Which Bible books should be canon? (66 vs 73+)

This is the place to discuss anything to do with scriptural doctrine. It is the primary purpose of this site, and most discussions will be here.
Forum rules
Matt 18:6; Eccl 7:9; 1 Pet 4:8 (If you're not sure what they say then please hover over them with your mouse or look them up in your own Bible before posting)
Message
Author
Proselytiser of Jah
Posts: 187
Joined: 2 months ago
Contact:

Which Bible books should be canon? (66 vs 73+)

#1 Post by Proselytiser of Jah » 2 weeks ago

So I'm curious, looking into the history of Catholicsm and the reformation, there were said to be "orginally 73 books" in the Bible at least. Whilst others say the reformers "corrected" the Bible. Does anyone have any firm reasoning on which outlook is the right one? Which books should we consider authentic and/or inspired of God?

The "addtional" Catholic books are OT


Tobit
Judith
Wisdom (also called the Wisdom of Solomon)
Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees


If there are 73 books (or more) and not 66, are we missing anything vital? Are we taking away from the word of God?

For example, some books are even quoted by Jesus and the Apostles at times, and there are some books that one may say are prophetic, a claim that there is "the book of wisdom", which foretold the details of the Jewish treatment of Jesus. If this is an authentic book which was accurate in prophecy, then it must be inspired, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canon ... _the_Bible

Wisdom 2:12-20: "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected."

Matthew 27: 41-43: So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, `I am the Son of God.’”


There are a lot of back and forth arguments on authenticity and who the authors were. Of course, what is important is that, "when were they written" and "did they accurately fortell", and we also have to consider consistency. Other books appear to be lost to time, which is sad.

Thoughts?
"The fruitage of the Spirit is; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control..." Galatians 5:22-23

Bobcat
Posts: 3840
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Which Bible books should be canon? (66 vs 73+)

#2 Post by Bobcat » 2 weeks ago

Just for cross-reference purposes, this post (and on down through post # 100) discussed about the number of books in the Bible.


Bobcat

Proselytiser of Jah
Posts: 187
Joined: 2 months ago
Contact:

Re: Which Bible books should be canon? (66 vs 73+)

#3 Post by Proselytiser of Jah » 2 weeks ago

Bobcat wrote:
2 weeks ago
Just for cross-reference purposes, this post (and on down through post # 100) discussed about the number of books in the Bible.


Bobcat
Here I thought this was the only post of the topic. :lol: I did a search for "Bible books" and nothing came up, lol.
"The fruitage of the Spirit is; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control..." Galatians 5:22-23

Bobcat
Posts: 3840
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Which Bible books should be canon? (66 vs 73+)

#4 Post by Bobcat » 2 weeks ago

Hi PoJ,

My link was more about the idea of counting Psalms as 5 books. Yours is more centered around the Apocrypha. But they were close enough that I wanted to cross-link them. Perhaps something handy will come out of one or the other, or both.


Bobcat

Proselytiser of Jah
Posts: 187
Joined: 2 months ago
Contact:

Re: Which Bible books should be canon? (66 vs 73+)

#5 Post by Proselytiser of Jah » 4 days ago

Posting a link here which discusses the topic and suggests evidence against the addition of certain books.

https://www.bereanpatriot.com/the-bible ... explained/

His end statement is thus
There have been many great books written by Christians on our Faith. I think the Deuterocanonical books could be counted among them, I just don’t think they are scripture.

Honestly, the strongest evidence of this comes from Maccabees. Maccabees is very clear that there were no prophets in those days. How can a book be inspired by God when the book itself claims that the Holy Spirit didn’t inspire anyone during the time it was written?

The Jews (who were the “entrusted with the oracles of God”) didn’t accept them as scripture for the same reason. Beyond that, the Septuagint was created in direct violation of the command of God. Further, many of the early church fathers didn’t accept them (including a Pope in the 7th century)

Based on the evidence, I don’t consider them to be inspired by God. Good books, possibly. Inerrant and part of the divinely inspired Scriptures, no
.

I'd like to note, as I also have been speaking with others on the matter such as a close Catholic friend of mine, that he believes that the "Jewish Rabbai canon" which the above author relies upon cannot be fully trusted, because he claims they didn't want to include certain books, such as the book of Wisdom, because it denounced them and fortold their betrayal of the Messaiah.

I do feel this is a good point, for the very least, the book of Wisdom. Another question I would raise is "what counts as being a prophet and what counts as being an inspired writer"? The above author tries to claim they are one in the same, but this may not be so.


