If the Bible is the sacred word of God, why is there such diversity in its canonizations?

Question

Protestant, Catholic, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, and Slavonic among others... (Note to Evangelicals: "canon" isn't the same as "translation")

I've asked this before, but thought I would see what the daytime people think.

Answer 1

Because it was written over a long period of time by many different people. It was inspired by God. Canonization occured when people sat down and decided what was sacred, and what was heretic.

Answer 2

If you're referring to the difference in books used, such as the difference between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles for instance, it has to do with whether or not a particular book has the merit for being in the bible.

Now I know a lot of people just figure that the bible was slopped together at some point in history, and that the people choosing which books would be used just tossed out the ones they didn't like, but there was really a lot more to it than that.

When the Bible was first brought together, they first put the Old Testament. This was there basis, and it was important that they have Christianities history and the background for their beliefs.
When choosing the books for the New Testament, there were a lot of different scriptures being used. The council tried to weed out the youngest books, ones that couldn't have been written by any of Jesus’ contemporaries.
After that, they looked at which books were being used in the major churches of what was then main-line Christianity. If a gospel or letter met the age requirements, was used by all of the major churches, and met the same theological standards as the majority of the texts being used, then it was placed in our bible.

That's the short of the story.

The major difference in the different canons today usually revolves around the apocrypha. The apocrypha are a group of books that at one time were in the Jewish Torah (the Old Testament), but were later removed. When the Catholic Church was originally bringing the books in that would become the bible, they added the apocrypha, as it was part of the Old Testament at that time.

Later, when Protestants split from the Catholic Church they tossed out the apocrypha because it was no longer used by the Jews. They basically figured that 'if they don't think it should be used, and this is their area of expertise ... why should we use it?' So they tossed it. They didn't think that there was really any building theology in the Apocrypha (which there really isn't. it's mostly mythological accounts mixed with a little history.)

Now, after that you can get into the Coptic Bible. There were a group of churches that used almost completely different books than the main churches used. When they were asked (rather forcefully) to adopt the newly formed bible, they refused, because they felt like their scriptures were overlooked. They broke away, and formed the Coptic Church, with a Coptic Bible. It has a few different texts than the Catholic Bible.
The Gnostic Bible is a totally different thing altogether. Their books are ones that they have concluded contain 'secret knowledge' of either Jesus’ powers or divinity.

Those are really the main different texts. It basically comes down to what these different early groups thought was 'the sacred word of God' and what they thought wasn't. For the most part, the way they did it made logical sense ... at least at the time. If you're really interested in the subject, there are several online resources you could check out. It is a very large topic.

Answer 3

That is part of the problem with Christianity in general. No-one can agree on what God really said, and they adopt different canons to prove their own concept of God.

Throughout history, writings have been fought and killed over. The Gnostic sect had their own scripture which the Roman church attempted to put down through might. They did so quite effectively as that sect no longer exists.

As far as I know, the largest canon is that of the Ethiopian Orthodox church. The smallest is the Samaritan.

People define God, and the canon is simply a tool to do so.

Answer 4

Many people try to tell themselves that the Bible is the actual word of God and therefore is perfect. The thing these people refuse to admit is that humans have edited, amended, twisted, added to, subtracted from and modified the Bible for roughly six thousand years (the old testament anyway). The Bible has quite literally been translated into every language known to man over this time. Somewhere I heard the Bible has even been translated into Klingon! Of course there are differences and error introduced by man.

This is why arguments such as "What is gopherwood?" and "What is Jesus's actual birthday?" are silly.

Answer 5

Because man has tried to mess with God's word to try to make it fit into his wills and desires. I guess the people who have control over this have not really thought it important enough to actually ask God what he thinks on the subject.

In general, I believe that most of what is in the Bible, no matter which canon you read, contains the word of God and reading it while praying for guidance from the Holy Ghost can lead a person to all truth.

Answer 6

It's a printing error.

Answer 7

Yeah. I saw that one. It is a good question. One I cannot answer for the theists.