66 Book Onlyism

It seems to me that Joey Faust is confusing the determination of the books with the determination of the WORDS in the books. Obviously the books were written prior to the 17th century. Therefore the words were set in place long before the KJV was ever dreamed of.

I don't see a connection between which books make up the canon and the KJV.

 

It appears an attempt is being made to justify the glorification of the 17th century as the time when God "made all things new" by FINALLY giving us a perfect Bible and apparently FINALLY settling on a canon of Scripture. You are right, however... there isn't a connection.

God bless!

 

I'm not an expert, but didn't the Geneva Bible (and perhaps other 16th century translations) have the same 66 books?

 

The 66 books Old Testament canon has been around for at least 15 centuries prior to the 17th century. It's also the Jewish canon after all.

 

As early as 390 A.D., Jerome wanted to omit the Apocrypha from the canon, leaving only the canonical 66 books (39 O.T., 27 N.T.).

In 397 A.D., Athanasius headed the council which officially 1st declared that only the 66 were canonical (although the Catholic Church didn't accept this).

In early English translations, the same 80 books (incl. the 14 of the Apocrypha) were included in all. These same 80 books were all in Wycliff's (1384), Coverdale's (1535), the Matthew's Bible (1537), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishop's Bible (1568), and the KJV (1611).

 

Yes and there is actually some misinformation posted here. One of the means to used by the CoE promoters of the KJV to rid themselves of the Geneva was to make it illegal to print a Bible in England without the Apocrypha. A black market developed where the Geneva was imported from Holland having been printed without the Apocrypha... which the KJV contained by law.

If you find the thread I started concerning the dominance of the KJV and follow the links I gave you will find documentation to support what I posted above.

 

In the Jewish OT, Ezra and Nehemiah were one book, First and Second Kings were one book, First and Second Chronicles were one book, First and Second Samuel were one book.

What are you trying to get at, Lacy? Maybe if you would let everyone in on the secret, it would make more sense.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Lacy, I've had direct electronic dialogue with Pastor Faust before, that lasted several months. And while I respect him as a true man of God and pray for his success in leading others to Christ, he's no different from any other KJVO in that he simply cannot provide the first shred of tangible evidence-let alone any empirical proof-that would lend any credence whatsoever to the KJVO myth. He cannot explain why every valid BV made before and after 1611 is different from any others and is still considered valid. He cannot explain why we should believe a doctrine about Scripture that's not FOUND in Scripture. He cannot prove that only the KJV is right & that the rendering of any verse or passage that differs from that of the KJV is wrong.

As for the canon, he seems to have forgotten that the AV 1611 contained the Apocrypha. Whether the AV translators considered them Scripture or not doesn't really matter; they considered them important enough to be placed between the covers of their new translation.

As for "lost truths", all the Scriptures were widely known before the AV was made. In fact, the English had them in the forms of the Geneva Bible and the previous English versions. The KJV was merely a new translation, same as those which followed.

 

Lacy Evans:My point is not that the KJV had the right 66 books and the others did not. What I am saying is this: Why can't the cannon of words be closed? The cannon of books wasn't settled (Perfectly) until the late 1600s.

The Geneva Bible has the same 80 books as the AV 1611, and its first edition was completed in 1560.

Why can't the canon of words be closed? Because every language in extensive common use is constantly changing. My dad used the word "catarrh" when he was young to indicate a non-specific respiratory infection, but he no longer uses that word. I just wrote a post about the KJV's using "reins" for kidneys, a definition of "reins no longer in use. The AV 1611 was Good News for 17th Century man.


Those 66 books brought forth much fruit. the 1700s and 1800s was a time like no other in history from a theological/doctrinal standpoint, and from a practical (holiness) standpoint. You have to go back to the 1st century (When, I believe, we had a perfect Bible in the common language of the world - Greek.) to see anything that comes close.

Yup-that's right! More cults sprang up in America(Mormons, Millerites, SDA, JW, Christian Science, to name a few)in the 1800s than in any other period of American or world history. And many of them used/use the KJV.

And the common language of the world in early AD times was not Greek, except in Greece & some parts of the Roman Empire.

Did Moses write in Greek, or evenin Hebrew? Did Paul write(or have transcribed) exclusively in Greek, especially to the churches in Asia Minor? Or to the Latin-speaking Romans?

And the Great Reformation began C.1517 & was practically over by 1611.

And the valid versions following the AV 1611 have those same 66 books..duh..

The doctrine that the Word is only inspired in the autographs is simply not Biblical. "Scripture" is the thing that was given and "Scripture" is always copies, translations, etc.

I believe people sometimes confuse "inspiration" with "command" or "influence". God TOLD Moses to write down His laws. He TOLD Jeremiah to dictate to Baruch & Baruch to write. He TOLD John what to write & what not to write(the 7 thunders) on Patmos. Now, while He CAUSED men to write Kings, Chronicles, & the other historical books of the Bible, there's no evidence that He directly dictated to them what to write. In fact, both Kings & Chronicles indicate that there were other books of Kings & Chronicles written that God did NOT choose to become Scripture.

The KJVO exhibits yet another facet of his/her DOUBLE STANDARD with the "Inspired Copies Of Scripture" argument. He hollers that Timothy had copies of the Scriptures since childhood & that they certainly weren't the "originals" But do we know if they were EXACT COPIES of the originals or not? Newp! And there's the much-discussed differences between Isaiah 42:7-8 & Isaiah 61:1-3 as compared with what JESUS READ ALOUD in Luke 4:16-21. Evidently the canon of words wasn't closed to their AUTHOR. And the KJVO hollers that the KJV is just as inspired as were the originals or Timothy's copies. BUT HERE'S THE DOUBLE STANDARD-THE KJVO CANNOT PROVE EXCLUSIVE INSPIRATION FOR THE KJV, but he proclaims it anyway, even though he doesn't have one scintilla of Scripture to support his myth. the TRUTH is, that the KJV is no more "inspired" than is any other valid translation.