Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

52

Your premise is invalid, as the warning in Revelation cannot be honestly interpreted as referring to anything beyond Revelation itself. "The Bible" did not exist back then. The very concept of "the Bible" did not even exist back then. Each sacred writing was its own book; they weren't compiled into a collection until centuries later. In addition, John ...


24

I agree 100% with Mason Wheeler, but I thought I could clarify something. The LDS faith does not claim to add to the Bible. The only additions in their version of the King James Version of the Bible is in the form of footnotes and reference information. If that is considered adding to the Bible, then most denominations are guilty. The Book of Mormon is a ...


22

Short Answer: The Book of Enoch is not Scripture. As such, the Holy Spirit did not lead the church to include it in the canon of Scripture. The Controversy Jude 1:14-15 says this: It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, to execute ...


20

The canon developed gradually over the course of more than 300 years. In many cases, when decisions were made, they were simply to acknowledge what was already being read in the churches. The process started early. Already in 2 Peter 3:16, there is a reference to the letters of Paul: There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant ...


19

What is considered scripture The Standard Works The LDS Church accepts 4 volumes as "standard works" of scripture: The KJV Bible (minus Apocrypha) The Book of Mormon The Pearl of Great Price The Doctrine and Covenants Each book is esteemed basically equally with the others as pertaining to their scriptural value. Of course, Mormons will emphasize the ...


18

I am indebted to Dr. Peter Leithart for his writings and lectures on the Song of Songs. For further reading, you can visit his website. These thoughts might help in approaching the book. Wisdom literature It is helpful to consider the book’s position in the canon as part of the wisdom literature. In Proverbs, the king exhorts his son to seek wisdom and ...


16

Abstract The Jewish canon was still in a state of flux when the New Testament was being written. Therefore, early Christian authors drew freely from a wide variety of works, some of which were excluded from both the Jewish and Christian scriptures at a later date. 1st Enoch falls into that category. The early church probably held theological views ...


15

The problem with this question is that the Bible is not a single book, and as such does not directly address what "other books" are considered canon. Peter, for instance, writes that Paul's books are highly profitable for reading, "even if they are sometimes hard to understand," but there is no book anywhere that says "these books are canon, these are not." ...


14

The word for "scripture" in the Greek text is (ἡ) γραφή, often occurring in the plural, (τῆς) γραφῆς, which literally means "writing(s)." The word occurs approximately 50 times in the New Testament (depending on the manuscript used it is 50 or 51) and it seems pretty clear to me from a word search that this almost exclusively refers to the Old Testament ...


13

The Bible itself seems to indicate that Jesus performed no miracles until His ministry began. Non-biblical sources may disagree, but they are non-biblical. John 2 records to miracle at the wedding in Cana, where Jesus turns water into wine. John completes the account with the following statement: This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in ...


12

There are no direct quotes, at least, not in the sense that, for example, Isaiah is quoted, but there are certainly several allusions and parallel passages. Here is a list of some of them from both NT and OT (and yes, I am well aware that some of those are debatable). As to "other books quoting them," it should be noted that neither Song of Songs, Esther, ...


12

Several reasons: Historically, canonicity in the NT was restricted to the 12 apostles and direct relations of Jesus. (Mark = Peter, Luke=Paul*, Matthew & John were both disciples, Hebrews was errantly ascribed to Paul, James and Jude were brothers of Jesus // Paul was considered to be an apostle, since Jesus appeared directly to him.) Later Councils (I ...


12

I prefer to look at the verse itself, in this matter. When I read this verse in Revelation it is easy to see that this is a warning to mankind: Don't add stuff! It's not your right, and you don't have the authority! But it does NOT say that God cannot (or even will not) continue revealing his word and his mind and his plans to mankind. Remember Amos ...


11

Much of when the Old Testament was written is purely conjecture, but many modern scholars believe that it was written some time in the period when the Persians captured Babylon in 538 BC. Others believe Moses authored the Pentateuch, which is Genesis - Deuteronomy, which would mean that these books were authored some time around 1300 - 1500 BC. There is ...


11

This is a difficult question, given that human reasoning is itself flawed. But if we were to look at the canonization process, the most we could say is that it must be not be absurd; Consider how Matthias was chosen to succeed Judas; even though the process of 'drawing lots' seems irrational, the lots were being drawn against a few possible candidates and ...


10

The key point of Luther's biblical exegesis was his conviction of Christ's being the rex scripturae.1 There is a famous passage from his preface to the "Epistel S. Jacobi und Judas" saying: This is the right touchstone to criticize all the books: See if they preach Christ or not. […] What Christ did not teach, that is not apostolic, may it have been ...


10

There is no record of Jesus performing miracles when he was a child that is accepted according to the Bible. There are also these biblical reasons to believe that he did not perform any such miracles: The Bible records no such miracles, and the most remarkable event that the Bible does record is the Finding in the Temple. See Luke 2:46-47: 46 After ...


9

A more ecumenical answer: They weren't considered equal because they had been considered of dubious origin for quite some time. Back when the Vulgate was being put together Jerome made the points that The original Hebrew for those texts could no longer be found* Jews of the late first century onward did not consider them canonical. Others in the Church ...


9

The books known as "apocryphal" defined by Protestants are defined by Catholics as "Deuterocanonical" (a second canon) comes from Septuagint, a Greek translation (with these additional books) of Hebrew Tanakh. Which later around 4th century, was translated by St. Jerome to Vulgate, a Latin edition of the OT. Besides the Catholic Church, the Constantinople ...


9

According to Talmud, the Tanakh canon (Protestant OT) compiled in 450 BC, but modern scholar puts the canon as a process between 200 BC to 200 AD. First the Torah, then Nevi'im and the latest is the Ketuvim.


9

I think that the easiest answer is that it was excluded because it was never properly included. None of the groups who formed a version of the canon felt that this book accurately reflected Jewish values sufficiently to be included in the Tanak or the LXX. Christians just followed suit. Just because a book is cited by the Bible, that does not make for ...


9

The "books" of the Bible are just that- they are separate works by separate authors in separate contexts. Yes, Luke wrote 2, Moses wrote 5, and Paul wrote somewhere between 7 and 13, but Stephen King has written more than one book, too :) Matthew, for example, was written by the Apostle Matthew. Luke, by Paul's traveling companion. Mark was written by ...


9

Historically, there have been two primary understandings of the Song of Solomon - It prefigures the love that Christ has for his church It is an erotic love story Personally, I find it nearly impossible to accept the first, however. I submit, on the basis of SOS 5:3-6, the following: I have taken off my robe— must I put it on again? I have ...


9

Given the clarification of the question, an entirely new answer is in order. The quick answer is that most of the rest of the NT was written before the Gospels, and was sourced by eyewitnesses in any event. Every writer was in some way written by somebody who had first-hand knowledge of Jesus. As such, there would have been no need to go back and read ...


8

Parts of this answer is taken directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) which carries the seal of Imprimi Potest, by which the Catholic Church recognizes the publication to be free of doctrinal error (as I understand it). On the Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture, attesting to divine authorship: 105 God is the author of Sacred ...


8

You, my friend, have a hard heart if you can't find anything interesting in Ezra. ;-) And when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD, the priests in their vestments came forward with trumpets, and the Levites, the sons of Asaph, with cymbals, to praise the LORD, according to the directions of David king of Israel. And they sang ...


8

Technically, the only "criteria" for canonicity is widespread acceptance. Looking at canonical lists up through the Festal Letter canonicity was always based on "what seemed most profitable to the reader" at the time. That said, the Council of Trent said All New Testament Books share a claim to apostolic authority: Matthew & John were disciples Luke ...


8

Briefly: Paul's letters were probably first, beginning with 1 Timothy and Galatians. Romans was a middling book, 2 Timothy was probably his last. They range from 52 ad to 62 or 68, depending on what you think about deutero-Pauline scholarship Of the Gospels, Mark is usually considered to be first, although some have proposed Matthew. Luke is usually dated ...


8

According to When Skeptics Ask (Normal L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, 1990 Baker Books): The following books were in question at one point or another: Hebrews because the author is unknown. However, it was accepted as having apostolic authority, if not apostolic authorship. James because of conflict with Pauls teaching about salvation by faith alone. ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible