pastor/teacher recommended them and he is not rcc or orthodox. Just a lover of God and his word.
And that is what it should be about. None of this bickering about who said what but truly seeking God.
These protestors tried to take out RUTH and ESTHER because they were about women. Think about that for just a moment. The reason behind the removal.
---ginger on 5/15/12


\\Francis: It seems you're more interested in including apocrypha books to the Bible merely for religious literature content value rather than a salvation oriented spiritual aspect.\\

What is the salvation oriented spiritual aspect that led to 2 Chronicles being included? Please be specific.

And if you actually READ such books as Widsom or Ecclesiasticus, you would see their salvation oriented spiritual aspects.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/15/12


francis, Learn the truth: RCC is Not Christian, RCC is Roman Catholic.
---Eloy on 5/15/12


Francis: It seems you're more interested in including apocrypha books to the Bible merely for religious literature content value rather than a salvation oriented spiritual aspect. Your apparent focus isn't on seeking & knowing (developing a relationship with) God (the author of the Bible). Instead, it seems you & some other bloggers are more interested in extending the biblical library to appease your religious doctrinal appetite. Very sad. (2 Tim. 3:1-7)
---Leon on 5/15/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


There are things in works outside canon that lay those works open to question.
Yet it doesn't mean everything is unholy or wrong.
Unfortunately the older the work the more opportunity there is for someone to put there own interpretation.
some say God decided canon. Others Constantine and his council.
There are opposing arguments, at the end of the day does each book add or take away from the word of the Lord?
Two of the earliest churches still include it, modern day churches don't.
It will forever remain controversial.
---chris on 5/15/12


\\--Eloy on 5/14/12
Your answers are well thought out, well documented, very reasonable, and very sound

Good job
---francis on 5/14/12\\

Except for the fact that Eloy's statements are NEVER documented and are unreasonable and unsound, you are right, francis.

**Speaking of, why did they remove them?
---ginger on 5/14/12**

Because it was thought that these books did not exist in Hebrew. However, Hebrew versions of these books, in whole or in part, were found in such collections as the DSS and others in fairly recent times.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/15/12


francis, May I suggest to foregoing using the term "Many Christians", which has not been substantiated. ---Eloy on 5/15/12

This is the belief of the RCC the largest christian denoination in the world, along with many baptist, and the OPC church, This make it the majority ( not right or wrong) belief
---francis on 5/15/12


Eloy:

Cluny said: The vast majority of Christians DO accept the books of Maccabees as scripture.
You said: The complete opposite of this reply is true.

Perhaps you can wrap your head around this logic:
1) Catholics and Orthodox accept the Apocrypha (including 1+2 Maccabees) as scripture
2) There are around 2.2 billion Christians in the world today
3) Of those, around 1 billion are Catholics, and around 300 million are Orthodox
4) These comprise 1.3 billion out of 2.2 billion, or around 59% of all Christians
5) Therefore, most Christians (i.e. more than half) accept Maccabees as scripture.
---StrongAxe on 5/15/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


\\With the Maccabees holding such content vital to christian eschatology, why not include Maccabeesin the bible?
---francis on 5/14/12\\

But the books of Maccabees ARE in the Bible, francis.

The question is why do YOU exclude them? Why do YOU have a Bible with a great big hole in it, instead of the whole Bible?

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/15/12


Francis, Thank you. I bear witness to The Truth, and The Truth bears witness of me. I don't give much creedance to "other" writings that the worldly support, nor of any "other" writings of the religions of the world. God's holy word is all that I or anyone else ever needs. The enemy hates the Holy Bible because #1: it exposes his complete failure and tells of his end to be tormented in the everlasting lake of fire and brimstone. And #2: it provides the way of salvation, and tells of man's complete command over the enemy and of man's reward of heaven to those whom are converted to the Lord.
---Eloy on 5/15/12


Strong Axe, I agree with you. I was responding to a previous post by Eloy.
---Catholicus on 5/14/12


---Eloy on 5/14/12
Your answers are well thought out, well documented, very reasonable, and very sound

Good job
---francis on 5/14/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


So in Other words.
In Enoch Book dated earliest copy. around 300BC
When it is fore told that God will come with his Holy ones in the tens of thousandw to pass judgement.
When in the Parables eariest copy dated 1st century BC.
When we are told of the coming of the 'Son Of Man' 'The Messiah'
When we are told he is next to God on judgement day.
Told of a head was like white wool.
You are saying this is all unholy?

Best go tell John these things are in Revelation written 100 years or more later.

In Jude 1.6/7 The angels that fell from first estate seem to refer to those of Enoch, and Enoch is mentioned in Jude. Is that unholy?

If so why are those things in the Bible?
---chris on 5/15/12


francis, May I suggest to foregoing using the term "Many Christians", which has not been substantiated. For Imyself am a Holy Spirit-filled Christian and I do not support this view, nor do I support any NonScriptures as Scripture, just as ALL Christians from Christ likewise do not do.
---Eloy on 5/15/12


In the book of Daniel, There is a reference to the little horn Daniel 8:9 a little horn. There is also a reference to the cleaning of the sanctuary Daniel 8:14 then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

Many christians claim that the little horn is Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes 1Mac.1 10]

Many christians also believe that the action of Judas Maccabeus was the cleansing refered to in Daniel 8:14
1 Mac 4 42] So he chose priests.. [43] Who cleansed the sanctuary,

This is also the feast of dedication which jesus took part in in John 10:23

With the Maccabees holding such content vital to christian eschatology, why not include Maccabeesin the bible?
---francis on 5/14/12


Catholicus:

The only way someone could deduce from that the Jesus taught reincarnation was to previously assume that reincarnation is correct - i.e. that if something bad happens to someone it MUST NECESSARILY be that person's fault (either in this life, or a previous one).

The Apostles themselves made this kind of fallacious argument (asking whose sin was responsible - this man's or his parents'). The very question admits the possibility of reincarnation, because how could a man be BORN blind due to his own sins, unless he committed such sins BEFORE HE WAS BORN?

Yet Jesus himself, in the very next verse, dismisses such ideas as nonsense. There WAS no cause and effect. The man was NOT born blind to pay for someone's sin.
---StrongAxe on 5/14/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


Eloy, following your line of reasoning is extremely difficult.
---Catholicus on 5/14/12


Some folks have told me that Jesus taught reincarnation, because when asked in John 9 why a man was born blind, He responded that neither the man nor his parents sinned that he should be born blind, implying that some people are born blind because of their past sins, presumably in a previous life.
---Catholicus on 5/14/12


The NonScriptures were never Scripture, and therefore never removed because they were never included. The NonScriptures were place between the testaments, and intentionally kept out of both testaments because they never were scripture, just as dictionaries and maps were never scripture and always kept out of the testaments. But the unlearned and the NonChristian will embrace all manner of NonScriptures because they do not embrace the Holy Scripture. But when the unlearned and the NonChristian embraces the Holy Scripture, then they will know the Truth and will condemn every false way.
---Eloy on 5/14/12


Actually Christ defines Christianity.
But I agree with Cluny, the books should be in the Bible. Protestants should never have removed them in the first place.
Speaking of, why did they remove them?
---ginger on 5/14/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


\\many protestant churches based their eschatology of " the little horne" on the events which occurs only in the book of the maccabees, including " the cleansing of the sanctuary" so why does this book which hold such significant doctrines in chriostian eschatology not included in the bible\\

This is from DANIEL, francis, not Maccabees.

Don't you know what your own cult teaches?

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/14/12


francis, maccabees is not counted as Holy Scripture for the same reason no Christian holds Reader's Digest, TV Guide, Romance novels, apocryphas, myths, and fables, to be any part of Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture comes from God, other writings do not, especially writings which are proven to be false.
---Eloy on 5/14/12


//The vast majority of Christians DO accept the books of Maccabees as scripture.//

