bkmitchell — 2014-09-06T08:37:38-04:00 — #1
ONE: Which canon(s) of scripture do you accept as your Bible?
TWO: Which translation(s) of that/those canon(s) do you accept (if any)?
THERE: Why? Or, what are your reasons for accepting both that/those canon(s) as scripture and/or translation(s) over the others (if any)?
eric_seelye — 2014-09-06T10:50:26-04:00 — #2
Thanks for the link to that chart, it is really interesting. Here's my answers:
1) The English-speaking protestant cannon
2) The ESV is my default translation, but I use others when puzzling over questions
3) This is mostly due to my own tradition, since I've never made an in-depth study of the issue. I'm comfortable with the work of the early church councils which formalized the cannon that led to the Catholic and Protestant Bibles. I don't view the Apocrypha as inspired, but as I recall, the Roman Catholic Church also assigns them a lower status than the non-Apocryphal books. I used to use the NIV, but I lost confidence in it once the translation committee went for all the gender-inclusive language in the 2011 edition. I like the ESV because it uses more traditional language, which I prefer over the very modern, over-simplified versions, such as the CEV or (gag) The Message. I'm trying to get more comfortable reading older texts such as The Pilgrim's Progress, Jonathan Edwards, and Charles Spurgeon's writings, and I'm finding it's not that difficult. I just love Spurgeon!
lu1 — 2014-09-06T11:28:45-04:00 — #3
The Protestant Christian Canon
Old Testament New Testament
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
Historical Books--12 books
Joshua, Judges, Ruth, First Samuel, Second Samuel, First Kings, Second Kings, First Chronicles, Second Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.
Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon
Major Prophets--Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel
Minor Prophets--Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
Historical Books--5 books
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts
Pauline Epistles--13 books
Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians. 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon
Non-Pauline Epistles--9 books
Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation
I teach my students from the Luther Study Bible, I prepare my sermons from the Amplified Bible and I use the Comparative Study Bible for personal use: NIV which I am not to crazy about, KJV because that was my first Bible and the memory verses sing, NASB because its use of traditional language and the Amplified Bible because of the Greek illumination. I do have on my tech the ESB which is similar to the NASB.
I am a Church history buff but I also am aware that the Early Church Fathers had some strange understanding of doctrine too.
Two crucial interpretive errors come to mind which found their way into the church. The second century fathers failed to keep clear the biblical distinction between Israel and the church. Then, the third century fathers abandoned a more-or-less literal method of interpreting the Bible in favor of Origen's allegorical-spiritualized hermeneutic. Once the distinction between Israel and the church became blurred, once a literal hermeneutic was lost, with these foundations removed, the societal changes occasioned by the Edict of Milan caused fourth century fathers to reject premillennialism in favor of Augustinian amillennialism.
And other interesting tidbits:
Justin Martyr (100-165 CE)
Believed that many historical Greek philosophers (including Socrates and Plato, in whose works he was well studied, were unknowing Christians.”
The soul is not in itself eternal and likely annihilationism that souls die and cease to be, forever. “But I do not say, indeed, that all souls die; for that were truly a piece of good fortune to the evil. What then? The souls of the pious remain in a better place, while those of the unjust and wicked are in a worse, waiting for the time of judgment. Thus some which have appeared worthy of God never die; but others are punished so long as God wills them to exist and to be punished
Clement of Alexandria (150-215CE),
Said “it is clear, therefore, that to the Jews was given the law, and to the Greeks philosophy, until the appearance of our Lord… philosophy was necessary to the Greeks as a means of righteousness; now it is useful in the service of piety as a sort of preparation for demonstrating the faith.”
Some Early Church Fathers believe that:
Forgiveness can only be had with fasting:
Satan only sinned after Jesus came to earth.
Irenaeus (another early church father) wrote: “Truly has Justin remarked: That before the Lord’s appearance Satan never dared to blaspheme God, inasmuch as he did not yet know his own sentence, because it was contained in parables and allegories; but that after the Lord’s appearance, when he had clearly ascertained from the words of Christ and His apostles that eternal fire has been prepared for him as he apostatized from God of his own free-will,”
Tertullian (160-225 CE)
Forgiveness is almost impossible. As historian Eric Osborn says “After baptism there can be only one further forgiveness and this must follow severe penance.. Tertullian never admitted the possibility that God might pardon freely”
Both Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390 CE) and Gregory of Nyssa (335 – 395 CE) believed in Universal reconciliation, or the idea that ultimately all of creation will be reconciled with the Father. This would mean that, hell, should it exist is only a preparatory place that purges men of their sins, culminating in the salvation of all.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430CE believed that:
Infants who are not baptized, automatically go to hell, and Purgatorial fires can cleanse a soul after death
Don't get me wrong they got a lot right like believing in Spiritual gifts and healing.
erik_menjivar — 2014-09-10T19:14:36-04:00 — #4
I accept the Catholic canon of the Bible. The Council of Nicaea selected these books as being written with the inspiration of God. The doctrine of the Catholic faith was organized in this council to coincide with the original teachings of Christ.
jon_scarborough — 2014-09-10T20:25:35-04:00 — #5
I have recently been confirmed into the Catholic Church, and received a copy of the New American Version, slightly annotated with introductions to the books.. This version follows the daily liturgy of the Church. Prior to receiving the NAV, I read a copy of Holman's KJV Study Bible. On Verbum, I generally open the RSV Catholic Edition. In my bedroom, I have a slim copy of the English Standard Version - easy to copy and read in the bedroom armchair.
kendall_sholtess — 2014-09-10T23:35:47-04:00 — #6
I accept the Protestant Cannon. The Apocrypha (i.e. Deuterocanonical literature, according to Roman Catholics), is useful for historical background. My reasoning is that the inferiority of the Apocrypha is evident to many who accept Protestant distinctives as Biblical.
I accept most committee translations, but the one I use the most is probably the NASB.
After reading the Greek New Testament and comparing it with various translations, I can see with most why the translators chose to render it the way they did. Translations are made for different purposes, and different audiences. I find that most translations work for me when I change my perspective and try to look at it from a different angle.
One thing I have come to hate is dogmatism when it comes to Bible translations. It clearly shows the dogmatists' lack of knowledge/understanding about interpersonal communication.
ellyn_seelye — 2014-09-11T12:39:54-04:00 — #7
The Protestant Canon.
My personal preference by far is for the King James version. Unlike the others in this forum, I don't have scholarly or even necessarily theological reasons for my affinity. I suppose it is mostly aesthetic, I must confess! The KJV was my first exposure to the Bible, and I find the language and imagery to be so moving and beautiful. These are the verses that my Dad quoted to me when I was little, and that ring in my memory.
The church we attend uses a rather pedestrian and flat-footed translation, in my opinion.
britany_ashton — 2014-09-16T10:47:34-04:00 — #8
There is ONE Bible. ONE Word of God.
There are many translations that are there so that we can compare and contrast each one to get a better understanding of what the original language said.
Don't sweat it. And if you still find concern about it; ask God to give you peace.
Here's some articles that might help you.
http://www.gotquestions.org/translation-inspiration.html How does the translation process impact the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Bible?
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-translations.html Why are there so many Bible translations, and which is the best?
bkmitchell — 2014-09-16T13:15:33-04:00 — #9
The question at hand isn't simply about which translation, but which Bible and which Canon of Scripture? For example here are a few of the more common ones:
(1) The Jewish Bible has 24 books (and is the Masoretic Text)
(2) The Orthodox Church has 76 books (LXX, Byzantine/Majority NT ) or (the Peshitta OT/NT)
(a) 3 different Eastern Orthodox Canons
(b) 4 Oriental Orthodox Canons
(c) an Assyrian Canon)
(3) Catholic (and Anglican) Bibles have 73 books (LXX, Vulgate, GNT )
(4) Mainline Protestant Bibles have 66 books (Masoretic Text and The Greek NT)
A few interesting articles on canons of scripture can be found at the following links:
keith_dyer1 — 2014-09-16T13:40:00-04:00 — #10
Generally I "accept as canon" the protestant 66 books. However, I still read and gain lots of insight from the Apocrypha, it's good stuff!
david_taylor_jr — 2014-11-05T08:33:17-05:00 — #11
- 66 Books
- I use ESV but I also use KJV, NASB, NKJV, NIV, NLT, ASV, Amplified, etc...
- Based on the critical evidence and the belief of the early church.
bkmitchell — 2015-05-27T09:15:01-04:00 — #12
I started this read back in September 0f 2014 but I never got around to posting my own responses to the questions I raised. Recently someone on these forums reminded me to do so:
So, I now will attempt to answer briefly.
In general my received canons of scripture are the following:
(1a) Nusach Ha Mikra
The Masoretic Text ( In recent years I tend to use editions of the MT based on the Leningrad Codex, and the great Keter Aram Zova/Aleppo Codex, but also have a strong fondness for Yemenite texts of the Pentateuch).
(1b) Nusach Ha Masorah
The Masorah Magna, Masorah Parva, Masorah finalis, Niqqud(vowel points), te`amim (diacritical marks/accents/cantillations) and the rest of the corpus of Masora.
(2a) For the gospel of Matthew only (and maybe Mark) I accept an Aramaic/Hebrew primacy.
(2b) For th**e rest of the NT** I tend to accept the Byzantine majority text as that best represents the received text of the a vast multitude of churches throughout history and I am very interested in reading the NT what lay before Christians throughout history.
(3) BEN SIRA
While, not in my congregation's accepted canon I find it to be useful and I believe it is even quoted in the NT.
(1) The Targums. Basically, they are highly interpretive translations and when I am interested in ancient theology and how people in ancient palestine may have read the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) I turn to the Targums.
(2) The Sinaitic Palimpsest/Sinaiticus and the Peshitta
(3) Franz Delitzsch's magnum opus the Ha-Brit Ha-Khadasha (Hebrew translation of the New Testament) I use it very much like one might use a commentary and in my opinion it is very much so.
(4) I also use the Shin Kyōdō Yaku Seisho (The New Interconfessional Translation Bible) a modern Japanese translation. I do so mainly for the sake of convenience since this the translation that most congregations I have visited in Japan use. But, for my own personal study I rarely use it.
Why do I accept the Masoretic Text as my recieved canon?
To make a long story short because it is my Raison d'être and because I was Predestined(for lack of a better word) to study it.
Why do I accept the Massorah?
One, it comes with the Masoretic Text.
Two, while, not of the same level of authority as the main text of the MT I believe it is difficult to impossible to correctly interpret the MT without the Masora. That does not imply that I accept the Masora uncritical, however, even when we think the Masora is in error we can learn from it providing we are aware of the error/misjudgements, but more than often we are in error rather the Masora!
Why, do I accept an Aramaic primacy for the Gospel of Matthew and/or Mark?
Partly because following early Christians individual testify to a Hebrew/Aramaic gospel of Matthew in use of among Christians in the late 1st and 2nd centuries:
Bishop Papias, Irenaeus, Eusebius, St. Jerome, and Epiphanius
Why, do I tend to accept Byzantine Majority Text
For the rest of the NT I tend to accept the Byzantine majority text as that best represents the received text of the a vast multitude of churches throughout history and I am very interested in reading the NT what lay before Christians throughout history but in actually practice I use my printed NA 27th ( I also use an electronic edition of the NA 28th).
I also use the LXX although it is not (my congregation's) received canon.
(edit: added 'my congergation's' for clarity)
POST SCRIPT (added on 2015/05/28 at 21:18)
(What I mean by this is to say I did not grow up with the LXX, in fact I knew nothing of it till later in life. So, it is still a foreign text to me. Also, as I am stronger in Hebrew than Greek, I tend to turn to Hebrew Texts before I turn to Greek ones, but that is not to say that I never turn to Greek ones.)
david_ames — 2015-05-28T08:00:28-04:00 — #13
Why? What is your reasoning for rejecting the Old Testament of the early Christian Church?
Evidence of that statement: Read the quotes of the OT in the New. Most come directly from the LXX.
The LXX was the official OT until the heretic Jerome scraped it for the Hebrew text in 400 AD.
Question: DId the Jews LOVE the Christians from 70 to 400 AD or did they HATE them?
[The answer is that both sides HATED the other] So if you HATE people that are using the LXX how many lies will you tell them to get them to abandon the TRUE OT text for their FALSE text in the Hebrew? Jerome was a heretic and we are using the WRONG OT text. [imho]
bkmitchell — 2015-05-28T08:10:30-04:00 — #14
I never said that I rejected the LXX, I do use it just as I said so! However, the canon I grew up with is the Masoretic text. And actually, it was not till later in life that I accepted the NT in any way form or fashion.
And, guess what I am still on a journey, I am still studying, I am still learning I have not come to the final ultimate truth about everything. Maybe, your not on a journey and maybe you have all the answers and if so praise the Lord!, on the other hand please be patient with others who like me are still on the journey.
I also never said anything about hating people who used the LXX. In fact most of the Christians I know back in my country are members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, a few I know are members of the Catholic Church.This why I know about the Peshitta, Ben SIRA and I also listed the LXX because my Greek Orthodox brothers use that text.
Anyway, this thread is about different types of Christian opening up and sharing what canons they accept and use. I hope that it can continue be a non-judgmental and non-confrontational place to do so.
And, I also humble invite you, too to answer the questions raised in the OP, if you do not mind.
bkmitchell — 2015-05-28T09:00:07-04:00 — #15
Also, the Robinson and Pierpont edition of the Byzantine Majority Text is almost identical to the Greek Orthodox Church Patriarchal Text of 1904 basically differing only in accents. I actually ran a few comparison those two texts in a Bible Software program (not Logos but Logos will also soon have this text). The amazing thing about these texts agreeing is that neither Robinson nor Pierpont were attempting to recreate the official koine Greek NT of the Greek Orthodox Church, but by providence it turned out to be that way.
Here is a link to the Logos/Faithlife product page for it:
david_ames — 2015-05-29T08:12:57-04:00 — #16
You miss understood my comment [Or I did not word it correctly - one or the other or both] the ones the HATED were the Christians and the Jews of 400 AD when the Jews tricked Jerome into accepting their incorrect false Hebrew OT. [imho]
david_ames — 2015-05-29T08:15:47-04:00 — #17
Here it was I that miss interpreted what you meant.
david_ames — 2015-05-29T08:36:28-04:00 — #18
As requested by BKMitchell:
Point 2: My main Bible is the KJV. I grew up with the RSV but moved to the KJV after leaving my home church. At first it was for the readings and the language. Later as I studied many verses that are not in the so called modern Bibles seemed to me to belong. In my studies using Logos I have been known to compare every English Bible to try and see if there are hints in some that are missing in other of the original meanings. I use lexicons and reverse interlinear with care.
Point 1: by default I tend to accept that behind the KJV. But some of the additions as found in the LXX add value. [Read Esther with all the additions - The version in the KJV Canon left 'God' on the editing cutting floor]
Point 3: When I really want to know what Scripture has to say, as I said above, I compare every English Bible including some not found in Logos. Not everything in the alternatives has value but there are spiritual gems to be found
.[[Yes, the words I just wrote imply that I pick and chose but I am a bit deeper than that.]]
bkmitchell — 2015-05-31T23:36:04-04:00 — #19
Thank you for your clarification and for sharing which canon you use.
Depending on which edition of the KJV or Authorized version you are using the apocrypha may included. In English speaking countries outside of the USA editions of the KJV with the deuterocanonicals seem to be a lot more common.
david_ames — 2015-06-01T14:52:14-04:00 — #20
True BUT most English versions of the LXX put the ""ADDED"" texts where they ""belong"" in the Bible text and not added on in the middle of the book.
next page →