[Akoue]

The canon of the New Testament was not settled upon until the Council of Nicaea in the year 325. This is the canon recognized by nearly all Christians the world over.

The canon of the Old Testament remained in a state of flux for centuries after Nicaea. Whereas the canon of the NT is familiar to nearly all Christians, different Bibles retain different books as part of the Old Testament.

Catholics include in their OT canon books which are excluded by many Protestants. These include: Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch. In addition to these, the Eastern Orthodox canon includes 1 Esdras, and 3 & 4 Maccabees. The Russian Orthodox Church includes in its canon not only these but 2 Esdras as well. The Ethiopic Church also includes 2 Esdras, along with Jubilees and Enoch. And, of course, there are still others, but this gives an idea of the range of OT canons currently in use.

In light of this, my question is: How do you decide which Bible, i.e. which canon, to use? All Christians look to the Bible as a source of God's revelation, but different Christians use different Bibles. I am not asking why you favor a particular translation over others, but rather why you use the Biblical canon that you do.

I welcome answers from persons of all religious backgrounds.

Thank you.

[Fr_Chuck]

Most Christian Scholars feel that even the books not included, have good value are are valid christian writings but lack any teaching or items of values or duplicate many things from other books.

I would suggest one look at which denominations were the main ones at the orginial Council. The churches that make up the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were the ones with Bishops at the meeting.

So since it was what everyone now calls the Catholic Church, that had the meeting and set up the books,

And since the Catholic Church of the East and West split over issues other than this.

why would it not be considered correct that the books they use were the original ones the church decided on.

This does not help in the issue of a few books difference between the church of the east and west but it does bring to light at least no use of the books at all.

And of course one merely has to read posts here of some, to know that any action done that is considered Catholic is automatically wrong since it is Catholic. And that same feeling was alive during the time that the early churches started or split from the Catholic Church.

[Akoue]

I thank you for your post, Fr_Chuck. I have no complaints with anything you said, but thought it might be helpful for those who may not be terribly familiar with this terrain to expand a little bit on some of the points you've called to our attention.

Most Christian Scholars feel that even the books not included, have good value are are valid christian writings but lack any teaching or items of values or duplicate many things from other books.

I certainly agree about the importance of a great many non-canonical books. The book of Enoch, for example: So far as I can tell, only the Ethiopian Orthodox canon has retained Enoch. And yet it was part of many Christian canons for centuries. And, perhaps even more importantly, it was part of the canon that was familiar to many first century Jews--including those first century Jews who went on to write the books of the NT. In fact, the NT quotes from Enoch. If we refuse to read, let alone study, Enoch because it isn't in the canon as we have it today, we are shortchanging our ability to understand the NT as well as we otherwise might.

I would suggest one look at which denominations were the main ones at the orginial Council. The churches that make up the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were the ones with Bishops at the meeting.

And this fits with a point I've seen you make on other occasions, to wit, that in the ancient Church, there were orthodox Catholic Christians and there were heretics. There weren't other options kicking around at the time. The bishops who came together at the Council weren't representatives if different denominations: They were the bishops of THE Church. And many of them didn't feel any pressing need to adopt an official listing of canonical books. The Church had, after all, done just fine for more than two centuries without a canonized Bible. I'm sure this had a lot to do with the fact that early Christians regarded the Bible as just one part of God's revelation, so there was always something else--namely Tradition and the teaching authority of the bishops--to guide people's understanding of the truths of the faith. People sometimes forget today, or perhaps just don't fully realize, how important the bishops were in those first centuries.

As an historical aside, many people also don't realize that the first canon of Christian Scripture was produced by the Gnostic heretic Marcion. He famously rejected the whole of the OT along with much of the NT as being too Jewish. Needless to say, Matthew didn't make it into Marcion's canon.

So since it was what everyone now calls the Catholic Church, that had the meeting and set up the books,

It is often remarked that the Church gave the Bible to the world. Even those today who are quite hostile to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches use a Bible that was created by them at Nicaea.

And since the Catholic Church of the East and West split over issues other than this.

Right, the Great Schism wasn't over the Bible.

why would it not be considered correct that the books they use were the original ones the church decided on.

I very much hope to hear from people on this. It is, to my mind, an interesting question to which I don't know the answer. I suspect lots of people have different views about it and I hope to hear them.

This does not help in the issue of a few books difference between the church of the east and west but it does bring to light at least no use of the books at all.

Good point. It presents the deletion of books from the canon in an interesting light.

And of course one merely has to read posts here of some, to know that any action done that is considered Catholic is automatically wrong since it is Catholic.

I was beginning to wonder if you noticed. Different denominations use different canons of Scripture, and because of that my original question is a question about denominations--but only in a pretty roundabout way. Nevertheless, I would like members of different denominations to have the chance to have their voices heard on this question without feeling under attack--especially since I am genuinely interested to learn more about how people choose which Bible they use in their own spiritual life. Since we all agree that the Bible is of the greatest importance, this is a decision that is potentially momentous for one's life as a Christian. There are a few posters here who go to great lengths to publicize their disdain for Catholicism. I honestly don't begrudge them their disagreements with the Catholic Church: I was not Catholic for a good many years and I can see where some of those who disagree are coming from. What makes things a bit more difficult for many of us (Catholic and non-Catholic alike) is when people repeatedly make remarks that are demeaning about Catholicism and then cry foul when others (again, Catholic and non-Catholic alike) defend Catholicism from those remarks. It puts people in the very difficult position of choosing either to let a falsehood stand and so achieve the appearance of truth (and potentially mislead or confuse those who read it) or to challenge it and be accused on that account of all sorts of unpleasant things. I very much hope that the present discussion will proceed, as so many others have, unmarred by theatrics.

And that same feeling was alive during the time that the early churches started or split from the Catholic Church.

Especially in England, where theology was put in the service of a nationalistic political agenda--as it was in Spain as well, where Catholicism was co-opted in order to service the regime's political ends. All the more reason to find edifying the robust and congenial ecumenical dialogue that exists today between the Catholic Church and the Church of England, the Lutherans in Germany, and the ancient Eastern Orthodox patriarchates, to name just a few. As myself a fan of Christian unity it is encouraging to see these churches moving closer together all the time.

[Wondergirl]

I grew up with the KJV (standard 66 books) and love its musical phrasing. It's the version from which our memory work was taken during my (M-S Lutheran) parochial school years, so I know it well. In (M-S Lutheran) college I was introduced to the Apocrypha and read it as history, "the time between the testaments." I dearly love the stories in Maccabees and learned to appreciate the other books for the wisdom and knowledge proffered. My study version of choice is the RSV along with a variety of concordances and commentaries along with Nave's.

I'm more of a "forest" than a "trees" person. Years ago when I participated in a two-year overview ("forest") Bible study, the very wise and open-minded M-S Lutheran pastor who led our group encouraged us to always look for the message(s), no matter which book we read/study. Amos has a message for us, as does Job and Romans and the four Maccabees and Ecclesiastes and Tobit. There's a general message in the OT that feeds into and supports the message of the NT. The Apocryphal books are the bridge between the two. Even the so-called spurious books/gospels are worth reading for history or for insight into the times or to encourage the reader to plunge into research.

[classyT]

I LOVE the King James and that is what I use. I think it is easier to memorize too. I do not oppose using another Bible for better clarification sometimes... but I am a KJV kind of gal!

[Akoue]

I LOVE the King James and that is what i use. I think it is easier to memorize too. I do not oppose using another Bible for better clarification sometimes...but i am a KJV kinda gal!

I get why you would like the KJV as your translation: It is beautiful English and there is something very nice about reading a sacred text in beautiful, polished English. Adds to the experience, I find.

Did your choice of the KJV have to do only with the language, or was it driven by the canon that is included in the KJV?

Okay, let me try to make my question more clear: The KJV has contains the same books as the RVS and NRVS, though the KJV is much prettier too read. But given that there a different canons in use today, what led you to choose the canon of Scripture that is found in the KJV as opposed to the other canons mentioned in the OP? How did you come to your decision regarding which books you thought belong to the canon of Scripture and which don't?

[Akoue]

I grew up with the KJV (standard 66 books) and love its musical phrasing. It's the version from which our memory work was taken during my (M-S Lutheran) parochial school years, so I know it well. In (M-S Lutheran) college I was introduced to the Apocrypha and read it as history, "the time between the testaments." I dearly love the stories in Maccabees and learned to appreciate the other books for the wisdom and knowledge proffered. My study version of choice is the RSV along with a variety of concordances and commentaries along with Nave's.

I'm more of a "forest" than a "trees" person. Years ago when I participated in a two-year overview ("forest") Bible study, the very wise and open-minded M-S Lutheran pastor who led our group encouraged us to always look for the message(s), no matter which book we read/study. Amos has a message for us, as does Job and Romans and the four Maccabees and Ecclesiastes and Tobit. There's a general message in the OT that feeds into and supports the message of the NT. The Apocryphal books are the bridge between the two. Even the so-called spurious books/gospels are worth reading for history or for insight into the times or to encourage the reader to plunge into research.

What you say about the Apocrypha (or I guess I should say, "Apocrypha" since for some they are part of the canon) is interesting. It makes sense.

You mention that you grew up with the 66 book canon of the KJV. Was there ever a time when you made a conscious decision that these 66 books belong to the canon and no others, or did you more or less stay with it because it was familiar? What I'm trying to find out is how people individually come to a decision regarding which Biblical canon they use? Why this canon in preference to that canon, and so on.

[classyT]

I get why you would like the KJV as your translation: It is beautiful English and there is something very nice about reading a sacred text in beautiful, polished English. Adds to the experience, I find.

Did your choice of the KJV have to do only with the language, or was it driven by the canon that is included in the KJV?

Okay, let me try to make my question more clear: The KJV has contains the same books as the RVS and NRVS, though the KJV is much prettier too read. But given that there a different canons in use today, what led you to choose the canon of Scripture that is found in the KJV as opposed to the other canons mentioned in the OP? How did you come to your decision regarding which books you thought belong to the canon of Scripture and which don't?

I don't know? I guess it is because my father is believes it is the most accruate of all the translations. I know a lot of people who believe that. I suppose I just went along with it because he said so. I have never really checked into that theory.

[Akoue]

I don't know? I guess it is because my father is believes it is the most accruate of all the translations. I know a lot of people who believe that. I suppose i just went along with it because he said so. I have never really checked into that theory.

Okay, fair enough. Thanks.

[savedsinner7]

I love New Living Translation, CEV, ASV, Holman, New King James, Amplified, ESV, and the Message. ;)

[galveston]

I always use the KJV for teaching and preaching because it is the most familiar to me and also because the Strong's Concordance is linked to it.

I do have several other versions, and the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jasher.

I don't trust some of the newer translations because the translators worked from manuscripts that the early Church did not use. Those from Alexandria were considered corrupted by some scholars.

I'm presently considering obtaining a copy of the Geneva Bible for comparison to the KJV. The Geneva was the one carried by the early colonists to America.

[Akoue]

Savedsinner & galveston,

I thank you for your posts. I'm really trying to get not at the choice of translation but at the choice of canon. Why have you chosen to use the canon that you do (i.e. the 66 book canon) rather than some other? It is the choice of Biblical canon that interests me.

It is evident from your posts at AMHD that each of you has spent considerable time studying and thinking about the Bible. My hope is that you will share the considerations that led to your choice of the Biblical canon to which you adhere (consisting of 66 books) as opposed to: (a) one of the several others that are in use now or have been in use at various times throughout history; or (b) coming up with a canon of your own. (Admittedly, I've never known anyone who did (b). It only just occurred to me as something one might do if so inclined.)

How does one, anyone, choose which canon of Scripture to follow?

[Fr_Chuck]

I use various bibles for different reasons. As an original Orthodox and now Catholic, I few all of the books as worthly to read and study.

[JoeCanada76]

I am from a Roman Catholic background. I am open to all books that are included in the Catholic and others and these books that I have read that are not included in some bibles I do not understand why? Majority of the extra books that I have read, actually make more sense to me. It flows with the truth of God and has great value.

In my own opinion, I do believe there are more books out there that the early church decided to do away with but still have very good value. The thing is we as humans, are limited to how big our bible would be. There are not enough books or etc to even come close to all the works of God. So In earlier times it was the Church's authority to decide what books would be included and what would not.

It is a shame there is a divide, but I believe all readings have good value...

[Wondergirl]

What you say about the Apocrypha (or I guess I should say, "Apocrypha" since for some they are part of the canon) is interesting. It makes sense.

You mention that you grew up with the 66 book canon of the KJV. Was there ever a time when you made a conscious decision that these 66 books belong to the canon and no others, or did you more or less stay with it because it was familiar? What I'm trying to find out is how people individually come to a decision regarding which Biblical canon they use? Why this canon in preference to that canon, and so on.

I've always wondered why Revelation was included in the canon, and sometimes also Daniel and Numbers and the Song of Solomon. In a similar way, I wondered why certain others weren't.

From my earliest memories, I was told the 66 books are "inspired," but the books in the Apocrypha are not. "Inspired" books (it was explained to me) are all those that are authoritative, were written by the prophets/apostles, and contain no errors. With the exception of Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Ezra, the rest of the OT books are quoted or alluded to in the NT. This goes along with the Lutheran thinking that the two testaments are intimately connected, with the Old supporting the New, and the New completing the Old. (My minister father was fond of saying the Bible is like an SOS -- the OT Show's Oyour Sin; the NT Show's Oyour Savior. If a book didn't do either in some way, it did not belong in the canon.) Early on, I learned by heart Luther's pronouncement regarding the Apocrypha, "These are books which are not held equal to the sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading."

In conclusion, I guess I have stayed with the 66 books as the canon because they are what I have been told by the authorities in my life IS the canon. That's comfortable for me with no need to reinvent the wheel that had been invented by people smarter and more learned than I am.

[savedsinner7]

I believe the 66 books in the translations that I use to be the Word of God. Holy Spirit speaks to me through His word. All the debates and such are pointless to me. If Holy Spirit doesn't speak through the Word, then it's just words. Life comes through His speaking and making the Word come to life.

[JoeT777]

I believe the 66 books in the translations that I use to be the Word of God. Holy Spirit speaks to me through His word. All the debates and such are pointless to me. If Holy Spirit doesn't speak through the Word, then it's just words. Life comes through His speaking and making the Word come to life.

How do you know there aren't 132 books, or only 33 books? Who validates the Bible for you? If your response is the Bible, where in the Bible does it validate itself?

JoeT

[arcura]

Akoue,
I have eight different bibles which I use for bible study.
I was raised on the KJV and still like the English therein.
But now I mainly use the New Jerusalem with Apocrypha, and the Revised Standard and the New American Standard because I have been told by Bible Scholars I respect that they are the most accurate versions.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[revdrgade]

Once you get away from the original Hebrew and Greek texts, the most accurate translation is the NIV. This is my own testimony based on an ongoing study (mostly the Greek) over the last 50 years.*

The difference most denominations (and students )who believe that the Bible is the very word of God have is more over interpretation of the translations and not the translations themselves.

*I studied ancient and classical Greek while getting my degree from a university and 3 more years of biblical(koine) Greek at an accredited seminary. And I still study each day that I am at home with my books and computer programs of Greek.

[arcura]

revdrgade,
That was interesting.
I did not know that you were so well scholared in Greek.
I have used the NIV in my studies as well as othwers.
Peace and kindness,
Fred