The complete opposite of this reply is true.
---Eloy on 5/14/12


I already posted this, Francis, under the blog: "Different Number of Books". Here again: "I am a manifested saint and I translate the Holy Scriptures, and I have personally found that these NonBiblical writings are NonScripture and NonHoly. They contain many false doctrines. In the Wisdom of Solomon is found the false doctrine of reincarnation, in II Maccabees 15:11-14 contains the heresy that deceased saints are interceding in heaven for those on earth. But the Bible in I Tm.2:5+ Hb.4:14-16+ 8:1,2 teaches that it is the Lord Jesus Christ, our great High Priest, whom alone is the only Mediator for us in Heaven, and not any deceased saints, and in Tobit is the false doctrine of atoning for ones sins by paying alms, et cetera."
---Eloy on 5/14/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


many protestant churches based their eschatology of " the little horne" on the events which occurs only in the book of the maccabees, including " the cleansing of the sanctuary" so why does this book which hold such significant doctrines in chriostian eschatology not included in the bible
---francis on 5/14/12


\\The Maccabees is a good example of a book...reference[d] in the bible...why not include it as scripture?"
---francis on 5/13/12\\

The vast majority of Christians DO accept the books of Maccabees as scripture.

Protestantism does not define Christianity. Orthodoxy does.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/14/12


"[Suppose] we dropped... Esther...? After all the word God or Lord [isn't] in Esther"
---francis on 5/13/12


Connect the dots Fran: Evil Haman was a descendant of Agag, king of the Amalekites. They were "partially destroyed" by King Saul (the Benjaminite). Because Saul disobeyed God's order to completely destroy them (1 Sam. 15) the consequences came down upon the lives of Mordecai & Esther (also Benjaminites) & the Jews in King Ahasuerus's kingdom.

True, the words "God" or "Lord" aren't in Esther, yet God was present & made a way for His "chosen people" not to perish but to prosper in Persia.

Pretty significant, huh?! :)
---Leon on 5/14/12


---Eloy on 5/14/12
Very reasonabel answer

SO for my own curisity where does maccabees contradict other scripture
---francis on 5/14/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


God bless you, Eloy. I'm sure there is nothing anyone could say to draw you into a productive discussion.
---Catholicus on 5/14/12


Scripture is what God has made it to be.
---Leon on 5/13/12

"Hence the blog question:
Where['s] it written...the bible should only have 66 books? Who determined & when was it determined...the bible should only have 66 books?

There['s] not a...word in all of scripture stating... scripture sho[u]ld be limited to...66 book...only.

The Maccabees is a good example of a book...reference[d] in the bible...why not include it as scripture?"
---francis on 5/13/12


Round n round n round he goes! When will he stop spinning? Only God knows!
---Leon on 5/14/12


\\After all the word God or Lord never appears in Esther
---francis on 5/13/12\\

They do in the Greek version of Esther used in the Septuagint, which the original Orthodox Church still uses.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/14/12


\\catholicus, stop posting falsehood. \\

I ask that same thing of youm frequently, but youm don't stop.

\\God has determnined what books he himself dictated,\\

And how do youm know just which books they are? Where did God provide the list?

And do youm think that the prophets and apostles channelled the Bible by a form of automatic writing? That's what the word "dictated" implies.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/14/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


francis, The received books were confirmed to be given from God to the the individual God designated for the people. The book of Esther is in the hebrew "Ketubim" (ie: "Writings") of the Tanakh, and the book of Maccabees is not. And in studying the books, Esther is true, but as I have already established earlier Maccabees is riddled with falsehood, and also contradicts the holy Scripture, and therefore it is proven not to be Inspired and is not Holy Scripture.
---Eloy on 5/14/12


catholicus, stop posting falsehood. The only "early church" that accepted outside books, other than the Hebrew Tanakh and Greek Brit Chadashah, were the houses of disobedience and idolatry, and not the Church of God.
---Eloy on 5/14/12


God has determnined what books he himself dictated, and to which holy men, in order to share his words with future generations:
People are commanded by God not to add to, nor to take away from, his words.
---Eloy on 5/13/12

This goes to the heart of my question. Were does it say which books should be included. Look at Esther are we sure it waas written by " holy men." How different is esther from Maccabees?

Now as to adding to Gods words. This does not mean that we cannot add a book. If we did not add bvooks we would only have the five books of Moses. It means we cannot add to what God has said.
---francis on 5/14/12


francis, God has determnined what books he himself dictated, and to which holy men, in order to share his words with future generations: His old covenant words were penned from 3507 B.C. to 458 B.C., and His New Covenant words were penned from 5 B.C. to 30 A.D.
People are commanded by God not to add to, nor to take away from, his words.
---Eloy on 5/13/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


what if we dropped the book of Esther and have of 65 book?

