ChristiansUnite Forums

Glory to Jesus Christ,

This is just a post to discuss where Scripture came from, Who determined what books would become Scripture, why it took so long to determine what books would constitute the New Testement?  If there is time, A discussion on who determined what books would constitute the Old testement.  

In Christ,
Silouan

Hi, may be this will help you. Its author is unknown.

[/b]

   One of the most exciting stories of all the times is the story of how the Bible came to be.  It is a miracle that all of the books of the Bible have been preserved for us to read today.  After all, the first book of the Bible was written over 3,000 years ago, and the last one was finished nearly 2,000 years ago.  Since there were no printing presses until just the last few hundred years, there was no way to make copies of the Bible except to write them by hand. The 66 books that made up the Bible were first collected together about 300 years after the last book was completed.  Jews had used the Old Testament for years  (and still use it today).  But the entire Bible was not available until about A. D.  400.  If it hadn't been for the courage of many Jews and Christians over the last 3,000 years, we would not have the Bible at all today.  In the years before Jesus was born, several nations invaded Israel, and every one of them tried to destroy the Bible. Antiochus, even passed a law in 168 B. C.  saying that anyone found with a copy of the Scriptures would be put to death. But these enemies didn't count the power of God and the faith and courage He gave to people who read the Bible. Every time the enemy tried to destroy the Bible, brave men and women hid it away and saved it. A little over 400 years ago, the rulers finally allowed the Bible to be translated into English.  "HEAVEN AND EARTH SHALL PASS AWAY: BUT MY WORDS SHALL NOT PASS AWAY."  (Mark 13:31)

   The term "Bible" means "Book of books”.  There are 66 books of the Bible. The Old Testament contains 39, and the New Testament has 27.  Moses was the first and John the last.  About 1500 years were consumed in writing the Bible. These books were written by various authors  (about 40 in all) over a period of around 1600 years.  Each wrote under the influence of the Holy Spirit (1Peter1:20,21) .  The Greek word which translators have rendered as "testament" maybe better understood as a Contract, or Covenant. This concept of 2 Covenants is solidly supported by Scripture  (2Cor. 3:7-11; Heb. 9:15). As Christians we understand that the new Covenant has displaced the Old Covenant (Gal. 5:3-4). There are 3 dispensations recognized in the Bible.  1) The Patriarchal-from Adam to Moses.  2) The Jewish or Mosaic -from Moses to the death of Christ.  3) The Christian- from Pentecost to the end of the world.  

   The Old Testament maybe subdivided into four sections. The Pentateuch (Genesis to Deuteronomy), Books of History (Joshua to Esther) , Books of Poetry (Job to Song of Solomon), Books of Prophecy (Isaiah to Malachi) .

   The New Testament may also be subdivided into 4 sections.  The Gospels, (Matthew to John) History (Acts), Books of Doctrine (Romans to Jude), Book of prophecy (Revelation).  

   The Bible was divided into chapters by Hugo in 1240.  The Old Testament was divided into verses by Mordecai Nathan in 1445. The New Testament was divided into verses by Robert Steven in 1551.  The Bible was originally written in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.  Most of the Old Testament is written in Hebrew, a language written from right to left. Aramaic passages include  (Ezra4:8, 6:18 and Dan 2:4b;7:28) The books of the New Testament were written in Greek.  A few Aramaic expressions remain, such as Matt. 27:46.  Aramaic was probably commonly spoken by our Lord.  Out of the many religious writings that have been circulated, only 66 books were accepted as inspired by God. The canon of Scripture was being determined by God not by man.

   The Old Testament- The writings of Moses and the book of Joshua were immediately accepted as Scripture  (Exodus 24:3, Josh 24:26). Other writers of the Bible, and the Lord Jesus Himself, gave support to this (cf. Josh. 8:31, Judg. 3:4, Mal. 4:4, Luk. 24:44, Jn.7:9)  (cf. 1 Sam. 10:25, Jer. 36:2). The books were tested by the following principles (1) Authorship by a recognized prophet of God or leader in Israel.  (2) Internal evidence of its inspiration and authority. The reader was able to recognize it a unique in communications the revelation of God.  (3) Writings containing obvious doctrinal and factual errors were eliminated.  Books accepted by the community that received them were given priority consideration.  (4) Further validations was given to certain Old Testament books when they were quoted from by Christ or the New Testament writers and referred to as Scripture. The Old Testament Scriptures was assembled into a collection about the time of Ezra (c. 400 BC), all books being collected by the time of Malachi. (The word "canon" means "a measuring device" or "a standard."

   The 12 books of APOCRYPHA were not accepted as part of the Biblical canon for these reasons:   

1) They appeared in no Hebrew canon.  
2) None were quoted in the New Testament.
3) They were not included in any early lists.  
4) Their content was too mythological.  

   The acceptance of the New Testament was based on the test of apostleship, such as Peter or John or by someone close to an apostle, such as Luke or Mark, who had apostolic authorization. The church fathers supported the inspiration of the New Testament canon and carefully identifies and eliminated questionable works. The councils of Hippo (AD393) and the Carthage  (AD397) accepted the 27 books that now appear in the New Testament.

   End of part 1.

Part 2

Even as late as 500 years ago, some kings and powerful church leaders tried to keep people from knowing what was in the Bible. They didn't want people thinking for themselves about God. In those days it was easy to keep people from reading the Bible. They killed or burnt many like the John Hus. William Tyndale was one of the first people to try to make the Bible available to people in English. In England it was against law to translate the Bible into English, so he went to Germany. There he translated the New Testament into English and began smuggling copies of it into England.  He was arrested in Belgium, thrown into prison and finally sentenced to death.  The New Testament letters were written in the latter half of the first century on the papyrus sheets.  There are two major types of New Testament manuscripts: uncials and cursives.  Uncials, written in all capital letters, are the letters and most important type.  Cursives, written in a smaller, running hand style, didn't debute until the ninth century.  Altogether there are about 500 uncials and 4,700 cursives. Uncial writing would appear very strange to us today because there are no spaces separating words, nor are there marks or punctuation.  About 70 of these uncial documents, written on papyrus, have been discovered in the 75 years. About thirty fragments of pottery, with portions of the New Testament copied on them, were found at the same time. Our other uncials, copied on vellum date from the 4th to 9th centuries. Though there is a far greater number of the cursives, their later dates render them less important than the uncials.  All of the earliest copies of the Old Testament are handwritten, and the various circles of Jewish scribes who participated in this copying were extraordinarily careful in their work.

A) The most important group of these Jewish scholars was the Massoretes, who formed about 500 A. D.  and labored for 4 or 5 centuries.  

B) The Massoretes were skillful and persistent in their textual work.  To ensure accuracy and eliminate scribal slips they numbered verses, words and letters of each book.  They also calculated the middle verse, the middle word, and the middle letter of each book.   (The middle verse of the Pentateuch is Lev.  8:7, while the middle verse of the Hebrew Bible is Jeremiah 6:7) In addition they counted the number of times each letter was used in each book.  With these safeguards, they could accurately check one another's work by counting letters, words and verses.  

C) In 1998 the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered near the Dead Sea by an Arab boy looking for a lost goat.  These 350 fragmentary rolls, preserved in jars, date from as early as 100B.C. and contain parts of nearly all the Old Testament books.  These scrolls, which are a thousand years earlier than our previous Hebrew manuscripts, prove the extraordinary accuracy of the Hebrew text.  There are in existence about 4,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. Some are Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi, Codex Bezae. . . .

Ancient people of Palestine and neighboring countries used many different materials for writing.

A) Stone is the earliest material on which writing has been found.  The earliest inscriptions in Egypt, Babylon, and Palestine are all found in durable stone.  This agrees with the Bible account because the earliest writing material mentioned is stone. (Ex. 31:18, Deu. 27:2-3, Josh. 8:30-32)

B) Clay was another common writing material used in Assyria and Babylonia. Entire libraries of clay tablets have been unearthed from these areas. Ezek. 4:1, where the prophet is commanded to sketch a plan of Jerusalem on a tile.

C) Evidence of wooden tablets also exists.  

D) Leather or animal skins were the common writing material for hundreds of years.  Evidences suggest that portions of the Old Testament were regularly copied on animal skins.  The skin of a sheep or goat was soaked in lime to remove the hair; then shaved, washed, dried, and stretched.  The finest kind, made from the skin of calves and kids, was called vellum.  The leather was rolled into scrolls. 2 Tim. 4:2-3).  

