Reader Poll - Where did the Bible come from?

[Carl Emerson]

"Right there is serious error..." - Carl Emerson

How many in Hebrews chapter eleven had a Bible? Yet it is known as the Faith Hall of Fame.

Bibliolatry: Worship/knowledge of the book MORE than the author

I have encountered some that I thought had fallen into this trap. I asked them, "What would become of your faith if you put your whole library out on the curb on trash day?" The guilty are left mostly speechless. Or, alternatively VERY angry. How come? To be clear, I love the Bible and use...

www.christianityboard.com

]

Of course, but their faith is recorded for our benefit and God sanctioned the process.

Why do you think Jesus said that the Scripture cannot be broken ?

 

[St. SteVen]

Of course, but their faith is recorded for our benefit and God sanctioned the process.

Why do you think Jesus said that the Scripture cannot be broken ?

John 10:35 KJV
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Probably not what you hope it says. Some context might help.

Footnote from the New English Translation (NET)

• John 10:35 sn The parenthetical note And the scripture cannot be broken belongs to Jesus’ words rather than the author’s. Not only does Jesus appeal to the OT to defend himself against the charge of blasphemy, but he also adds that the scripture cannot be “broken.” In this context he does not explain precisely what is meant by “broken,” but it is not too hard to determine. Jesus’ argument depended on the exact word used in the context of Ps 82:6. If any other word for “judge” had been used in the psalm, his argument would have been meaningless. Since the scriptures do use this word in Ps 82:6, the argument is binding, because they cannot be “broken” in the sense of being shown to be in error.

John 10:33-38 NET
The Jewish leaders[a] replied,[b] “We are not going to stone you for a good deed[c]
but for blasphemy,[d] because[e] you, a man, are claiming to be God.”[f]
34 Jesus answered,[g] “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?[h]
35 If those people to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’
(and the scripture cannot be broken),[i]
36 do you say about the one whom the Father set apart[j] and sent into the world,
‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
37 If I do not perform[k] the deeds[l] of my Father, do not believe me.
38 But if I do them, even if you do not believe me, believe the deeds,[m]
so that you may come to know[n] and understand that
I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”

]

 

[Stumpmaster]

I was wondering who originally came to this conclusion?

I don't know how many believe this but I hope it's only a few.

From my Christian Ministry Studies:

Communities Ancient & Modern Accept the Biblical Canon:

The term scripture is used by all and sundry to refer to any body of writings considered sacred or authoritative, or it can simply mean something written, so we must keep account of the context in which the term is being used. The term Scripture in the Christian context is generally referring to the canon of sacred writings considered "inspired" or literally "God-breathed" and therefore authentic and reliable for doctrine.

The Greek word "kanon" originally signified a reed or measuring rod, literally "that which measures", which is why it is used to establish a norm, standard, or rule with regard to any body of written matter, be it the canon of law, works of Shakespeare, or our Biblical text.

The two main criteria used in testing for canonicity of Biblical Scripture are "Divine Inspiration" and "Supernatural Characteristics".

God has spoken, inspired, and preserved His Word so that we can trust it as being genuine and reliable.

The process of determining the biblical canon began with Jewish scholars and rabbis, and it was later finalized by the early Christian church toward the end of the fourth century. Over a period of 1,500 years, more than 40 authors in three languages contributed to the books and letters that make up the biblical canon of Scripture. However, it’s essential to recognize that no single church or council created the canon. Instead, churches and councils gradually accepted the list of books recognized by believers everywhere as inspired. The complete listing of the 66 canonical books was first provided by the church father Athanasius around AD 367. Additionally, the Council of Carthage officially agreed on the twenty-seven books of the New Testament in AD 397. So, while the process took time, it ultimately resulted in the canon we have today.

More History:

The Biblical canon refers to a set of texts (also known as “books”) that a particular Jewish or Christian religious community regards as part of the Bible.

