Why 66 brian edwards

Why 66? By: Brian Edwards. Stock No: WW Wishlist Wishlist. Advanced Search Links. DVD playable in all regions. Learn more about DVDs and Videos. Add To Cart. DVD Set. Tower of Babel DVD. Straight-Edge Ruler with Books of the Bible. Is the Bible True? How Do We Know? It has become all too easy for critics to dismiss the Bible's credibility. It is time for some plain and simple truth. Trace the story of the Hebrew Scriptures, widely known as the Old Testament, and the writing and acceptance of the books of the New Testament.

There are serious problems with this claim. All of this is direct refutation of the notion that the voice of the Spirit went quiet in B. Towards the end of the first part of his talk, Edwards directly attacks the Catholic Bible for including the Deuterocanon. He begins his argument like this:. They were never considered part of the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures.

The Jews clearly ruled them out, by the confession that throughout that period, the period between Malachi and Matthew, around years, there was no voice of the prophets in the land. Josephus, the historian, never used them as Scripture. And very significantly, Jesus and the Apostles never quoted — ever — from the Apocrypha. And on that authority alone, we would say they should never be added to the Bible.

This is a genuinely fascinating claim: that Jesus and the Apostles are exercising their authority to reject Books from the Bible simply by not quoting from them directly. Edwards actually claims this as a sort of foundation for Protestant Evangelicals to base their Bibles on:. So it was necessary to add a few to it.

But as far as the Protestant Evangelical is concerned, the authority of Jesus and the Apostles is final. Never once do they quote from the Apocrypha. Ignore, for now, the ugly suggestion that Catholics and Orthodox intentionally undermine Jesus and the Apostles, as well as the historically-absurd claim that the Catholic Church added the Deuterocanon to the Catholic Bible and, apparently, to the Orthodox Bible in order to justify praying for the dead.

Is this true? To this list some would add Lamentations, others Chronicles. Yet every one of these Books is in the Protestant Bible, nonetheless. That is bad enough. Why does that matter? Because the Deuterocanon can meet this lower standard see, e. Most significantly, Jesus and the Apostles repeatedly quote from this canon, and certain prophesies only work if the Septuagint translation is correct. Now, since Greek was the common language of the day, it was the Greek Septuagint that the Apostles and Jesus frequently used in their New Testament letters.

Whether or not the Septuagint also contained the Apocrypha is impossible to say for certain. But if it did, and I say that because the earliest Septuagints we have are fifth century A.

His whole argument turns on the passage of time: that since the copies of the Septuagint we have are from the fifth century, the Deuterocanon must have been added somewhere along the way. No further reason is given. Perhaps nowhere is this special pleading clearer than when he talks about the Codex Sinaiticus, which contains the Septuagint:.

The best known and most complete is the Codex Sinaiticus. It was discovered in at a monastery on Mount Sinai, hence its name. It originally contained the whole Old Testament plus six Books of the Apocrypha, although parts have been destroyed with age. Tune in tomorrow to see what that argument is, and why it supports the Catholic position. AiG is particularly famous among evangelical fundamentalist communities and when I was one, I used to frequent their site often in search of answers.

The problem was that I was never convinced myself. They have something of a history of telling Evangelical Young Earthers what they want to hear, with lots of facile arguments in support, which I think is really a shame. Thanks for pointing that out! I find it interesting that Brian appeals to Apostolic authority as the foundation for his canon, though, presumably, he would reject that same authority in succession.

As for his claim that books must be excluded if no reference is given for them by Jesus or the Apostles, we must assume he would support the positive argument that a book should be included if given reference by Jesus or the Apostles. Hence, The Book of Enoch, very plainly quoted by Peter in his 2nd epistle and by Jude, should be part of the Protestant canon. Perhaps, even, certain Greek philosophers, as quoted by St.

Paul, should be part of the Protestant canon. Good point! Nobody actually uses quotation as the standard for whether a Book belongs or not. All three standards are completely made up. So you end up with a shell game, where the standard changes to generate whatever outcome you desire. See, this is why I love this blog! Thank you for your efforts in educating all of us lay people with well researched and insightful articles.

Joe, you should really do a book—or even better, a short eBook—on the Canon. Joe, We have begun the St. Your post came out that very week, so I sent it out to the whole class over hungry souls! Your work is just so stellar — thorough, factual, reasoned — but very readable — and the artwork is a wonderful addition — all very Catholic! Part II was great for us as you reiterated the patristic influence and view of the Canon we had just talked about in the study.

God bless you!