Jump to content
Online Baptist

How Do We Know What Books Belong In The Bible


Recommended Posts

We don't know for sure who wrote Hebrews

The apostle Thomas wrote letters but they are not in the bible but we're used in churches in India before the portuguese came in the 1550's

Luke and Paul were not apostles but appointed by them and have books in the bible

The first unified new testament was 389 at the council of hippo. And this was after catholism was already the state religion of The roman empire


How do we know what books belong in the bible?

And I know the holy spirt wrote them but there has to be an earthly reason also

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This guy (Adamski) is a troll. Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

Also, education means very little when it comes to the Scriptures. Unless one is born again in Christ, having the Holy Ghost within them, they cannot rightly or fully understand Scripture.

First of all, Paul was called an apostle. Do you know the qualifications to be an apostle? To be an apostle you had to witness Jesus and his miraculous signs. Paul fulfilled this qualification on th

  • Members

First of all, Paul was called an apostle. Do you know the qualifications to be an apostle? To be an apostle you had to witness Jesus and his miraculous signs. Paul fulfilled this qualification on the road to Damascus when he encountered Jesus. Paul accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. That in and of itself was a miracle. Why? Because Paul persecuted the Christians and put them to death.

Acts 13:2 - As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work I have called them to.”

1 Corinthians 15: 8-11
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

Second of all, I do not doubt the Word of God. These 66 books are inspired by God and He used prophets and men fulfilled with the Holy Spirit of God.

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 Knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:16 says ALL Scripture is God breathe, He inspired the words on each page of the Bible.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Don't get caught in the devil's trap of speculation and questioning what books of Bible is God's Word. This is how the devil works by casting the seed of doubt and deception. I believe the Bible the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation to be God's Word, it is His Facebook to us and the words on the pages are His breathe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey dp you can't prove the bible from the bible

If we are talking strictly on a historical basis Paul's interactions with Jesus would be less likely to hold up in court as a eye whitness because he had one brief interaction with Jesus.
The accounts of Peter, James and John would be the bests since they were his inner circle. Or Mary since she knew him his entire life. Then the other 9 that were with him for the three years of his ministry.

If this was a court of law probably thomas's accounts would hold up the best since he doubted


To prove what books belong in the bible all we have is
Fragments of different books from the 2nd-4th century but we also have fragments of false books
The first full bible we have is codex sinicatus discoved in Egypt in. 1873 from around 300ad
It is written in Greek and almost matches the king James bible 1611 word for word along with have 73 books in the bible not the modern. 66

So unless some one can help me the only proof what books belongs in the bible are church councils that were run by the roman and Greek church's such as hippo in. 389ad

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey dp you can't prove the bible from the bible

If we are talking strictly on a historical basis Paul's interactions with Jesus would be less likely to hold up in court as a eye whitness because he had one brief interaction with Jesus.
The accounts of Peter, James and John would be the bests since they were his inner circle. Or Mary since she knew him his entire life. Then the other 9 that were with him for the three years of his ministry.

If this was a court of law probably thomas's accounts would hold up the best since he doubted


To prove what books belong in the bible all we have is
Fragments of different books from the 2nd-4th century but we also have fragments of false books Error
The first full bible we have is codex sinicatus discoved in Egypt in. 1873 from around 300ad --> huge error; both Codex A & B are in gross error and do not agree with the KJV
It is written in Greek and almost matches the king James bible 1611 word for word along with have 73 books in the bible not the modern. 66

So unless some one can help me the only proof what books belongs in the bible are church councils that were run by the roman and Greek church's such as hippo in. 389ad
The Cat-a-holics have it wrong
Link to post
Share on other sites

Codex A & B:

These are Roman Catholic mss. and were not used by Protestant Christians until 1881. These two mss. are the basis for Roman Catholic Bibles and every major English translation of the Bible since 1901. These mss. were not the ones used for the King James Bible.
Eusebius was Roman Catholic in his doctrine (see his book, "Ecclesiastical History", Vols. 1-5).
He was commissioned by Emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of Scripture for the Roman church. Eusebius copied the Gnostic Scriptures and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
At no time were the Catholics Christian. At day one under King Constantine we find the first High Priest was such at the murder of another.
Like Eusebius, Jerome was Roman Catholic in doctrine. Jerome translated the Greek mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus into Latin (called Jerome's Latin Vulgate). This was the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. The ms. Vaticanus was placed in the Vatican library, while the ms. Sinaiticus was abandoned in a Catholic monastery, and they were not used for the next 1,500 years.

Tischendorf was the first Protestant to find and use the mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Tischendorf was a liberal theologian.

Westcott & Hort (1881 AD): They used Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to produce a new Greek N.T.. This Greek N.T. is not the same as the one used for the King James Bible Authorized Version nor during the Reformation.
Their Greek N.T. was the basis for the Revised Version (RV) of 1881 and the basic Greek text for all modern translations such as the RSV, TEV, NASV, N.TV, etc. The Greek text of Westcott and Hort (W & H) differs from the Greek text of the King James Bible (the Received Text) 5,788 times, or 10% of the text. Since all modern translations are based on the work of W & H, it would do us well to know the theology of these two men.
WESTCOTT: "I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (Mary-worship) bears witness."
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did."
HORT: "Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common."
"Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary."
"The pure Romish view (Catholic) seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical."
"Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue."
These men did not hold to sound doctrine; instead they have turned, "...away their ears from the truth, and she be turned unto fables." 2 Tim. 4:4

Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife and I are not catholic
But she has a degree in anchient Hebrew from university of Washington and I have a degree from Cornell university

We both have acess to pre edict of Milan manuscripts and non christian translators (Jewish)

I have personally held a copy of the 1611 KJV the 1601 douay rhiems and the codex sinacattuis next to each other and they all almost match word for word other than some of the books go by different names

They also all have 73 books

KJV 1611 and douay. (called 2 Maccabees)
Codex sinicatus. (called Maccabees 4)


I am here purely on a a scientific and historical mission not to question the validity of your faith. This is not based on feeling or modern scholarship but archeology. I would also like to say there is much Archelocical facts regarding the resurrection based on non Christian sources

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 16 books below in the Catholic bible. When one reads them, it is easy to know they are not canonical. The Holy Ghost abideth sure and guides. There are some nutso things and rituals leaning Cabalistic. Bel and the Dragon is a fun read........... It is like the Rabbinic legends of - well: Abraham for instance. When Abraham's father on away he destroyed 9 of the 10 idols his father had. When he returned he was very angry and confronted Abraham --- Abraham said, It was that one over there that destroyed the nine pointing to the one he didn't destroy. Then his father gave a sigh and knew they were only dumb idols. The legend of placing a cow's livers in David's bed and so on.

1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Additions to Esther
1 Macabees
2 Macabees
Tobias
Judith
Wisdom
Sirach
Baruch
Epistle of Jeremiah
Susanna
Prayer of Azariah
Prayer of Manasseh
Bel and the Dragon
Laodiceans

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reference the Catholics make to the Greek Septuagint; also a false claim ---- where is it. The 72 non-scholars made a laughable text to the Greek King which was soundly rejected by the Hebrews and Temple Priest in Jerusalem. The Greek Torah was supposedly completed in less than three months. Conclusion; there is no real Greek Septuagint of validity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife and I are not catholic
But she has a degree in anchient Hebrew from university of Washington and I have a degree from Cornell university

We both have acess to pre edict of Milan manuscripts and non christian translators (Jewish)

I have personally held a copy of the 1611 KJV the 1601 douay rhiems and the codex sinacattuis next to each other and they all almost match word for word other than some of the books go by different names

They also all have 73 books

KJV 1611 and douay. (called 2 Maccabees)
Codex sinicatus. (called Maccabees 4)


I am here purely on a a scientific and historical mission not to question the validity of your faith. This is not based on feeling or modern scholarship but archeology. I would also like to say there is much Archelocical facts regarding the resurrection based on non Christian sources


First, you're digging in the wrong place.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey dp you can't prove the bible from the bible

If we are talking strictly on a historical basis Paul's interactions with Jesus would be less likely to hold up in court as a eye whitness because he had one brief interaction with Jesus.
The accounts of Peter, James and John would be the bests since they were his inner circle. Or Mary since she knew him his entire life. Then the other 9 that were with him for the three years of his ministry.

If this was a court of law probably thomas's accounts would hold up the best since he doubted


To prove what books belong in the bible all we have is
Fragments of different books from the 2nd-4th century but we also have fragments of false books
The first full bible we have is codex sinicatus discoved in Egypt in. 1873 from around 300ad
It is written in Greek and almost matches the king James bible 1611 word for word along with have 73 books in the bible not the modern. 66

So unless some one can help me the only proof what books belongs in the bible are church councils that were run by the roman and Greek church's such as hippo in. 389ad


Second, we don't have to be concerned with an earthly court of law, unless we've broken the law; our concern is making sure folks like you look for Christ where he found us. Then, that they receive Him and no longer have to be concerned about the only judgement that matters to each man or woman.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You do realise that the claims that sinaticus and Vaticanus are the oldest manuscripts are based entirely on conjecture?

