This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Why does the Protestant canon has less books than normal bibles?

#11RetrotasticPosted 6/21/2011 12:37:19 PM
They cut out all the filler and crap so whatever is left is pure gold.
#12DMoney1337Posted 6/21/2011 3:06:59 PM
Whats the difference between the modern Jewish cannon and the other?
---
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/1417/930297debb1803702436346.png
#13Adito99Posted 6/21/2011 3:20:09 PM
We do not believe they are inspired. They do not have the ring of truth to them

I honestly find it amazing that this is considered a good criteria for rejecting or accepting something.
---
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/2561/goodvsevil.jpg
#14NoTitleRequiredPosted 6/21/2011 4:07:29 PM
Silviiro posted...
It's just a dispute as to whether the Septuagint canon should be used or the modern Jewish canon should be used. As far as I know there aren't any unique teachings derived from the books not included so it isn't very significant.

Much of the pre-NT Jewish Wisdom theology that contributes significantly to the Christian understanding of the Logos is found in the Deuterocanon. It rears itself somewhat in Proverbs 8, but there's a lot of useful stuff in the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus/Sirach that seems to expound further on the small amount found in Proverbs itself. Also, the Wisdom 2:12-20 contains one of the most clear allusions to Christ's Passion, which I'd put up there with Isaiah 53. Then there's also the fact that there are many allusions to Deuterocanonical statements in the New Testament (http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html). As well as having historical significance, 2 Maccabees contains evidence for pre-Christian Jewish prayer for the dead (which Jews, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics do, but Protestants overwhelmingly reject).

Adito99 posted...
"We do not believe they are inspired. They do not have the ring of truth to them"

I honestly find it amazing that this is considered a good criteria for rejecting or accepting something.


I was going to say something about this. Does this mean that the canon of Scripture is subject to our own personal whims and opinions and what we think has the "ring of truth" to it? All we know of what the canon of Scripture is is by what has been handed down to us. If you're going to reject the so-called Deuterocanonical books based on your opinion that they don't have the "ring of truth" to them, what's stopping you from rejecting any other book as long as you have a clever argument or a good reason? What would have stopped Luther from actually going through with his desired rejection of Hebrews and James (which even he did not have the balls to actually reject)? What makes your canon dependent on the divine rather than dice?
---
Taste the fountain of immortality.
http://i43.tinypic.com/iqehc6.jpg