Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why is the Catholic bible different? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Snake Plissken | 183694 | ||
Why don't we have books in the bible like 1st and 2nd Maccabees and Daniel 13 and 14? Deuteronomy 4:2 and Deuteronomy 12:32 tells us to never add or remove anything from what God tells us, and Martin Luther took out some books, as well as wanted to take out other books such as Job. Can someone explain this to me because I really think I should go pick up a Catholic bible- even though I would remain a born-again Protestant. | ||||||
2 | Why is the Catholic bible different? | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183695 | ||
Hi, The books you mention were not part of the Jewish canon and Jesus laid His seal on the Hebrew canon (Luke 24.44 - 'Psalms' covered the the other sacred writings) but not on anything outside it. Thus we only have Jesus authority for the three groups of book in the Hebrew canon. On a practical level while Maccabees is of value historically it is clearly in some parts unreliable. Martin Luther was his own man. His decisions about the acceptability of books is not reliable. He was an evangelist and preacher not a Biblical scholar. If he did not think that a book fitted into his ideas her simply discarded it. By all means read Maccabees as a history book which is partly reliable but we have no genuine grounds for accepting it as 'inspired'. Best wishes Peter | ||||||
3 | Why is the Catholic bible different? | 2 Tim 3:16 | DocTrinsograce | 183697 | ||
Hi, Peter... Not sure what "decisions" you are talking about regarding Martin Luther. He was an earthy fellow by a lot of standards -- even by the standards of his day! -- but I'd put his scholarly attainments right up there with any of the best modern scholars today. His command of Greek, Hebrew, and Latin were extraordinary. He was a prolific writer, far in excess of any modern scholar I could name. God's use of this man, in some ways of considering it, comes quite close to someone like Moses. Oh that modern Biblical scholars would have the passion, discipline, and knowledge of a Luther! A reverse chronological chauvinism is a common malady of our day -- just an observation. In Him, Doc |
||||||
4 | Why is the Catholic bible different? | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183701 | ||
Martin Luther was a linguist but he was not a critical scholar as far as the canon was concerned. His 'decisions' were based purely on personal opinion. I am not criticising Luther as a person, just his approach to the canon. His achievements speak for themselves but his views about the canon were atrocious. | ||||||
5 | Why is the Catholic bible different? | 2 Tim 3:16 | CDBJ | 183703 | ||
Greetings, You suggest in your post a certain demeaning quality that Luther possessed with regards to his expertise on canonicity; could you expatiate on that and where in particular do you found him to be errant and why? Was this quality one that expressed its self while he was still an unbeliever? CDBJ |
||||||