E) Papyrus rolls made from the pith of the stem of the papyrus plant was the most important writing material of the ancient world.  The average roll was about 30 ft. long and 9-10 inches high.  By the first and second century A. D., the roll gave way to the coda or books pf papyrus sheets.  Prepared reeds dipped in dyes could be used as pens.  Jn.  Bibles are so plentiful today that it is hard to imagine that there was ever a time when people couldn't read the Bible in English for themselves. The Bible didn't just happen nor has been preserved through the years by mere chance.  The Bible is a marvel all its own.  God has promised man that His Word will serve as an accurate, infallible, all-sufficient guide for our lives.  He also tells us that His Word will stand forever.

"THY WORD IS A LAMP UNTO MY FEET, AND A LIGHT UNTO MY PATH."  (Psalm 119:105)

"THE WORDS OF THE LORD ARE PURE WORDS, LIKE SILVER TRIED IN A FURNACE OF EARTH, PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES." (Psalm 12:6)

   The Bible is such a big book that it scares a lot of people.  They think they don't know how to read it, where to start reading, or when to read.  The amazing thing about Bible is that it really doesn't matter how you read it, when you read it, where you start reading.  You can read it anytime, anywhere, for any reason.  You can start in the Old Testament, or you can start in the New Testament.  And you can read the same Bible stories again and again.  How you read doesn't matter.  The important thing is that you get started right away and that you read from God's Word often.

"HEAVEN AND EARTH WILL PASS AWAY, BUT MY WORDS WILL BY NO MEANS PASS AWAY." (Matthew 5:18, 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 16:17, 21:33)

 God bless you.:)

PhilMun:

Thank you, how interesting!  I enjoyed reading your post!
   The Bible in itself is a miracle!!!!!
            Joy ;D

Oklahoma Howdy to PhilMun,

Thanks for your post.

The survival of the Holy Bible over all of these years testifies that it is inspired by ALMIGHTY GOD. Many have tried to prevent GOD'S HOLY WORD from reaching the people, but they all failed. Further, all have failed in their attempts to prevent the translation and distribution of the Holy Bible.

In Christ,
Tom

Yes, PhilMun, that's a good overview.  Thank you.

I've read somewhere that a copy of Isaiah, dated to 150 B.C., found with the Dead Sea Scrolls, is reflected virtually identically in our current copies of Isaiah, attesting to the faithfulness or accuracy of the scribal profession down through twenty one centuries.

I understand that one of the two mss. of Isaiah found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, is suppose to be coming on tour to U.S. this year or next--first time ever to leave Israel.

My understanding is that some of the other books show rather less accuracy than Issaiah.  Also in some cases the LXX is closer than the the Masoritic Text.  Not to mention fragments of Hebrew versions of the Deuterocanonical/Apocrahal books being included.

I highly recommend Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict.

While the average Christian is unaware of it, it is a fact that early Christians tampered with scripture.

In the 2nd century,  the Pagan philisopher Celsus charged that Christians "have changed the original text of the Gospels three or four times or even more, with the intention of thus being able to destroy the arguments of their critics".

Quoted by Origen in Contra Celsum. Origen doesn't deny the existence of such changes. In fact Origen himself wrote:

"It is an obvious fact today [third century CE] that there is much diversity among the manuscripts, due either to the carelessness of the scribes, or to the perverse audacity of some people in correcting the text, or again to the fact that there are those who add or delete as they please, setting themselves up as correctors".

Origen, In Matthaeum (Commentary on Matthew)

Then the fact that the Isaiah that we have today is virtually identical to the Isaiah of the Dead Seas Scrolls, says nothing of the scribal or scholarly professions generally down through those 21 centuries?

Or the constant cross-examination that the books of the Bible generally have undergone, by scholars, with similar and dissimilar manuscripts, down through some 21 centures?  Many times by scholars who are intensely jealous of each other and love nothing more than to get the legitimate, documented "goods" on a colleague, to prove him wrong.

Or perhaps a different tact altogether:   Assume that we did know for sure, which book was complied and written by whom, and at what time.  

Then we would still be stuck with the wooly question of what do you mean by "inspired"?   And, just b/c you, Moses, wrote the first five books, say, for instance, why am I suppose to just roll over and say, "Oh, okay, it's inspired--b/c Moses says so, or b/c God appeared to him in the burning bush, etc."

Even if we knew all the details, you're still left with still the same question we are today:  Is it inspired, or isn't it?  And if it is, just exactly what do you mean by "inspired".

The question of precise origins pales in comparison with the looming question of whether the details of what is written about are true--are the Ten Commandments really written with "...the finger of God..."??

Which still then comes all the way back to "belief"--do you believe it or not.  The Japanese civilians on Okinawa "believed" that the Americans were evil and were coming to kill them, so women jumped over cliffs, with their babies--filmed on 16mm b&w that can still be viewed in a museum there.   Whatever we do is in response to what we "believe", and what we "believe" is based on that twilight zone between what you know for a fact and, as with those terrified women with their babies running up to the precipice, then to back away, then to run up again, then to back away, then to finally make that final "leap of faith" that yes the Americans were coming to kill them so it's better to die this way and go ahead and jump--between what you know for a fact and what you'll just have to take "on faith" with maybe no guarantee that you are right.  As with the Japanese women there, they were wrong.  The Americans weren't coming to kill them.  But they believed that they were.

If the facts, or the allusion to those facts, is true, and if a fickle and sometimes arbitrary "God"(just read the OT to see if we aren't "dealing" with a fickle and arbitrary Being, here) is really behind all of this...

And they hid in cave, cave that the GIs where ordered to flame out because they could hide Enemies. The GIs called several times, bu the young girls didn’t reply, because they thought the GIs where evil. They believed American where evil with all their heart, whole generations of Ruykyu females where killed. Why? Because of what they believed. But you left one part out, the Japanese (who hate Okinawians with a passion) told them the Americans would kill the old men and rape the women. They believed it with all there hearts because they leaders told them it was true. The truth wasn't involved, it was all about what they where told.

Just thought I’d add that in, a little something to think about.  ;)

Oh, don't forget about the deuterocanonical books.  ;D

I have a video of some of the women on Okinawa jumping off a cliff. It is heartbreaking.

But anyway, this is kinda on the subject - an Egyptian lawyer is planning on sueing the world's Jews for plunder that they stole from in Egypt that is recorded in Ex 12:35-36. I think he is trying to see if the Bible, or that part of it anyway, will stand up as a historical document. What do you think his chances are, I wonder?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/11/1063191483613.html

Oklahoma Howdy to Knox,

 ;D  Thanks, that's funny. If it works, I bet the Jewish counter suit will be interesting.

In Christ,
Tom

Thank you, Knox.  Yes, I first heard of that on radio news the other day.  

One thing that really jumps out--the "nation" of Egypt itself.

What other nation can retreat literally 3500 years into its annals, contemplating  retroactive damages??  Egypt strikes me as one of the very few whose borders have not constantly been changed, revised or completely removed.  Truly an ancient nation, with its borders and heritage virtually intact.

Then, the case specifically  is pregnant with implication:  A move under university scholarship worldwide to at least question if not completely dismiss the OT as virtual or complete myth, fiction or fraud, saying that Jews in the few centuries before Christ concocted the whole Hebrew story to justify their own existence(and therefore to contradict and undermine the 20th century movenment of Zionism(began in 1896), which allowed modern Jews to contemplate a homeland of their own, and which is what they're fighting about right now), thus allowing justification to marginalize or even dismiss completely any "Israelii" participation in a "modern" global community generally.   But suing for 3500-year-old damages will require authentication of the very same scriptures the middle east, and the world majority, is trying so hard to villify.    

This is why in the end Satan will fall, becuase he always is found contradicting himself.  He only can rely upon deception, b/c if he allows people to see him for what he really is, he is full of contradictions, of which he himself cannot avoid.

In microcosm, the same internecene machinations are going on with the recent revelation of the James' ossuary.  BAR magazine, which broke the story last October, is unwelcomed by the IAA(Israel Antiquites Auth'y), which pronounced in June the ossuary a forgery, arresting it's owner.  This unfolding implies a general reluctance of Israelii officialdom to adequately account for the James' ossuary, possibly, I'm wondering, if out of possble embarrassment the ossuary may mean--that is, that not only is Hebrew history authentic(which they won't mind), but that that history really did give rise to "an anointed One", the Branch, one who shall rule Israel(as prophesied in Micah 5:2, et. al.), and that from this ossuary Jesus was at least a viable, real historical figure.  Once again, evidence forcing us to contradict ourselves.  Like watching Perry Mason in action, right there at the last, in the courtroom, and all of a sudden, someone out in the audience shoots up, "I did it.  I'm the one.  Boohoohoohoohoo!"

Case closed.   8)

First of all PhilMun Excellent! A Wonderful Piece Of Work. I really found it interesting.
Secondly Knox about your Consider the source, he is a Pagan. Would you consider a Muslim extremist to give reliable information on the Jews?
 

But at the same time, would you trust a Muslim extremist to look at the Koran objectively? When Christians can't even agree on what books to put in the bible..

There are only a few that don't agree, that is being human.

I suppose that's true, given that the vast majority of Christians are Roman Catholic and therefore accept the Catholic canon, but I suspect that isn't what you meant to say.

Not to mention all the non-Romans who are Catholic (such as the Byzantine Catholics and Polish Nation Catholics), and the Eastern Orthodox, who have the Catholic Canon with a few more of the Duetocanonical.

No a denomination counts as ONE. People believe all sorts of things. But there is only one truth.

LOL. Maybe you should have engaged your brain before posting.

Ebia,

This type of post is uncalled for. You might have understood his post if you had read it. The statement is really very simple. A denomination represents one belief, and there are many denominations each with different beliefs, but there is only ONE TRUTH. The question becomes who has the ONE TRUTH, IF ANYONE?

I would say that many have bits and pieces of THE ONE TRUTH. Those who would claim to have the ONLY AND COMPLETE ONE TRUTH would be foolish. The COMPLETE ONE TRUTH rests only in Almighty God.  

I apologise for the insult.

Assuming this is what he meant, then it fails to defend his earlier post, but anyway.
1.  Few if any denominations have only one opinion on the truth.
2.  Not all denominations carry equal weight - the 1st church of the great banana, founded 1998, membership 27, would hardly carry the same authority as, say, the Methodist Church, or the RCC (for example)

I'd agree with you 100% there.

True as far as it goes, but...

... what has this got to do with the debate in hand, let alone his earlier post?

Nevertheless, I apologise again for my tone in my previous post.

In response to your question about trusting a Muslim to look at the Koran objecitvely, when Christains are able to look at denominations objectively, that is BOTH sides of each denomination, then they are more likely to find out what's true. On the other hand, vigorously defending one side of a denomination is a refusal to look at the other. I have been on both sides of the catholic issue and can see problems in any church. The ability to acknowledge both sides is paramount to the ability to see what's true.

Ebia,

This is for thought, not argument. First, take every denomination in existence and add them to the list you have above. I'm positive that Almighty God could care less who has more church buildings or who has more members. In terms of authority, recognition, and weight, I would say that all denominations known to man have exactly zero in the eyes of Almighty God. HE would quickly recognize HIS children, and to the rest HE would say, "I never knew you."

Sounds like I caused a bit of a ruckus, sometimes I do that on purpose. This time though I did not intend to do that.
There are millions of Catholics but number doesn’t make right. A church, no matter how many followers is what establishes the scripture used.
The greatest variety of English speaking denominations use either the NIV or the KJV.
Most other languages use a translation done from the same manuscripts as the NIV or the KJV.
It is not my intention in this post to say which one is right.
All scripture is God breathed, but He didn’t breath various scriptures. Only one is right.

Fair enough, but how does that further the debate?
Whatever the dabate was.

Ebia,

I think that you just answered a big question. Everyone is so interested in bashing each other's churches and denominations that nobody knows what the discussion is about.

The point is really simple. There will be no denominations in heaven, no big ones and no little ones. There will only be saved people who accepted Jesus Christ into their hearts as their Lord and Saviour. All of the man-made doctrines, dogmas, creeds, ceremonies, rituals, etc., etc. will all be gone and mean absolutely nothing. The Bible translation you used will also mean nothing. What's in your heart is the only thing that will make any difference between those in heaven and those in hell.

There will be many who sat in church once a week for all the wrong reasons and won't be in heaven. There won't be much laughter about what was important and what was folly.

I'm sure there will be many a slap upside the head for not knowing the LORD's word as well as one should or false doctrines.  There won't be any laughing from those in hell and there won't be any crying from those in heaven either.

Very true.