/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

KJV is based on the original Greek and Hebrew.

Older translations are good but not as high quality as this.

Later translations use other manuscripts (at least in some places,) and not the actual originals like the KJV and other TR-based translations do.

The answer to your question is simple. The Greek of the New Testament, and the Hebrew (and in some places Syriac-Aramaic in the appropriate places of Daniel 2 thru 7, Ezra 4 thru 7, etc.) of the Old Testament are the original Bible. We have these today, and the church has always had them (as well as translations of them in Latin and other languages as early as 157 AD if not earlier), and thus these original language texts are the received word of God.

>Did the Orthodox put together the first bible?

You mean like the first physical tome? The contents of the Bible would have already been known prior to this. In fact, Scripture states that, they that are of God hear God's words (John 8:47) and so anyone who is of God would be able to recognize the inspiration of God's word. This also explains why Christians who truly believe the Bible believe it is God's words in the first place, and how people were able to believe the inspiration of God's word, i.e. during the time period where the New Testament was all still being written, which was obviously before the first physical tome was put together.

Orthodox simple means "right way." Everyone would agree that what they consider as "orthodox" keep the original inspired Holy Bible.

>why did the Orthodox and Catholics add unto it if it says in revelations 22:18-19 says not to add unto the bible.

That is a difficult question to answer. However, most Protestants do not use the TR or TR-translations, but instead use a mix of eclectic text versions, which are similar to the version that Catholicism used (c.f. Matthew 5:22 in the KJV and original Greek vs. the modern versions).

>>855609

>>855622

I wouldn't listen to these cults. They literally think that a group of men thought up the Bible and handed down their abilities to others upon their deaths. At least, that's the convenient myth that has been promoted in a pure Machiavellian, materialist and self-serving sense by these people.

This is not what happens according to the Scripture of our Lord, which says that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (c.f. 2 Timothy 3:16-17). This is why they try to keep it suppressed among their followers and urge people not to read it, even though the people they claim to be descended - who, in actuality, are unrelated to and would be disgusted by the open idol worship and apostasy of this group - it is claimed, wrote the Scriptures. Superceding the Scriptures is a ploy that is aimed at cynical materialists and those who believe in promoting worthwhile myths, using cult strategies and superstitions to propagate among the people, for the inflation of their own pride, and for materialistic self-gain. So, if you are not interested in those things– I would steer clear of all of that, if you are actually interested in following Scripture.

We even see predictions of such false teachings predicted explicitly in the Bible. See 1 Timothy 4:1-3 for more: The apostle Paul writes,

> Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

>2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

>3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

This correlates to the mandatory celibacy ("forbidding to marry") and the fasting calendars (i.e. "commanding to abstain from meats") set up by Catholicism. These are called doctrines of devils outright with no uncertainty in God's word. It is not what the Biblical church does, which is the one set up by Christ. And it's the same error across the various "state church" systems, no matter which one you focus in on– none of them are founded on Christ, the rock of Matthew 16:18. None of them are founded by the Lord Jesus Christ, as proven everyday by the straightforward and clear testimony of the Bible against them. Obviously– those who are uninterested in this or the truth will not pay heed, but those who do have a regard for the truth will notice this. The Bible is the (inspired) word of God : the word of God is our Lord's voice; and as the Lord Jesus Christ said in the Gospel of John, "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." (S. John 18)

>>855583

Whatever Eusebius told in his church history:

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.html

The Old Testament

"Chapter 10. The Manner in which Josephus mentions the Divine Books.

1. We have not, therefore, a multitude of books disagreeing and conflicting with one another; but we have only twenty-two, which contain the record of all time and are justly held to be divine.

2. Of these, five are by Moses, and contain the laws and the tradition respecting the origin of man, and continue the history down to his own death. This period embraces nearly three thousand years.

3. From the death of Moses to the death of Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets that followed Moses wrote the history of their own times in thirteen books. The other four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the regulation of the life of men.

4. From the time of Artaxerxes to our own day all the events have been recorded, but the accounts are not worthy of the same confidence that we repose in those which preceded them, because there has not been during this time an exact succession of prophets.

5. How much we are attached to our own writings is shown plainly by our treatment of them. For although so great a period has already passed by, no one has ventured either to add to or to take from them, but it is inbred in all Jews from their very birth to regard them as the teachings of God, and to abide by them, and, if necessary, cheerfully to die for them.

These remarks of the historian I have thought might advantageously be introduced in this connection."

New Testament:

"Chapter 25. The Divine Scriptures that are accepted and those that are not.

1. Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles.

2. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings.

3. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

4. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books.

5. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books.

6. But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers — we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings."

(Btw Luther was just following Eusebius here by distinguishing the antilegomenna in his bible)

>>855662

Missing four major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel), twelve minor prophets and the book of Lamentations.

This shouldn't be that hard, to be honest. No one disputes the authenticity of the books of Revelation, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 or 3 John. Why not at least list out the epistles of Paul? Because otherwise, people will dispute the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews.