In common parlance, prophecy is often considered to be "predicting the future." For some, it conjures up images of telephone psychics and the like. Others might envision a crystal ball. It generally has a mystical connotation of some type. On the other hand, the "prophets" of Scripture (e.g. Malachi, Habakkuk, Jonah) seem to be doing something different. Making explicit predictions about the future seems to be a small part of their function as a "prophet." So my question is: **Biblically speaking, what exactly is prophecy?** Is there a Biblical definition that matches the actual practices of the prophets? ------ *If possible, please support your answers using the 66 books of Scripture that are found in the Protestant Bible.*

The [Protestant Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Bible) consists of 66 books. Some believe this set of books is inerrant. Others do not. **Question**: According to non-inerrantist Christians, what are the strongest arguments for the belief that **at least one of these 66 books contains at least one error**? ___ **Addendum - What do I mean by error?** I'm borrowing the meaning of 'error' from the definition of Biblical inerrancy: > Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible "is without **error or fault** in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is **contrary to fact**". Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility; others do not. > > The belief in Biblical inerrancy is of particular significance within parts of evangelicalism, where it is formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy". A formal statement in favor of biblical inerrancy was published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1978. The signatories to the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" admit that, "Inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture." However, even though there may be no extant original manuscripts of the Bible, those that exist can be considered inerrant, because, as the statement reads: "The autographic text of Scripture, ... in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts **with great accuracy**." > > ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy))

I am curious why the books of the Protestant Bible are in the order that they are in? Someone told me they thought the books were in some sort of chronological order - is that true? (I know the content isn't chronological, but are they in the order written or something like that?)

I am currently researching the Protestant view of the biblical canon and have encountered a variety of perspectives on the infallibility of the canon. For instance, the renowned Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul argues that Scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books. This raises several questions: If the canon is not infallible, how can we be certain about the correct number of canonical books (e.g., 66, 73, or another number)? This ultimately leads to that canon is closed or not problem. Others are those who argue that the canon is infallible, as it was determined by the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the church fathers and councils *(It is seems like saying they were infallible indirectly)* **My question is how these views be reconciled with** ***sola scriptura*** **in protestant context**? *Related : https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/92954/protestants-on-how-the-biblical-canon-came*

I am considering becoming an Orthodox Christian but what is really stagnating me from joining the Orthodox Church is their canon: Orthodox Christians have a much larger canon than both Protestants and Roman Catholics (i.e. 3 Maccabees). Does the Orthodox Church have the right canon and did any Christians hold to the same canon of the Orthodox Christians?

There are 27 books in the Protestant, Trinitarian canon of scriptures of the New Testament writings. *Which is three times three times three.* There are 9 authors (Peter, James, Jude, Matthew, Paul, Mark, Luke, John and the writer to the Hebrews - whom many Protestants see as *representing* Jesus himself, the apostle to the Jews). *Which is three plus three plus three.* The number three in the bible is significant. Three men came to Abraham in the plains of Mamre. Three persons are associated with the burning bush which Moses saw (Jehovah, Elohim and the Angel of the Lord). The Lord God Almighty is said to be 'holy, holy, holy'. And those who are baptised are baptised in three - the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Do Protestant Trinitarians see a testimony to the completeness of the canon of scripture in these numbers, 27 and 9 and 3 ? ------------------------------ As an aside, it is notable, also, that there are 39 books to the Old Testament scripture which is one short of a significant number. Four is the number, in scripture, of the earth (north, south, east and west) and ten is the number of completeness (ten fingers to count on). Thus forty is a complete testimony to the entire earth. But less one indicates that the Old Testament scriptures are incomplete without the New.

**Q: According to Protestant New Testament Scholars, can one argue for the inspiration & unity of scripture without using a “theological” claim or method?** Suppose I were to argue for the unity & divine mind behind the creation of scripture… can I argue from prophecy, archeology, geology, topography, language, internal consistency, and all types of connections that the apostles had with each other to show how the Scriptures are the Word of God, without invoking 2 Timothy 3:16? How do I get beyond a theological **claim** to show that on an academic level, the Bible is The Word of God? I ran into this issue recently on a separate Forum, and it makes me wonder.