Book of Wisdom
Seeing that it seems to be prophetic, I believe it has to be inspired. I don't know if the logic the author makes that the scriptures say "there were no prophets in this time period" in regards to Macabees applies to the book of Wisdom or not, as I am not well versed on this or the time period of the book of Wisdom, so if anyone else can reason on this, it would be appreciated.


However, whilst there is strong evidence for the inspiration of the book of Wisdom, or at least a part of it (I've not read it yet, I'm only aware of the single prophecy in it), this does leave open for question the other books and their authenticity.We know the early Christians quoted from some of these books,but they also quoted from pagans in a secular manner, so a quotation doesn't always confirm canonisation.


Book of Enoch
Looking into other books, such as the book of Enoch, I would contend that most of it was fantasy and false religion. As it contains statements which are in conflict of Jesus' words (being the only man to have come down from Heaven and no man has gone up into Heaven), the book of Enoch claims he "went to Heaven and Hell" on a tour, and many other things that seem to echo pagan beliefs and statements that do not line up with the inspired words.

It should be noted that the "book" of Enoch is from several authors, and possibly several differnt periods, so it may be a matter of trying to weed out which parts are authentic and which are corruptions. For example, it seems apparent to some that the book of Jude quotes Enoch directly and regards it as a prophecy.

However, others contest that because the book is made up of different authors and time periods, it cannot be confirmed which books were written "before" the authorship of Jude and which were written after.

https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/did_j ... _enoch.php
First of all, the Book of Enoch is lie from beginning to end. It is a hodgepodge of mythical writings about Enoch’s supposed tour of heaven and hell during which he was led about by archangels and given extensive revelations. In contrast to Paul, who was not allowed to describe what he saw in paradise (2 Co. 12:4), Enoch tells all! He even reveals the names of archangels not mentioned in the Bible (Raphael, Suryal, and Uriel). It is full of wild-eyed tales, such as 450-foot-tall (300 cubits) cannibal giants on the pre-flood earth, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in heaven, the spirit of Abel suing Cain before God’s throne, angelic “watchers” congregating on Mt. Hermon before invading mankind to have sexual relations with women, angels teaching men how to make swords, shields, mirrors, and jewelry, etc., and disobedient stars in hell.

Second, there is no sure evidence that the prophecy of Enoch in the Book of Enoch pre-dated the apostles. The Book of Enoch is composed of many different writings, and little is known for sure about its early history. Parts of it did predate the birth of Christ, but much of it was written later. Some fragments of the book were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, but those fragments do not contain the prophecy of Enoch found in Jude. See ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Library/enoch.html and deadseascrolls.org.il/featured-scrolls and deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/manuscript/1Q23-1. The Book of Enoch as it exists today is based on copies of the book in the Ge’ez language discovered in Ethiopia in the late 1700s by James Bruce and first published in English by Richard Laurence in 1821. The history of this book and its actual age is unknown.
"The fruitage of the Spirit is; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control..." Galatians 5:22-23

Get out of her
Posts: 1034
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: Which Bible books should be canon? (66 vs 73+)

#6 Post by Get out of her » 3 days ago

A very good and important question Poj. The more you learn about topics like this the more you will begin to appreciate just how culpable organizations like the Watchtower really are or at least gradually became over the decades. There is in fact a conscious and concerted effort on their part to control and enslave their constituents by actually training them NOT to be genuine students of the Bible. I keenly remember even before I became anointed feeling troubled at times over how I was never really learning ANYTHING of any real substance at the meetings and assemblies, and worse yet they seemed determined at some point to progressively dumb us down even further. They would refer to it as "simplifying things," as you probably know while at the same time making claims such as that Jesus taught in exactly that manner. Of course you would do well not to hold your breath waiting for them to explain what Jesus was conveying with the rather cryptic and symbolic language involved in his illustrations or passages like Matthew 24:15-20. The last few years I attended meetings, if I wasn't giving a talk it was all I could do to just sit there and read my Bible. It was the only way I could feel like I was being fed spiritually at all or for that matter able to hold on to my sanity.

This issue or question of what particular writings would or would not qualify as actually canonical or inspired of God is a good example of what I'm speaking of. The fact is there is simply no excuse for any alleged "Christian" religious leader to pretend there are only 66 books of the Bible when even one or more of these books THEMSELVES specifically name or even directly quote from additional ones.

