Books that do not belong in the Bible?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by npetreley, Mar 28, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are there any books in the Bible that you feel should not have been included? If so, why?

    Please don't stone me for asking. I'm not saying we SHOULD remove anything, I'm asking if anyone has the opinion that something doesn't belong, or doesn't seem quite right.

    There is precedent. I don't recall exactly which books Martin Luther felt should not have been in the Bible, but I think they included James and Revelation. So someone as recent as Luther had opinions about this - why not now?

    Just curious. Maybe this doesn't belong in "versions/translations" but I put it here because I figure issues about the apocrypha would be put here, and that's basically the same sort of thing.
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uhhh, maybe the table of contents.

    Seriously, I know a few people who are of the opinion that Song of Solomon/Songs should go, due to the abundant use of erotic imagery and sexually graphic content. I personally like the book myself. I honestly can't think of any of the 66 books that warrant omission. However, there are several books in the Apocrypha that, having read them, I think might be worthy of inclusion in the canon. But since I wasn't consulted about the canon, it's not my call, now is it?

    ;)
     
  3. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    By the way, I did a search to see what other books Luther felt did not belong. As far as I can tell, it was just James and Revelation. He retracted his opinion about these books later in life, though. He didn't like the emphasis on works in James, and he felt that Revelation was so cryptic that it was useless. I don't find most of Revelation all that cryptic, personally. Maybe it's because we're approaching the end times (see Daniel about how some things will be kept closed until the end times).

    On a related topic, if there really is a true book of Enoch, I wish we had a reliable source, especially since it is quoted in the NT. I've read some "new age" translations of what is supposed to be the book of Enoch, but I have no idea where the translator(s) got the material.
     
  4. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. They should all stay..

    Now the book of tinytim.... that's another issue!
     
  5. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    They should all stay and to clarify what Martin Luther actually said about James was that it was a "strawy" book (whatever that meant).

    He had problems with it because he felt that it appeared to push a "works" salvation rather than grace, which was the entire fight he had with his church. It just wasn't his favorite book, but he did not deny it.
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    Since the canon was established by GOD, I don't feel I have any right to even think that any of the books don't belong there.

    However, the books used least by me are Ecclesiastes & Song of Solomon.

    Perhaps God includeed the SOS to show racism is wrong. I dunno; I just accept it belongs there.
     
  7. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    103
    In his 1522 New Testament, Luther segregated James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation at the end, a practice followed by Tyndale. His prefaces made it clear he considered them of less value than the undoubtedly canonical books, although he softened that judgment in later editions of his Bible.

    Those books, along with the 2nd Peter and 2nd and 3rd John, had less of a reputation in the early church than did the other books. Luther was, in that sense, attempting to return to what he considered primitive belief.
     
  8. Michael52

    Michael52
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    I really like Ecclesiastes! It really spoke to me during my earlier skeptical phase. I thought, "except for being the king and incredibly wealthy, this book is how I look at things; I could have written this." Thankfully, God wrote it to "get to" people like me.

    I'm with you on Song of Solomon, though. I guess that one is designed for a different kind of person! ;)
     
  9. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    actually, I think SOS was placed in the bible to show that God designed marriage to be a beautiful thing.

    It is perverted so badly today that many people grow up thinking sex is bad. It isnt. It is one of the greatest gifts God gave us, and he gave us a desire for it as well. Therefore, I think SOS is showing that in the confines of marriage, sexual intimacy is in fact a spiritual thing, and God delights in it.
     
  10. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
  11. James Flagg

    James Flagg
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    193
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought The Bible as we know it was established by The Council of Nicea. ?
     
  12. Dustin

    Dustin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    0
    That bible translator is awesome! I just read a bunch of Psalms from the Geneva Bible. Great stuff. [​IMG]
     
  13. Dustin

    Dustin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    0
    nevermind that.
     
  14. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    the bible as we know it was established by the CHURCH through God's Providence.

    All the council did was acknowledge what God had already done.
     
  15. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    When was it so established?
     
  16. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm pretty sure Luther described James as a straw letter compared to some of Paul's letters and not as a blanket statement.

    Personally, if we are talking about adding I've always had a thing for Judith and Tobit.
    If we are talking about substracting, a lot of the more genocidal stuff in the OT does not do much for me.
     
  17. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    npetreley
    "he felt that Revelation was so cryptic that it was useless. I don't find most of Revelation all that cryptic, personally. Maybe it's because we're approaching the end times"
    "
    You are also living in a sub-culture (American Evangelical Christianity) that is fairly End Times obsessed and has many intricate explanations of John's Apocalypse readily available.
    Martin L. on the other hand grew in an environment in which the only present form of Christianity was staunchly A-millenialist and thus less interested in Revelation.

    Just saying that that could also be a factor. ;)
     
  18. Joseph M. Smith

    Joseph M. Smith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am certainly not interested in paring down the canon, but isn't it true that most of us have our own private canons? That is, there are books and passages which appeal to us and to which we turn frequently, and then there are others which are used so seldom as to be virtually excluded from the Bible. When I was preparing to retire from my pastorate, I looked through my database of hundreds of sermons preached, and noticed that there were several books of the Bible I had never used in sermons -- among them some of the most negative of the minor prophets, like Zephaniah and Nahum. I had really excluded them from my canon.
     
  19. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joseph M. Smith
    "I looked through my database of hundreds of sermons preached, and noticed that there were several books of the Bible I had never used in sermons "
    "
    This always strikes me as weird. I'm pretty certain that most churches preach through the whole Bible in a 1-3 year cycle.
    So how do you skip whole books without the regulars piping up?
     
  20. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,246
    Likes Received:
    1,324
    I can't speak for anyone else but I preach "all the counsel of God." (Act 20:27.) Every verse of every book.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...