BIBLE VERSIONS
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/20/2012
Location: Namibia
Why was there no Protestant/Pentecostal/Baptist version of the Bible before 1400 AD?
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 08/07/2012
There is no such thing as a Protestant/Pentacostal/Baptist version of a bible. There is the Bible - Some translations are better than others and some lack all of the books.
There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church. -Archbishop Sheen
... you should know that there is present with you the angel whom God has appointed for each man… This angel, who is sleepless and cannot be deceived, is always present with you; he sees all things and is not hindered by darkness. You should know, too, that with him is God. -St. Anthony the Great
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/20/2012
Location: Namibia
quote:
Originally posted by LuminousPax
There is no such thing as a Protestant/Pentacostal/Baptist version of a bible. There is the Bible - Some translations are better than others and some lack all of the books.
That is exactly what I mean. Why was there no Bible with missing books until 1400? And why no Protestant/Pentecostal/Baptist translated the Bible into a vernacular language before 1400?
-
-
- -1213reputation
- 6673 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by LuminousPax
There is no such thing as a Protestant/Pentacostal/Baptist version of a bible. There is the Bible - Some translations are better than others and some lack all of the books.
The catholic church added those other unsriptural books.
They weren't in the original scrolls.
Edited by God4me on 08/11/2012 22:46:18
-
-
- -1213reputation
- 6673 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by Kamati
quote:
Originally posted by LuminousPax
There is no such thing as a Protestant/Pentacostal/Baptist version of a bible. There is the Bible - Some translations are better than others and some lack all of the books.
That is exactly what I mean. Why was there no Bible with missing books until 1400? And why no Protestant/Pentecostal/Baptist translated the Bible into a vernacular language before 1400?
The catholic church added those other unsriptural books.
They weren't in the original scrolls.
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/20/2012
Location: Namibia
quote:
Originally posted by God4me
The catholic church added those other unsriptural books.
They weren't in the original scrolls.
Okay, bear with me as I have to ask a few more questions:
1. Where can we find those original scrolls?
2. When were those unscriptural books added?
3. Did the Catholic Church write those additional books or were they in existence long before the Catholic Church was founded "by the devil" (unspecified date between 300 AD and 600 AD)?
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
quote:
Originally posted by God4me
quote:
Originally posted by LuminousPax
There is no such thing as a Protestant/Pentacostal/Baptist version of a bible. There is the Bible - Some translations are better than others and some lack all of the books.
The catholic church added those other unsriptural books.
They weren't in the original scrolls.
The catholic church only added the books of the new testament. Shouldn't you therefore reject those books? The deutero canonicals were already part of the Septuagint before the Christ appeared.
Do your homework!
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
To answer the question, ther was no prot, baptist or Pentecostal bible before 1400 because there were no Protestants, baptists, or Pentecostal before that time. There weren't Pentecostals until 1900, however the catholic church has always been operating in the gifts.
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/20/2012
Location: Namibia
quote:
Originally posted by mikejuli
To answer the question, ther was no prot, baptist or Pentecostal bible before 1400 because there were no Protestants, baptists, or Pentecostal before that time. There weren't Pentecostals until 1900, however the catholic church has always been operating in the gifts.
Okay, point taken, thank you!
Now let me hear from those who say the Pentecostal as well as the Baptist churches existed from Pentecost Day and John the Baptist respectively: why did you guys not produce a single translation of the Bible during the first 15 centuries of Christianity?
And if the Catholic Church added books to the Bible; when did this happen and from whence came those books?
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 08/07/2012
The seven books were accepted in the Church from the beginning. The apostles and new testament writers quoted principally the Septuagint. There are references taken from the Septuagint in the New Testament. First century writings make use of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, a writing gives an analysis of the book of Judith, and quotes from the additional sections of the book of Esther. The same is true of other early Christian writers - they accepted these books. Jews didn't accept these books; because, they rejected Christ as our saviour.