When Jesus is uttering the words found in accounts like Matthew 23:37-39, he is actually quoting directly from one of the books commonly referred to as the Apocryphal ones. This would be either first or second Esdras if I recall correctly. Depending on which particular version we are considering the Apocrypha consists of anywhere between 12-15 books, at least most of which you will recognize as canonical upon actually reading them. (Joh 10:3-5) A few of them are still to be found in the Catholic Bible. There are several editions out there of MANY different languages that still include the Apocrypha to some extent or other. In English these would include ones like the Douay-Rheims American version, Goodspeeds, and the New Jerusalem Bible. But this is in fact only a portion of what Jehovah's enemies have endeavored to remove from the Bible over the millenniums. The ancient prophet Enoch wrote entire VOLUMES of work which are evidently STILL being uncovered in the caves of Qumran near the Dead Sea. The writer Jude is directly quoting from these writings at Jude 14, 15.

What you might find most offensive however is the fact that on more than one occasion our same 66 book Bible directly refers to one of the Bible books BY NAME that has long been excluded from the ones we are more familiar with. This is the Book of Jasher which is mentioned not only in the book of Joshua but also in 2nd Samuel. (Jos 10:13) (2 Sa 1:18) Actually most if not basically ALL of the books that have been removed from the Bible are available to us at least by means of an online purchase or an e-book reading, and of course I strongly recommend we make a serious effort to at least listen to them or read them online as time permits. They can be looked up by simply entering in search words such as the "lost books of the Bible" or something of the like. But we would do well to prepare ourselves for the notion that there are likely many more than we might ever imagine.

That reminds me in fact that in one of the Apocryphal books Jehovah foretells not only that his enemies would endeavor to de-canonize many of the holy writings over the centuries, but also that he would insure they would nonetheless be made available to us in the end times. This prophecy is found in the Apocrypha but unfortunately I cannot recall which book at the moment. Jehovah even went so far as to give us the exact number of books that would be genuinely inspired. As I recall it was somewhere around 148 or so. There are still some that I myself have not yet gone over, but I will say in advance that they are INCREDIBLY interesting and informative! The more you read them the more you will understand why Jehovah's enemies recognize them as such a threat. The next book I personally intend to go over is the book of Jubilees.

Agape love;
Sol

Proselytiser of Jah
Posts: 187
Joined: 2 months ago
Contact:

Re: Which Bible books should be canon? (66 vs 73+)

#7 Post by Proselytiser of Jah » 3 days ago

I appreciate your input GoH.

I do want to take caution of course, as whilst there does seem to be prophecy in some of these books, others, as I've said, contradict other books and others have proven to be scholarly inauthentic. The scriptures likewise warn us about false prophets and false writings, so it's wise not to merely assume all of them are of God. It takes a lot of slow study and thought.

For example, you mentioned the Enoch book, which as I stated above I feel greatly contradicts the other inspired words Bible and Jesus' words, or at least most parts (it appears there are several authors, perhaps some are authentic and some are not), whilst it's unknown if the book of Jude is quoting Enoch or if the book of Enoch is quoting Jude whilst "pretending" to be the original book (a deception which enables the author to then add whatever else they want to the book).

It's easy to get excited over these things, but we have to be sensible.

On one hand, the protestants may be guilty of "taking away", on the other, the Catholics and Jews may have been guilty of "adding". It could go either direction.
"The fruitage of the Spirit is; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control..." Galatians 5:22-23

Strazh
Posts: 49
Joined: 9 months ago

Re: Which Bible books should be canon? (66 vs 73+)

#8 Post by Strazh » 2 days ago

Proselytiser of Jah wrote:
2 weeks ago
So I'm curious, looking into the history of Catholicsm and the reformation, there were said to be "orginally 73 books" in the Bible at least. Whilst others say the reformers "corrected" the Bible. Does anyone have any firm reasoning on which outlook is the right one? Which books should we consider authentic and/or inspired of God?
Greetings, brothers.

This may seem unexpected, but I will say that in the era of the New Testament, the main role belongs to the Spirit, not the canon. For example, why do some doubt the inspiration of the book of Esther? It looks strange, but such doubts arise among Christians who have a deep understanding and extensive experience of reflection on the scriptures. There was a topic on this topic here.

The Biblical canon is not a guarantee of inspiration. What about later inserts like 1 John 5:7? This insertion was exposed, but wasn't it obvious before? It was inconsistent with the global context. This is an obvious thing. Besides, why did the apostles baptize in the Name of Christ only if Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? - Matthew 28:19,20.

Why did God allow the enemy to insert and distort the texts? This is a test of the future chosen ones.