Who was the first Christian (not necessarily Lutheran) to list the books of the Old Testament in the Lutheran bible, without additions or subtractions, and without later changing his mind? [This source](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-biblical-canon/) mentions the influence of Josephus on the canon, but mentions no Christian. Related: [When was the OT canon as used by Protestants finalized?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/450/when-was-the-ot-canon-as-used-by-protestants-finalized)

There are differences in the Bible Canon between Protestants, Roman-Catholics and Eastern-Orthodox and Oriental-Orthodox. But is the Protestant Canon of 66 books the common **denominator**? Aka, are there any historical Churches that do not recognize any of the 66 books from the Protestant Canon?

I have an interlinear Bible, called the Apostolic Bible Polyglot, that presents the New Testament (along with the Old Testament, from the Septuagint) in Greek and English. Of the Complutensian Polyglot, the NT Greek source for the Apostolic Bible Polyglot, Wikipedia says, > Theodore Beza's Greek NT Text was used primarily, along with Erasmus' Greek NT Text and *with various readings from the Complutensian Greek NT Text to form the Textus Receptus* published by the Elzevir Brothers in 1633, and Erasmus' later editions were a secondary source for the King James Version of the New Testament. *The Complutensian Polyglot Bible was a tertiary source for the 1611 King James Version.* What arguments do KJV-only proponents give against the authority of Bibles like the ABP that share, and even indirectly lend, source material to the 1611 KJV? What about the authority of the Greek manuscripts that Erasmus originally used for the Textus Receptus? Do KJV-Onlyists hold at least those manuscripts in high esteem?

For the purposes of reading longer sections of scripture as a story or for "un churched" audiences, more accessible versions can be really useful but there are a lot to choose between and some attract a lot of controversy e.g. Passion Project. The Good News bible was popular when I was a child but that was 30 years ago so I'm not sure if it has been superseded. Among mainstream protestant denominations in English speaking nations (Church of England, Baptist, etc) what such versions are most widely used? I am focusing on audiences who speak English fluently.

Are there any Christians who reject the canonicity of the standard protestant Bible? For example: Protestants reject the Books and additions which Catholics and Orthodox accept as canonical and which are commonly known as the Apocrypha. So I want to know if there are any groups of Christians who reject the Old Testament and any New Testament writings as canonical.

As covered in the Wikipedia article on Biblical canon , among the major branches of Christianity Protestantism has the smallest biblical canon, due almost entirely to a smaller Old Testament canon. The various New Church or "Swedenborgian" denominations, however, have a considerably smaller canon for both the Old and New Testaments, as covered in this question: What writings are held as "biblical canon" by Swedenborgians? Are there any *other* Christian churches or denominations whose biblical canon is smaller than the Protestant canon? If so, what books do they include in their canon, and what reasons do they give for their particular canon?

I also posted this on the Japanese language site but I don’t feel like it fits very well in either category. If you can think of a better stack exchange site please let me know. Some background: My grandmother was born in Japan just before WWII but married an American sailor in her youth and moved to the US, where she has lived for the past 60 years or so. She is a devout Protestant Christian, but as far as I know she converted when she moved to the US or shortly before then (I have never asked) and has therefore never seen the Bible in her native language. I want to get her one for Christmas, as I think that would be very special for her but I don’t know anything about Japanese translations of the Bible. The problem: I’ve read that there are two main translations, the 新共同訳聖書 (NIT) and the 新改訳聖書 (NJB). The NJB is supposed to be more widely used among Protestants, but it’s also apparently a more literal translation and I don’t want to give her a Bible that’s clunky or obscures the meaning. I also don’t want to give her a Bible that is Protestant because of a bias in translation. On the other hand, I like the idea of a the NIT because it is more ecumenical, but not if it was made that way by deliberately translating it more ambiguously. I also know that translating to Japanese always requires some interpretation, so I like the idea of a less literal translation, but I don’t want to give her one like the Message which is very heavily interpreted to the point where it is more of a commentary. What translation do you recommend for my specific situation? Thanks for your help.

Given the Protestant motto [*semper reformanda*](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/semper-reformanda/) and the doctrine of *sola scriptura* which in essence strives to purify Christian teaching to be based only on the Word of God interpreted through the lens of the 12 apostles, **what is preventing Protestants today from including the Catholic deuterocanonical books *back* into the canon** when it can be shown: 1. How the NT writers [**did** make allusions](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6319/10672) to those books 2. How recent research showed how the [NT writers relied on the Septuagint's version of the underlying Hebrew OT vs. the Masoretic text](https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/) 3. Appeal to what Judaism itself consider as canon (i.e. 39 books) is irrelevant because Christianity should have its own hermeneutic, especially when the Septuagint text could be shown as less tainted by errors now. 4. How the two highly voted answers for the question ["Why were Deuterocanonical books rejected in the Reformation?"](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3189/why-were-deuterocanonical-books-rejected-in-the-reformation) fails to show a good reason for their exclusion from the Protestant canon because none of the reasons mentioned are derived from *sola scriptura*: - Luther and Calvin were motivated to either diminish or eliminate the deuterocanonical books to exclude scriptural support for Catholic doctrines - Appeal to St. Jerome's concern of the reliability of Septuagint has since been reversed after the discovery of the dead sea scrolls (see 2nd point above) - Synod decision post Luther & Calvin should in principle be re-evaluated when the apostles can be shown to rely on Septuagint more than what was known 400-500 years ago 500 years have passed since the violent and emotional schism. Both the Protestant and Catholic sides, especially in the academia, have since understood each other much better and became much less polemical. In the past 100 years the trend for both sides is to dig deeper into each NT author's 2nd temple Judaism worldview to better inform our understanding of the NT books, which is clearly **also** in the spirit of *sola scriptura*. Of course, one obvious reason is because the Catholic church had developed doctrines unacceptable to Protestants based on those books, like Purgatory, indulgences, etc. But if Protestants use proper hermeneutic to guard against "overzealous" interpretation of those deuterocanonical books (such as by controlling interpretation to what only the 12 apostles taught in the 27 NT books), why not include them in the canon? What makes this question different from previous questions such as [this one](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3189/why-were-deuterocanonical-books-rejected-in-the-reformation) is the **21st century context** because in principle Protestants are not bound by past decisions (per *semper reformanda* principle), but bound only by what the NT authors taught (*sola scriptura*). Therefore, my question asks for a **21st century argument for rejection based on those 2 principles (*semper reformanda* and *sola scriptura*)** which should not include polemics and outdated Masoretic text / St. Jerome argument as in the answers of the previous question. Another way of stating the question (positively): given 1) fresh discovery in the 20th century into Jesus and the 1st generation apostles's OT background (such as the texts they use) and 2) given Protestants's commitment to the *semper reformanda* and *sola scriptura* principles, **what criteria does it take for Protestants to include *back* the deuterocanonical books that they rejected** 500 years ago in order to fulfill their *ad fontes* ideal of being faithful to the original revelation?

Related: [Why was Hebrews included in the canon?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/6557/21576) It's widely known that Hebrews has been in the canon of most of Christendom for a long time, originally on the basis of Pauline authorship (see the linked answer above for more). Despite some divergence of opinion (cf. [Martin Luther](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible#View_of_canonicity)) , most of the reformers considered it canonical as well. Here, I'd like to understand their reasons – that is: Why did significant reformers (e.g., [John Calvin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin) , [John Knox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Knox) , [Ulrich Zwingli](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huldrych_Zwingli)) generally include Hebrews in the canon? - Did they still believe that Paul wrote the book, and thus include it on the basis of apostolic authorship? - Or did they accept it based on other factors, like the testimony of the early church, perhaps because Pauline authorship had already begun to be doubted?