The were old when found, but there is no way of knowing how old - could have been less than 100years old when found.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sinaticus from the monastary at Mt Sinai ~1844 and Vaticanus in the Pope's library ~1488 by a monk cleaning the shelves. In 325AD Eusebius was comissioned by King Constantine to write 50 bibles. This task was completed in 350AD. They were hand-written vellum and place in book form (Codex).

My understanding is: some writings and writers soundly place Eusebius as the author of these while others say they were used by Eusebius making them older. Eusebius had the mind of Origen - not one of his own. Osmosis maybe ;-D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

So the oldest of them could be from the 1300's even - there is no way of knowing beyond their discovery dates, aside from the fact they were "old looking" at that time.

The main claim of "oldest and best" which they spruke up regularly has absolutely no foundation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard of bei and the dragon

Also 1 Macabees is where Jews get Hanakah so it has historical truth because it documents the Maccabean wars the Jews faught against the Greeks with the help of the young roman empire. There are also extra biblical bc roman sources that document this

Minumaly both Macabees are at least historically accurate

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Carbon dating is not that accurate. If you check all the assumptions made you will know that it is at best a guess, and not a very good one. Bad science.
The same basic inks etc have been used over a great span of time. Probably more indicative of location than age in fact, as there is more likely to be a difference in materials available regionally, than a change over time of handwritten materials.

And even if it were as old as they say (and it may be, but it is not possible to tell) that doesn't mean it is more, or less accurate than any other manuscript, just that it is older.

There are indications from those few who have actually sighted them that these were basically faulty copies.

Edited by DaveW
Link to post
Share on other sites

Come up with proof that once saved always saved existed before 300ad I can't .......

But I can with the Eucharist and infant baptism
Dideche, polycarp,,,,,apostles creed


You've got it absolutely backward. The Eucharist is a Satanic ritual by a priest without Christ Jesus. The entire NT is over and over of God's eternal forgiving grace.
HOw long is forever? My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
John 10:27-29 (KJV) The is not one scripture in the Bible to contradict this - all are in harmony.

You come on here saying you are without Christ Jesus and attempt to promote Catholicism........... all indications of a wolf in sheep's clothing. The Catholics are only a murderous bunch that are bringing back the Inquisition. They are the re-creation of the Babylonian religion and Belial is their god in every aspect of their religion. It appears you're here to argue Catholicism through deceptive means.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

No, carbon dating a inaccurate because it involves many assumptions that can not be factored for, and it is bad science.
And the dating of the manuscripts can not be accurately placed because there is simply no evidence of their age beyond their discovery date.
And why exactly were they located amongst for instance a pile of junk destined to be burned?
Because they were considered junk.......

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

As far as the historical aspect, that has little validity, since Josephus was a contemporary of the times, and his writings are part true and part false. He stretches the narrative far beyond Biblical concepts. Maybe HE wrote the macabees, and Susanna, and the others. They would be old, but old garbage, as has been already stated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Come up with proof that once saved always saved existed before 300ad I can't .......

But I can with the Eucharist and infant baptism
Dideche, polycarp,,,,,apostles creed


You may be able to find people in history who taught those things, but I challenge you to find support for these thing in the Bible.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Christ's Witnesses through the darks ages of the tribulation imposed on them by the RCC often had a 'class' of them known as 'Notarii' A Notary today is one who faithfully copies documents. In those days, there were no printing presses and all scriptures were hand written manuscripts. I have no doubt that the 'Notarii' were those whose calling was to faithfully record the scriptures and would have rejected the spurious MS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
How do we know what books belong in the bible?


God promised to preserve His Word and he did so with the Received Text which led to the King James Bible. Some have shown pretty convincingly that each chapter of Isaiah refers to a book of the Bible. Never looked into that far.

I do know that if God wanted to preserve something, no man could stop him. There is not a book in existance that God wanted in the King James Bible that is not in there today. Searching for a worldly answer will lead you astray and consequently, further and further away from the Lord.
Link to post
Share on other sites

These are just 2 versus there are many more

Eucharist
King James Version (KJV)
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Infant baptism (only Jewish babies were circumsized
Colossians 2:11-12
King James Version (KJV)
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 26 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...