After all the word God or Lord never appears in Esther
---francis on 5/13/12


My Bible has 49 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. All were held as canonical early on by the Church. Most of the Protestant leaders removed several of the Old Testament at the time of the Reformation.
---Catholicus on 5/13/12


Except for the number of books, I pretty much agree with what Leon wrote.
---Catholicus on 5/13/12


Scripture is what God has made it to be.
---Leon on 5/13/12

Hence the blog question:
Where is it written that the bible should only have 66 books?Who determined and when was it determined that the bible should only have 66 books?

There is not a single word in all of scripture stating that scripture shold be limited to these 66 book and these only.

The Maccabees is a good example of a book which is reference in the bible, so why not include it as scripture?
---francis on 5/13/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


Francis, very insightful question.
---Catholicus on 5/13/12


"...[Is it]...reasonable to [add] the Maccabees in the bible so... reader may...better [know] what the feast of dedication [Hanukkah] is all about [since] Jesus [participated] in the feast?"
---francis on 5/13/12


If all historical events were included in the Bible we could very well have 666 books instead of 66. No! Scripture is what God has made it to be. As it now stands, anyone who diligently studies the 66 books can spend an entire lifetime just scratching the surface. God knows what He's doing with "His" book which is primarily about Jesus, i.e., HIStory. :) Accurate history books line up with (supplement) the canonized Bible without being contained within it.
---Leon on 5/13/12


\\In plain (simple) terms Francis, the extra-biblical books outside of the sixty-six don't fit contextually within the orthodoxy of the sixty-six.
---Leon on 5/12/12 \\

Not according to the pre-Reformation Churches.

I will repeat the same question I have twice asked Samuel before about his posting on this matter.

Please tell me what doctrines Orthodoxy founds on the Apocrypha/Deutercanonical books. Be specific.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/13/12


In plain (simple) terms Francis, the extra-biblical books outside of the sixty-six don't fit contextually within the orthodoxy of the sixty-six.
---Leon on 5/12/12

Let me ask this. No not condemn, but for my own curiosity

John 10:22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.

This feast is the feast of lights, found only in the Maccabees story. Would it not then be reasonable to include the Maccabees in the bible so that the reader may get a better reference as to what the feast of dedication is all about seeing that Jesus was taking part in the feast?
---francis on 5/13/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


I will restate what I wrote in the previous blog on this subject. The Greek Septuagint was the version used by the Church almost exclusively during its first two centuries. The Septuagint is the version the New Testament writers used when they quoted the Old Testament. And the Septuagint contained 73 books. This can all be historically verified.
---Catholicus on 5/12/12


//Aka, I meant to write "versification" in my last post. Sorry about that!//
---Catholicus on 5/12/12


yes, scripture without verification is more the rule than the exception around here!

spell check has a mind of its own. and when you spell the wrong word right, funny things can happen.

//It seems to me that matthew through john should be in the NT. //

i meant OT. (i cannot blame it on spell check.)
---aka on 5/12/12


Aka, I meant to write "versification" in my last post. Sorry about that!
---Catholicus on 5/12/12


Aka, yes, you are right. I have read scripture published without verification, and it was a pleasant experience.
---Catholicus on 5/12/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


In plain (simple) terms Francis, the extra-biblical books outside of the sixty-six don't fit contextually within the orthodoxy of the sixty-six. To attempt to do so is absurd & like trying to link, & compare Dr. Seuss with the writings of Shakespeare. Oil & water doesn't mix!

p.s. I like Dr. Seuss. :)
---Leon on 5/12/12


on that note, who decided OT and NT. It seems to me that matthew through john should be in the NT. Or maybe, there should have been a beginning t,a middle t, and end t.

why were the verses kept? they were later additions to aid in translating, and they never to them back. Have you ever taken the verses out? it is a better read.

my point is is that man's division is not greater than God's Dominion. the truth is in The Truth no matter how we divide it, exclude, include,...
---aka on 5/12/12


It seems this discussion is continuing. I will stand by my previous remarks about the Septuagint and the Masoretic text.
---Catholicus on 5/11/12


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.