Unoriginal Bible (questions for christians)?

Question

Why do most christians not read/believe in/own the original bible?

Do you believe that Martin Luther actually had the divine authority to discredit certain books from the Bible?

Isn't there some contradiction as to having an Earthly King's name stamped on the side of your Bible?

Have you ever actually read or even seen any of the eight original books that were supposed to be in the Bible?

If the Bible has been edited in the past, then what's your reason for believng that today's Bible is the final draft?

Whats to stop the "Higher Authorities" from revising the Bible yet again?

DISCLAIMER: This question does not necessarily reflect my opinion.

Rewording the question to fit your answer dosen't give the impression of knowledge.

Answer 1

The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes .

The deuterocanonical books were, though, debated in the early Church, and some Fathers accorded them higher status than others (hence the Catholic term for them: "deuterocanonical," or what St. Cyril of Jerusalem called "secondary rank," as opposed to the other books which are called "protocanonical"). But all the Fathers believed as did St. Athanasius, who, in one of his many Easter letters, names the 22 Books all Christians accept and then describes the deuterocanonicals as "appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness." Church Councils listed and affirmed the present Catholic canon, which was only formally closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision ,see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide, and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the "Reformers" decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage and resort solely to those texts determined to be canonical at the Council of Jamnia.

It is the Church that is the "pillar and ground of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)! Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way. It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.
Luther wanted to remove the Epistle of James, Esther, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. Calvin and Zwingli also both had problems with the Book of Revelation, the former calling it "unintelligible" and forbidding the pastors in Geneva to interpret it, the latter calling it "unbiblical".

This Council, among other things, simply affirmed the ancient accepted books in the face of Protestant tinkering. How could Luther have relegated the deuterocanonical books to an appendix if they hadn't already been accepted in the first place?

Answer 2

What do you mean by original Bible?

Martin Luther did not do this alone, and don't forget he was a Catholic monk.

King James was the person who commissioned that translation. Jesus himself recognized that people should recognize earthly governments. Why is this a contradiction?

There were more than eight additional books. I have read much of what was not canonized. Have you?

It was not editing, but rather deciding which of a bunch of individual scrolls and letters should be included. Final draft has nothing to do with it.

Higher Authorities are not seeking to revise the text. New translations are often done as Biblical scholarship and understanding of the ancient languages improves.

Please spend some time learning about the canon of the Scripture and exactly how it came to be. The link provided should help.

Answer 3

There is no such thing as the original bible. The original autographs were never in one bible, meaning book or collection of books.

God used men to place the 66 books that are in the Bible in it.

There is no contradiction having King James' name on the Bible. He was the one that God chose to have his word published and his name sets it apart from false bibles.

If the Apocrypha, meaning counterfeit books, were supposed to be in the Bible it would be. It was included in between the Old and New Testaments for its historical value but was removed after the first edition of the 1611 King James Bible.

We have had the 1611 version of the King James Bible for 380 years. Except for removing the Apocrypha and a change in typestyle, changes in spelling, and corrected typographical errors it remains unchanged from the first 1611 edition.

If God were going to revise the Bible again then wouldn't he have done so in the modern versions?

Answer 4

That would depend on which books you think were left out.

This is faith. The Bible is the word of God. What we need to know for salvation and to walk according to his will He will preserve and get to His servents.

If these books were "in" the bible that got dropped (Bibles didn't exist for the John Q Public till the printing press) and are not now Then they were dropped only by His will. These books are available if anyone wants to read them. A brief reading shows why they are not included in the canonization. They contradict what is already established.

Answer 5

If you study the Greek Interlinear bible you'll see several words from the Greek have been left out of the final KJV...for example Revelation 10:7 in the KJV fails to include the words Glad Tidings in the phrasing...these 2 words change the entire content of the scripture when put in their true context.

Answer 6

To day's Bible is not necessarily the final draft. There is 99% agreement between translators that the Greek New Testament we now have is unlikely to change. It has been compiled from over 5000 manuscripts and bits of manuscripts. The only thing that might change current Scripture is discovery of the original writings which are substantially different from all the copies we have now.
Newer Bibles tend to major in 'modern', ''new', 'fresh', 'contemporary', 'up-to-date' interpretations of the Greek and Hebrew, not their translation.

Answer 7

Thank God for Martin Luther.
Oh, the KJV certainly has its translation errors!
Today's BIble isn't the final draft. Are you kidding? Men will continue until Jesus comes again in trying to put their own spins on it.

Answer 8

I certainly don't think the Bible is perfect, but it still is a wonderful tool for understanding the human condition. I read it like I would read any other book.

Answer 9

you could't come across a persons' faith nonetheless reaserch. a individual with faith feels empowered with the aid of God and cant clarify there faith to a individual without faith through fact the purely does not comprehend. you assert that "Did you ever think of with regard to the certainty that eventhough you does not haver prayed your project could have been solved besides." sure, yet whether you dont hav a project you pray to god. Praying is having a verbal substitute with God. He would desire to not talk to you in words, he would desire to chat to u in thoughts. Ever wounder the place your ethical experience comes from? Peace, Skittles

Answer 10

I am glad to see this question asked.