The canon of Scripture was first formally decided at the Synod of Rome in 382. Then upheld at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). At these Catholic Church councils, the same 46 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books that appear in today's bible were declared to be inspired by God.
Some of the New Testament writers made use of the additional books themselves, the Book of Wisdom as an example, seems to have been St. Paul's favorite volume. The Epistle of St. James - to take another example - shows an acquaintance with the Book of Ecclesiasticus.
The oldest bibles in existence - Codex Vaticanus, etc. - contain the additional books intermingled with the rest - just like today.
You'll also find that christian art of the first four centuries have illustrations from the additional books: Tobias with the fish (Tobias 6), Susanna (Daniel 13), Daniel and the dragon (Daniel 14), the angel with the three children in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3:49), Habacuc and Daniel in the lion's den (Daniel 14:35).
These books were 'demoted' not 'removed' by Luther due to doctrinal issues with the Church - as an appendix. The reality was, there was a lot of corruption in the Church and that's how he responded to it. These books are still an appendix in Lutheran and Anglican bibles. Now here we are with corruption in all Christian churches. People sin, people fail - hence corruption. The Catholic Church; however, still recognizes these books just as the apostles and early Christians did. These books were not formally removed from the bible that many modern day non-Catholics accept until the 1800s.
Today, the only Christians who do not accept these books are non-Catholics and Jews.
There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church. -Archbishop Sheen
... you should know that there is present with you the angel whom God has appointed for each man… This angel, who is sleepless and cannot be deceived, is always present with you; he sees all things and is not hindered by darkness. You should know, too, that with him is God. -St. Anthony the Great
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 08/07/2012
The last sentence is poorly written - Jews and non-Catholics reject them - Christians prior to Luther did.
There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church. -Archbishop Sheen
... you should know that there is present with you the angel whom God has appointed for each man… This angel, who is sleepless and cannot be deceived, is always present with you; he sees all things and is not hindered by darkness. You should know, too, that with him is God. -St. Anthony the Great
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/20/2012
Location: Namibia
I am still patiently waiting for God4me and others to tell me exactly when unscriptural books were added to the Bible by the Catholic Church and where those books came from. I know that, unlike making baseless claims, doing the necessary research and finding such historic information is time consuming and I may have to wait a little longer, it seems, before God4me gives me a feedback.
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/20/2012
Location: Namibia
Evangelist started a thread expressing shock because Catholics believe they are still sinners ...
It is now my turn to express shock to find that people like Evangelist and God4me can not tell why the Pentecostal church did not produce Bible translations between 100 AD and 1400 AD.
These are the people who accuse the Catholic Church of keeping the Bible in a dead language (Latin) instead of translating it into the vernacular languages, yet they themselves did not translate the Bible into the vernaculars.
Aha, I know why:
The Pentecostal church did not exist, if it did exist, then they must explain their failure to produce Bible translations for the people.
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 08/07/2012
quote:
These are the people who accuse the Catholic Church of keeping the Bible in a dead language (Latin) instead of translating it into the vernacular languages, yet they themselves did not translate the Bible into the vernaculars
Yup. Versions of the whole or parts of the Bible in the language of the common people first appeared in Germany in the 8th century.
There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church. -Archbishop Sheen
... you should know that there is present with you the angel whom God has appointed for each man… This angel, who is sleepless and cannot be deceived, is always present with you; he sees all things and is not hindered by darkness. You should know, too, that with him is God. -St. Anthony the Great
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/20/2012
Location: Namibia
This may be premature to make a judgement, but the silence of non Catholics (Evangelist, Conqueror, God4me) seems to suggest a premonition; they foresee that something really bad would happen to them should they start posting here.
Alternatively, they actually know that they have been telling lies and are afraid of being exposed. Or maybe they are still doing their homework to equip themselves better for the discussion.
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/20/2012
Location: Namibia
Who was the first Pentecostal/Protestant/Baptist to translate the Bible into a vernacular and when did that happen?
|
|
Subscribe by Email
RSS