1. Jewish Canon:
   • Tanakh: The Jewish canon, also called the Tanakh, consists of 24 books divided into three parts:
     • Torah: The five books of Moses, also known as the Pentateuch, which include Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
     • Nevi’im: The eight books of the Prophets, including Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others.
     • Ketuvim: The eleven books of Writings, such as Psalms, Proverbs, and Job.
   • The Tanakh is mainly composed in Biblical Hebrew, with some portions in Aramaic.
2. Christian Canon:
   • The Christian canon is divided into two main parts:
     • Old Testament (OT): This section contains the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible. However, the order may differ:
       • Protestant: 39 books (arranged differently from the Tanakh).
       • Catholic: 46 books (including deuterocanonical works like Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees).
     • New Testament (NT): Consists of 27 books:
       • Four canonical gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
       • Acts of the Apostles, which narrates the early Christian history.
       • 21 Epistles (letters) written by apostles like Paul, Peter, and John.
       • Book of Revelation, a prophetic and apocalyptic work.
3. Deuterocanonical Books:
   • The Catholic Church considers certain books and passages (e.g., Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach) as part of the Old Testament canon, but these are not accepted by all Christian denominations.
   • Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian churches may have variations in their accepted lists.
4. Other Canonical Books:
   • Some Christian groups have additional books (an “open canon”) considered holy scripture but not part of the Bible.

In summary, the biblical canon reflects both historical development and religious authority, shaping worship, beliefs, and conduct within Jewish and Christian communities.

The word “canon” has an interesting etymology:

1. Canonical (Adjective):
   • The term “canonical” (early 15th century) originally meant “according to ecclesiastical law.” It comes from Medieval Latin “canonicalis”, which itself derives from Late Latin “canonicus”, meaning “according to rule.”
   • In ecclesiastical use, it referred to things related to the rules or institutes of the church.
   • Over time, its general sense expanded to mean “conformed or conforming to rule”.
2. Canon (Noun):
   • “Canon” (n.1) dates back to Old English and Old French, both of which borrowed it directly from Late Latin “canon”.
   • In classical Latin, it meant “measuring line” or “rule.”
   • The Greek word “kanon” influenced its origin, possibly stemming from the Greek word “kanna”, which means “reed.”
   • The connection to “reed” suggests a straight rod or bar used as a measuring tool.
   • In ecclesiastical use, it specifically referred to “Church law” or “a rule or doctrine enacted by ecclesiastical authority.”
   • Over time, it took on broader meanings:
     • Referring to the Scriptures (books of the Bible accepted by the Christian church).
     • Extending to secular books of acknowledged excellence or supremacy.
     • In fandom, it denotes material regarded as veritable (e.g., the Sherlock Holmes series).
     • In music, it refers to a kind of fugal composition.
3. Clergy and Canonization:
   • “Canon” (n.2) also relates to clergy living according to rules.
   • It comes from Anglo-French “canun”, which traces back to Church Latin “canonicus”.
   • The Latin adjective “canonicus” means “according to rule” and is derived from the Greek “kanon”.

In summary, the word “canon” has a rich history, encompassing concepts of rules, measurement, and excellence across various contexts.

 

[Peterlag]

"Right there is serious error..." - Carl Emerson

How many in Hebrews chapter eleven had a Bible? Yet it is known as the Faith Hall of Fame.

Bibliolatry: Worship/knowledge of the book MORE than the author

I have encountered some that I thought had fallen into this trap. I asked them, "What would become of your faith if you put your whole library out on the curb on trash day?" The guilty are left mostly speechless. Or, alternatively VERY angry. How come? To be clear, I love the Bible and use...

www.christianityboard.com

]

That's because those in the book of Hebrews walked by the spirit. Walking by the spirit today is a "lost art" because the Bible preachers teach their people to walk by the flesh.

 

[Carl Emerson]

John 10:35 KJV
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Probably not what you hope it says. Some context might help.

Footnote from the New English Translation (NET)

• John 10:35 sn The parenthetical note And the scripture cannot be broken belongs to Jesus’ words rather than the author’s. Not only does Jesus appeal to the OT to defend himself against the charge of blasphemy, but he also adds that the scripture cannot be “broken.” In this context he does not explain precisely what is meant by “broken,” but it is not too hard to determine. Jesus’ argument depended on the exact word used in the context of Ps 82:6. If any other word for “judge” had been used in the psalm, his argument would have been meaningless. Since the scriptures do use this word in Ps 82:6, the argument is binding, because they cannot be “broken” in the sense of being shown to be in error.

John 10:33-38 NET
The Jewish leaders[a] replied,[b] “We are not going to stone you for a good deed[c]
but for blasphemy,[d] because[e] you, a man, are claiming to be God.”[f]
34 Jesus answered,[g] “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?[h]
35 If those people to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’
(and the scripture cannot be broken),[i]
36 do you say about the one whom the Father set apart[j] and sent into the world,
‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
37 If I do not perform[k] the deeds[l] of my Father, do not believe me.
38 But if I do them, even if you do not believe me, believe the deeds,[m]
so that you may come to know[n] and understand that
I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”

]

I guess it isn't hard to find a commentary that supports your preferred view.

I avoid scripture ping pong.

I don't relish commentary ping pong either...

Context can be what it sounds like... Contrary to the text !

 

[One 2 question]

The two main criteria used in testing for canonicity of Biblical Scripture are "Divine Inspiration" and "Supernatural Characteristics".

Again who comes up with this stuff? Who first said this is the main criteria? A certain person or after a general consensus? And who gave them the right to close it, lock it and throw away the key.

This is so wrong. Then to go that step further to say that we are not to add to this document, is offensive. Then to say that God will not add any more revelation than what is in the 66, 73 or 81 book bible almost angers me.

They are like the Pharisees. But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Religious influencers get people addicted to the bible, locking them in to the closed canon so they feel they cannot be led by the Spirit of Truth Who goes way beyond the bible. And these pharisees will not let themselves be led by the Spirit into all truth that lies outside the closed canon.

I was one of these. I had so much fear instilled in me where I was so concerned about being led astray should I not be studying, meditating, applying the bible and bible ONLY!

I am so grateful that the Spirit led me beyond the bible. I am so free now. I hope that others who are under the spell of these deceived controlling so called leaders, will be led out from their control and experience new found freedom.

The greatest weapon of choice these false leaders use is undoubtedly the bible. The concerning thing is that the Spirit is rejected in favour of the bible.

How often God the Father was rejected by His chosen people in favour of other gods. Then He sent His Son and they rejected Him in favour of their preconceived idea and criteria of who they were told their Messiah would be. Then He sent His Spirit and now His chosen people have been rejecting Him in favour of bible wielding human idols. It's disgusting and offensive! Jesus told these false teachers and corrupt leaders of His day...
I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

I tell you this. Jesus still feels the same way and warns us now to repent of these corrupt, bible wielding human idols and accept the Holy Spirit to control and lead us.

 

[Spyder]

Again who comes up with this stuff? Who first said this is the main criteria? A certain person or after a general consensus? And who gave them the right

I tell you this. Jesus still feels the same way and warns us now to repent of these corrupt, bible wielding human idols and accept the Holy Spirit to control and lead us.

This!

Our world is now full of those who act as bible lawyers who defend their denominations statements of faith regardless of what scripture might contain that contradicts those statements. I can understand how that happens. People like checklists that prove to themselves how correct or how smart they are. We like to be held up as the person to go to for truth - not even realizing that we are letting others place us above God himself.

Sadly, we learn to lean on proof-texts while ignoring passages that we dictate that we reconsider the doctrines that we have been taught. We completely miss the whole concept of letting God's spirit guide us to truth. I suspect that many do not know how. It is a concept that is foreign to so many.

The most difficult time I had was releasing the things I had been taught and then examining scripture for myself and waiting on God's teaching for truth. I ended up realizing how little I understood. There are still questions that I have that I have not received a response for, but those things do not dampen my faith or my search for growth.

Still, all those who desire truth in following Jesus are my kin. We are all in our own spot of our growth and still on our journey. There is still time for all of us until Yahweh takes us from this life.

 

[GodsGrace]

Cast your votes. Thanks.

/

You didn't specify .... the OT or the NT.....
I'd have different replies for each one.

 

[Runningman]

Reader Poll - Where did the Bible come from?

It's probably a bit of a mixed bag. God spoke directly to the prophets. They transcribed the things God told them and the events that surrounded those revelations. Other times, the authors recorded some personal commentary that weren't necessarily things God had said, but was good spiritual guidance nonetheless.

They also recorded some historical information, but arguably left out some historical information that may have been important actually, i.e., the 70 AD destruction of the temple description would have been pretty nice to have, but there's practically nothing about it.

The canonized Bible contains 4 accounts of the gospels, but they don't contain all of the same information and Luke wasn't even one of the 12 disciples who witnessed it. There are also some small inconsistencies and not everything they wrote about seems to be remembered the same way by each of them. So that may be evidence that God isn't directly involved in the authorship.

There is also the matter that Bible has been edited through scribal error or deliberately for dogmatic purposes. It's been retranslated a lot and no one really seems to 100% agree what it's really all about in the context of the time and culture it was written in.

 

[St. SteVen]

You didn't specify .... the OT or the NT.....
I'd have different replies for each one.

That's a good point. And indeed they each came to us in a different way.
I guess I was most focused on the NT.

/

 

[GodsGrace]

That's a good point. And indeed they each came to us in a different way.
I guess I was most focused on the NT.

/

Hi St. SeVen
For the NT, I'd say this:

• 
  
• 
  
• God wrote it through fallible human authors
• The Bible was written by inspired human authors
• Some parts of the Bible were written by inspired human authors
• The Church chose from available writings to form the Bible
• Other - please comment

Fallible because some of the writers writing history got some minor points wrong. This does not effect its message or its verocity.
The persons who wrote the NT were early Christians and were definetly inspired by God AND were in contact with those that were with the Apostles, or was an Apostle, or with those the Apostles taught.

The Church did indeed choose which writings to include in the NT. Some came close but were not chosen.
Those who chose what would become the NT were ECFs. Which I hear some state were not inspired so we shouldn't read them.
Which is interesting...since THEY'RE the ones who compiled what we today know as the NT.

 

[St. SteVen]

The Church did indeed choose which writings to include in the NT. Some came close but were not chosen.
Those who chose what would become the NT were ECFs. Which I hear some state were not inspired so we shouldn't read them.
Which is interesting...since THEY'RE the ones who compiled what we today know as the NT.

Good post. But I'm not sure on this point about the ECFs involvement in the NT canon. Could you research that a bit?

]

 

[christsavedme]

Do you believe that carried through in the whole process involved to put a Bible in our hands today?

1) Oral traditions
2) Written accounts (usually long after the events occurred)
3) Collected writings (merged into books) Multiple authors
4) The body of original autographs/manuscripts (now all gone)
5) Copies of copies of copies of copies... of manuscripts
6) Oldest "manuscripts" as mere fragments (see image below)
7) Textual Criticism (choosing which manuscript copies to translate from)
8) Early translation work (subject to religious bias and political factors)
9) The King James Version of 1611 (Bibles finally becoming available to commoners)
10) Modern translation work (using modern technology and the Dead Sea Scrolls)


Oldest known New Testament manuscript copy (fragment).
The Gospel of John.

View attachment 44281

/

The Bible did not appear as a single, complete book, but developed gradually over many centuries. The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) originated from ancient oral traditions, stories, and texts that were compiled and edited over time by various authors and redactors. Most scholars believe the earliest written biblical texts date to around the 8th-7th centuries BCE, with the Torah (first five books) taking shape by the 5th century BCE(Cassel, 2021; Spellman, 2012).

The New Testament developed in the 1st-2nd centuries CE, with the earliest writings being Paul's letters in the 50s CE, followed by the Gospels later in the 1st century. The 27 books of the New Testament were gradually recognized as authoritative scripture by early Christian communities, with the canon largely settled by the 4th century CE(Torrey, n.d.; Vogel, 2019).

The texts were originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. They were later translated into other languages, with Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation in the late 4th century being particularly influential(Authier, 2023). The first complete English translations appeared in the 14th-16th centuries.

Throughout this long process of development, the biblical texts were copied, edited, and transmitted by scribes and religious communities. Modern biblical scholarship uses textual criticism and historical-critical methods to study the origins and transmission of these ancient texts(Clogg & Clogg, 1968).

 

[GodsGrace]

Good post. But I'm not sure on this point about the ECFs involvement in the NT canon. Could you research that a bit?

]

What's to research?
WHO canonized the NT?
Who compiled the writings?
Who put it together?

 

[St. SteVen]

The Bible did not appear as a single, complete book, but developed gradually over many centuries.

Great post. Welcome to the forum.

]

 

[St. SteVen]

What's to research?
WHO canonized the NT?
Who compiled the writings?
Who put it together?

Yes. Was it actually some of the ECFs?
The canon came from the western Latin Church.
Weren't the ECFs in the eastern Greek churches?

]

 

[GodsGrace]

Agree.
And not just the biblical "authors". (which is another question) Gospel of Q ???
Scribal errors and omissions, paraphrasing and added comments.
Majority texts that don't align with the earliest known manuscript copies...
The early translation work. Modern translation work.
Quite the gauntlet for "our" Bible to go through.

I read The Bible Tells Me So... by Peter Enns.
He does a comparison of I+II Kings and I+II Chronicles.
Two completely different historical accounts of the same period in history.
How did that happen?


View attachment 44282

This Zondervan book is interesting as well.
Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy
There are videos from all five authors. Here's Peter.