I'll tell you an even stranger story. One brother wrote an article. He argued that the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a later insertion. How did he reason? This parable is not repeated anywhere else in the Bible. Abraham in this parable is completely different from Abraham in Genesis. Besides, the main person in paradise is Jesus Christ, not Abraham. In addition, the dead know nothing, and this does not coincide with the parable of Lazarus (Genesis 3:19). Abraham cannot be the main one in paradise, he died - Hebrews 11:13. In addition, God does not torment sinners in hell, as described in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
Text translation:

It seems that this fable was composed by those who did not recognize Jesus as the Son of God, and "the law and the prophets" were the basis of everything for them. In the parable Abraham utters words that in meaning echo the words of the Antichrist rejecting the Son. "They have Moses and the prophets... if they are not listened to, then if someone rises from the dead, they will not listen." This is supposedly Abraham said.

Who has risen from the dead? Jesus! So, it turns out from these words of Abraham that the sermons of the resurrected Jesus will not benefit sinful people. In fact, Abraham says that it is necessary to listen not to the resurrected Jesus, but to Moses!

This is classical Judaism. By the way, it believes in the death throes of sinners... Only Pharisaic fables could put Abraham on the pedestal of the ruler of Paradise. The Holy Scripture shows that Jesus rules the heavens.

If Jesus had really told this story, He would have refuted Himself. According to the text of this fable, the salvation of a sinner depends on "Moses and the prophets", which fundamentally contradicts the will of God. The gospel says that "Moses and the prophets" will not bring salvation. Salvation is only in Christ!


Article is here.
After this article, a Jewish rabbi called this brother and shouted: "This parable should be in the text! It must be understood literally, nothing else!"

I do not know how to comment on this. 'Cui prodest?'

I have heard the argument more than once that Jesus talked to his opponents and used language out of delusion. But that's not true. Jesus never used the language of delusion - 1 Peter 2:22.

I'm sure the satan didn't make too many distortions. The text that has come down to us is surprisingly spiritual and concise. But vigilance is needed.

Can we agree? This should be decided by every mature Christian independently. Jesus called to think in the Spirit. The apostles call for acquiring the mindset of Christ. This thinking is not the canon, not the letter. The Spirit is bigger than the letter, bigger than the grammar, and if the Holy Spirit has already taught your thinking, you should know the right answer.

Those who really know God and Jesus know their real voice. (John 10:14,27)
I don't speak English, so sorry for the mistakes and style.

User avatar
FriendlyDoggo
Posts: 120
Joined: 1 month ago

Re: Which Bible books should be canon? (66 vs 73+)

#9 Post by FriendlyDoggo » 2 days ago

Hi Strahz

Here's the post about Esther:
viewtopic.php?p=49437#p49437

In resume, looks like the Jews maintain this book in their canon because it tell the origin of a festivity called Purim, but archeological findings show that the events in the book might not ever happened.

This adds weight to PoJ's friend claim:
Proselytiser of Jah wrote:
4 days ago
I'd like to note, as I also have been speaking with others on the matter such as a close Catholic friend of mine, that he believes that the "Jewish Rabbai canon" which the above author relies upon cannot be fully trusted, because he claims they didn't want to include certain books, such as the book of Wisdom, because it denounced them and fortold their betrayal of the Messaiah.
About the Rich man and Lazarus:

Although ​the passage itself isn't mentioned again, I think it fit because there's a plenty passages against accumulate goods like: 1 Timothy 6: 9-10

The bible is full of hyperbolic language, it was how people talk at the time. It's symbolic/illustrative. (Revelation 7:9, Revelation 20:10)

Jesus was pointing through "Abraham", prophecies about his coming on earth, compare John 5:46-47 and Deuteronomy 18:15.

It can't be just coincidence that the name of the poor man is "Lazarus", He was resurrected by Jesus but even so the Pharisees did not believe in him, this is the "man". (John 12:9-11)

In overall I agree with your post, I share my thoughts about it here:
viewtopic.php?p=49162#p49162

We have to be very careful and not take things written by face-value, I myself experienced this when I thought that the Earth was going to be destroyed. :doh:

viewtopic.php?p=49634#p49634
viewtopic.php?p=49655#p49655
My english isn't very good, sorry any inconvenience.

Bobcat
Posts: 3840
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Which Bible books should be canon? (66 vs 73+)

#10 Post by Bobcat » 2 days ago

About the Rich man and Lazarus:

I have something about that and its possible connection to the resurrection of Lazarus of Bethany: Here.

The time sequencing between the telling of the Rich Man & Lazarus parable and the raising of Lazarus of Bethany is quite interesting. The former happens just before the latter. Jesus tells the parable in Perea, and then travels to Bethany to raise Lazarus. It is almost too curious to be just chance.


Bobcat

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests