Where does it say in the Bible which books belong in it?

[flaja]

I just did. Care to explain where the Septuagint got those six verses in Psalm 14?

See for yourself: http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Psalms/index.htm

This site simply gives the text. It does not document your claim.

[flaja]

[quote="zealyouthguy"][quote="flaja"][quote="Samer"]You ought to look at Psalm 14 and Romans 3.

The Septuagint adds six verses to Psalm 14, not in any Hebrew versions. [/quote]

You have documentation for this? I have researched the King James only issue extensively and I have debated at least a dozen different modern Bible advocates, but I have never seen this claim before.[/quote]
http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkepsa14.htm[/quote]

If this Psalm was possibly written by David or Daniel, I think it is too late for the Chaldeans to be around. And at any rate ?Chaldeans? is a term that would date from Abraham?s time and the Bible uses it to denote the people of Sumer. I doubt very seriously that the Babylonians of Nebuchadnezzar?s day and age would have been known as Chaldeans since I doubt that the term Chaldeans would have been used in the ancient world outside of the Bible to designate anybody.

By the time of David the Assyrians would have been on the ascendant in Mesopotamia, with the Babylonians of Nebuchadnezzar not even being a glimmer on the horizon. And by the time of Daniel the Assyrians were a memory and the dominant power in Mesopotamia was the Babylonians.

Furthermore, by the time the LXX was supposedly prepared (last century BC, or as claimed here 1st century AD) neither the Sumerians/Chaldeans nor the Assyrians nor the Babylonians were a power of note. The people that prepared the LXX would not have associated anyone with the Chaldeans as Clarke claims.

Clarke?s use of the term Chaldeans makes me think he is not the best source for historical information or commentary.

And just why should anyone accept Clarke?s conclusion? What evidence did he have for his claim?

[zealyouthguy]

Accept what you want or don't, either way it makes no difference to me.

I didn't say I believed it, just showed you a couple places that do.

[Jerry]

[quote="flaja"]What if you do this but don?t believe that Jesus is God, or that He was not born of a virgin or that He was crucified or that He was resurrected from the dead?

You cannot be saved by simply believing. You must know and understand what it is that you believe in.[/quote]

Salvation is by grace through faith (our belief in Jesus) - but yes, someone must believe the truth about who He is and what He has done in order to be saved.

[Guest Guest]

Where does it say in the Bible which books belong in the Bible?

Is there an inspired table of contents in the Bible?

No Where. The Bible was compiled at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD

[Jerry]

Sorry - the Bible was compiled long before that. There are "church fathers" in the second century that list all the books we currently have in our Bible. The church agreed together what the books of the Bible are.

If you want to argue the point, many churches made a public declaration at the Council of Nicea, but that council did not determine what books would be in the Bible.

[Guest Guest]

If you want to argue the point' date=' many churches made a public declaration at the Council of Nicea, but that council did not determine what books would be in the Bible.[/quote']

No I'm not going to argue, that's true. I just used that date because it seemed more official.

[Jerry]

Sorry, I phrased that wrong. I meant to say, if you want to debate that point.

[Guest Guest]

Sorry' date=' I phrased that wrong. I meant to say, if you want to debate that point.[/quote']

No I don't. However, how do you know what books are supposed to be in the Bible, whats your definition?