/

You know St. SteVen,
Some today are worshipping the bible instead of God.
I see that you're Christian and are asking the same questions that atheists ask.
This is good...Good to have an open mind.
Persons that are fundamental in theology might have a rude awakening someday, and THEN what do they do?
Their very faith will be shaken.

God used the bible as revelation....to let Himself be known to us.
He didn't sit down at a computer and write both the OT and the NT - although I do believe the NT has more correct history.
I think we need to get a grip on the fact that God is a big God and we all have Him locked up in little boxes that we create.

I don't really care if there are errors in either the OT or the NT.
I know that God exists and man wants to try and tell THE STORY.

The story is still based on fact.
Was Adam a real person?
Do snakes speak?

Certainly the Genesis story tells us that God created everything...including humans.
Certainly it teaches of our nature and tells of our fall.
All this is true.
Maybe the details are not right....Gen 1 is different from Gen 2.
But they tell the SAME STORY.

Interesting thread....wish I had the time to read every post....

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes. Was it actually some of the ECFs?
The canon came from the western Latin Church.
Weren't the ECFs in the eastern Greek churches?

]

The ECFs were both Eastern and Western.
When the bible was compiled, in the 4th century,
there was no split between the two.

 

[GodsGrace]

@St. SteVen

I found this quick:

Between significance and scripture​

The turning point, at which our present New Testament books ceased to be occasional writings and became scripture, was really in the second century. By the time of Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165 AD) and Irenaeus (ca. 130-202 AD) we find extensive quotations from New Testament books; while the First Letter of Clement, addressed to the church in Corinth, quotes Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians.

Within the New Testament itself there is already a hint that Paul’s letters are coming to be regarded as scriptural, like the Old Testament: the second Letter of Peter, a canonical though pseudonymous work probably from the late first century, says that there are obscurities in Paul’s writings which perverse people twist to their own liking ‘as they do the other scriptures’ (2 Peter 3:16). By the 240s, Origen (184-253 AD) could write a commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew, just as he also wrote one, for example, on the Old Testament book of Joshua. By then Matthew was, simply, Scripture. Quotations from what we know as the New Testament far outweigh those from works later rejected as heretical. To cope with that, any conspiracy theory would need to show that the works of a host of Christian writers had been heavily redacted by ‘orthodox’ editors.

Replica of a Dead Sea scroll for the book of Isaiah
There was certainly a stage before the now-canonical gospels and epistles were seen as parts of the Bible. Between being written in the first century and coming to be regarded as scripture in the latter half of the second, there was a time when they were not yet cited using formulae such as ‘it is written’, which marks out quotations from the Old Testament. They were seen as something different from Old Testament Scripture, because they were known to be recent works. But their newness made them if anything more, rather than less, important than the old scriptures, and there are early second-century works that actually cite them more than they do the Old Testament.

Acceptance into ‘The Bible’​

The distinction between scripture – old, venerable and of Jewish origin – and the books that would come to form the New Testament, is most vividly apparent in the fact that the latter were not written on scrolls, but in codices. The codex was an informal vehicle, something like a notebook in status, which did not catch on as a form of text for high-level writings until well after this. But Christians used it from the beginning for their own works, as if to assert that these were not ‘biblical’, even though they were of enormous importance for the nascent Church.

Thus, there are four stages in the formation of the New Testament. The books were written a considerable time after the time of Jesus himself. In the early second century they were regarded as hugely significant, in some ways more so than the Old Testament, yet they were not themselves ‘scripture’. By the end of that century they were coming to be treated as parts of a bipartite Bible consisting of Old and New Testaments. And finally, in the fourth century, ecclesiastical writers began to list them formally, recognising decisions already taken in the past that these were the Christians’ own scriptures. The major turning point lies in the second century shift towards scriptural status for these books: the fourth-century rulings do little more than acknowledge formally what was already in practice the case. There was no conspiracy.

source: https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/blog/how-new-testament-was-created/




The earliest known complete list of the 27 books is found in a letter written by Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, dated to 367 AD.[3] The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first. These councils also provided the canon of the Old Testament, which included the deuterocanonical books.

source: New Testament - Wikipedia

 

[St. SteVen]

The ECFs were both Eastern and Western.
When the bible was compiled, in the 4th century,
there was no split between the two.

I thought the western Church worked independently of the eastern churches.
That the canon was a product of the western Church and carried their doctrinal biases in translation.

]