Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48216 | ||
Makarios There are plenty of verses that refer to scripture, but show me where is the magic list that tells which books are in and which are out. Tell me where is the criteria for determining this in the Bible, and then tell me how you know that should be in the Bible in the first place? |
||||||
2 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | The Berean | 48233 | ||
Hello I can't give you any indication as what belongs and what doesn't. Most of what has been put in the canon was agreed upon by the thought processes of Holy Men. I think there were plenty of complete bibles before canonization (Wycleff 1380, Tyndale in 1530's), Correct me if I'm wrong somebody. But I do know one thing in John 20:30 it says "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book (book of John only?); but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ.." Now do we have the complete story of Jesus Christ? Of course not, we only need that which gives us faith to believe. There are other Historical book like Macabees I and II that the Jews refer to but we don't recoginize them as necessary books for the prophecy of Jesus. But then again the Book of Esther doesn't even mention the word God in it. So does that make it an acception to the rule over the other apocryphal books? Just my two cents. |
||||||
3 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 48289 | ||
Greetings The Berean, Speaking of the book of Esther... "An outstanding feature of this book- one that has given rise to considerable discussion- is the complete absence of any explicit reference to God, worship, prayer, or sacrifice. This "secularity" has produced many detractors who have judged the book to be of little religious value. However, it appears that the author has deliberately refrained from mentioning God or any religious activity as a literary device to heighten the fact that it is God who controls and directs all the seemingly insignificant coincidences (see, e.g. note on 6:1) that make up the plot and issue in deliverance for the Jews. God's sovereign rule is assumed at every point (see note on 4:12-16), an assumption made all the more effective by the total absence of reference to Him." (1) I pray that this serves to justify and make clear the addition of the book of Esther in the Bible. Blessings to you, Makarios (1) The Zondervan NASB Study Bible, 1999, the Zondervan Corporation, Kenneth Barker, General Editor [taken from the Introduction to Esther] |
||||||
4 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | The Berean | 48422 | ||
I see your point. I don't have any problems with the book of Esther. However, when you say author, isn't the author inspired by God? So thus are you saying that God deliberatley withheld the mentioning of his name in the book? There are plenty of other documents concerning the plight of Jews that are not of Canon and also may not mention God. In this case it really wouldn't matter because they are his chosen people. He called them (Jews) to a Holy Nation (1 Peter 2:9) What about the Book of the Wars of the Lord in Numbers 20:21. I don't think no one has found them, still unkown I think. If they were found today, would they not be accepted? Thanks for the input | ||||||