Is there only one type of Bible? TKJV. I know about the NRV and that. I was just wondering if King James decided the books for every Bible ever published.

No. There was some convention in the 300's-400's that decided which books were real and which were fraudulent.

it was the Council of Nicea

i personnally have read the books that were left out of the bible. some of them were about jesus in his younger years. one book described how he killed another little kid and brought him back to life or something

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:

it was the Council of Nicea

i personnally have read the books that were left out of the bible. some of them were about jesus in his younger years. one book described how he killed another little kid and brought him back to life or something



I know about that kind of thing. I'm talking more about the bibles that we concentrate on today.

Before the Council of Nicea, there was no New Testament as we know it today. Christians used the Old Testament and oral tradition. Keep in mind these were Catholic Christians as Protestants didn't exist yet.

Then after the Reformation, King James ordered a bunch of scholars to reexamine the Greek texts and rewrite the Bible. He removed 7 books and parts of two others. This was in the early 17th century, over a thousand years later.

Most Catholics use the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible because it has the books King James I took out. There's also the Latin Vulgate if you can read Latin. There were hundreds of other translations in many languages during the Reformation but most of those aren't used anymore.

[This message has been edited by karma_sleeper (edited 08-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by karma_sleeper:

Before the Council of Nicea, there was no New Testament as we know it today. Christians used the Old Testament and oral tradition. Keep in mind these were Catholic Christians as Protestants didn't exist yet.

Then after the Reformation, King James ordered a bunch of scholars to reexamine the Greek texts and rewrite the Bible. He removed 7 books and parts of two others. This was in the early 17th century, over a thousand years later.

Most Catholics use the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible because it has the books King James I took out. There's also the Latin Vulgate if you can read Latin. There were hundreds of other translations in many languages during the Reformation but most of those aren't used anymore.





Thank you.

You guys forget one of the most important Bibles of all. Sure you have the Latin Vulgate that pretty much assisted in Roman Catholicism and the Greek Septuagint which probably has the most accuracy in terms of getting the Gospels right. But you forget the Peshitta, which tries to encapsulate exactly what Jesus said in his own language. Afterall, Jesus is what the New Testament is suppose to be about, right?

quote:Originally posted by postdiluvium:

Afterall, Jesus is what the New Testament is suppose to be about, right?[/B]

I don't think it is supposed to be a biography.

If you go to blueletterbible dot org, they have a concordance of pretty much every translation--from the original hebrew/greek (depending on the testament) to modern english rewrites as late as ten years ago.

quote:Originally posted by N P Vaughan:

I don't think it is supposed to be a biography.

If you go to blueletterbible dot org, they have a concordance of pretty much every translation--from the original hebrew/greek (depending on the testament) to modern english rewrites as late as ten years ago.

The New Testament often seems like a Biography of Jesus.

quote:Originally posted by N P Vaughan:

I don't think it is supposed to be a biography.



Well the Gospels seem to be. The Letters and Epistles seem to be Paul's take on the Gospels. Other than that, no it is not a Biography. But how much do you have left besides the Gospels, Loki and Pauls journey of Acts, and Pauls letters and Epistles?

quote:Originally posted by Tikvah:



Thank you.



Word.

Karma Sleeper,

Though I am sure your motives were good stateing that there was no new testament as we have it today is simply false. The early church fathers attest to the four gospels as well as many of the epistles. These Church fathers were writing from 90-160 AD, so yes, the new testament was somewhat established, maybe not in a cannon and in one bible, but the writings were being circulated and they were accepted by the early church.

The authority and formulation of the new testament was almost complete. Origen 185-254 claims the 4 gospels, Acts, 13 Pauline letters 1 Peter 1John and Revelation as authoritative and Hebrews 2Peter 2and3John, james and Jude, were all in question at the time. Eusebius 265-340 mentions again these books as authoritative. As for the final compilation. Athanasius in 367 lays out the whole new testament. Therefore, before the council of nicea there was already the new testament, though it was not canonical they were still authoritative in the Church, so even if we wanted to disagree with the Council you can go back and get almost the same gospel, with no essentials missing.

All of these dates and names are out of The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by F. F. Bruce. The Dates all check out, so go ahead and check them again if you feel so inclined, and I would highly recommend the book as well.



[This message has been edited by Truth is all (edited 08-04-2006).]

The gospels were indeed biographies. Form Criticism easily attests to that as to many other things, though I have another post for that. The gospels tell of the life, work adn teachings of Christ and are meant to be biographies for the exact purpose of informing you and me and all other people about that very life and death that took away the sin of the world and gives us the free gift of salvation in Christ.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

Karma Sleeper,

Though I am sure your motives were good stateing that there was no new testament as we have it today is simply false. The early church fathers attest to the four gospels as well as many of the epistles. These Church fathers were writing from 90-160 AD, so yes, the new testament was somewhat established, maybe not in a cannon and in one bible, but the writings were being circulated and they were accepted by the early church.

The authority and formulation of the new testament was almost complete. Origen 185-254 claims the 4 gospels, Acts, 13 Pauline letters 1 Peter 1John and Revelation as authoritative and Hebrews 2Peter 2and3John, james and Jude, were all in question at the time. Eusebius 265-340 mentions again these books as authoritative. As for the final compilation. Athanasius in 367 lays out the whole new testament. Therefore, before the council of nicea there was already the new testament, though it was not canonical they were still authoritative in the Church, so even if we wanted to disagree with the Council you can go back and get almost the same gospel, with no essentials missing.

All of these dates and names are out of The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by F. F. Bruce. The Dates all check out, so go ahead and check them again if you feel so inclined, and I would highly recommend the book as well.







I'm not saying these books didn't exist, I'm saying that the contents of the New Testament as we know it today, as in the books that currently make it up, were not finalized until the Council of Nicea. There was disagreement as to the legitimacy of some books so Constantine ordered a council to convene to talk it out and it was established. I'm not trying to say nothing existed until the council, the apostles were obviously writing well before that, just that the canon wasn't officially agreed upon universally by the Church until the council. So sorry for confusing you.

[This message has been edited by karma_sleeper (edited 08-04-2006).]

http://www.bessel.org/bibles.htm

All the diferent Christian churches never actualy agreed on what should be in the Bible. So depending on what demonination you are there are whole books you may or may not be getting.