I'm asking this from a born-again Christian perspective (so I guess this makes me an evangelical Protestant) and seeing how there's controversy over the KJV, NIV, ESV etc., does the type of Bible that you use really matter? Most Bibles used by Protestants tend to be based off from the Masoretic Text but some websites indicate that the Septuagint is the earliest translation, which Jesus and Paul used during their time on Earth. So which is it? Or is it better safer than sorry to read a variety of translations and compare them?

This has always been a big question for me. I can understand that many Christians believe there is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and that gives a basis for their faith in the teaching of Jesus and the gospels that speak about him and his disciples. But the same Christians do not believe, for example, Mohammad's claims. One big reason is that Mohammad basically claimed a personal revelation that only he received. There could be any number of reasons for that, including epileptic episodes etc. Now Paul by his own account had a personal experience on the road to Damascus, and it kind of resembles Mohammad's experiences. So that by itself wouldn't be enough to have a leap of faith and say that whatever Paul wrote is therefore true. Having been investigating this matter for quite some time, all the evidence that I see points away from the conclusion that Paul and the author of Luke/Acts are trustworthy. However, if I list all this evidence, the question will get too long. As a result, I will write an answer as StackExchange encourages, and include the evidence there. However, due to the nature of the question and the unsatisfactory (to those who believe Paul implicitly) answer, I will probably get downvoted on both the question and the answer. Hopefully not, since this is a serious matter. The reason it is serious - especially to Jewish Christians - is because: 1. God said that many Laws are forever ([examples](http://biblelaw101.com/Home/The%20Law%20of%20God%20is%20Forever.htm)) 2. Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that any Jews who set aside even the smallest commandment and teach others to do so, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven ([Matthew 5:19](http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-19.htm)) 3. Rather than saying the Law was powerless to save, Jesus said, "if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" (see [Matthew 19:16–22](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-22&version=NKJV)) . And in fact even as Jesus taught about the Son of Man being betrayed to the Gentiles, and will rise on the third day, he didn't say that the Law would be nailed to the cross. **This makes it crucial to ascertain if Paul and Luke are trustworthy, because if they are not, then it's dangerous for a Jewish Christian to stop following the Law, just because Paul said so**. To summarize the question: if you draw a graph starting with Jesus, and to his disciples and their disciples, you get Paul and Luke as basically "disconnected" from the graph. Paul claims he got the revelation from his own visions. Luke describes miracles Paul did. Luke endorses Paul. Paul endorses himself. Paul says he won the argument with Peter. There is no account from the disciples Jesus set up, about any of those things. Why do Protestants just assume Paul is right, and his theology is right, and Luke is trustworthy? Just to prevent simple knee-jerk potential answers to this question: 1. *Paul is trustworthy because Acts describes him doing miracles.* The issue here is that Acts is attributed to Luke, a student of Paul. This man also never met Jesus in real life. 2. *Luke is trustworthy because his details were verified.* Being able to correctly name people and places around you doesn't automatically mean the miracle claims are true, how do we know this wasn't just propaganda to boost Paul among the Gentile churches? 3. *2 Peter 3:16 endorses Paul.* Yes as far as I know this is in fact the ONLY place outside Paul + Luke that Paul is even mentioned by name. However there is a huge problem. Most modern New Testament scholars don't believe 2 Peter was written by Peter. So if your only evidence for Paul's authority outside their own writings is 2 Peter, then that means you are disagreeing with most New Testament scholars. Also, the original Church acceptance was also quite contentious. In short, do Protestants have *any logical reasons* to believe in the authority of Paul and Luke? These reasons have to be better than the reasons they reject in other cases, such as Mohammad, Joseph Smith, etc. I can understand that you can just *choose to believe* on faith, but I am looking for solid logical arguments.

Do Anglicans believe that the decision taken on the 66 book canon was an **infallible** decision? (like the attitude the Catholic Church has to the definition of the Canon in the Council of Trent). If so, then do they still call to these people, organization(s) or decision-making process for more infallible decisions? If not, how can we know the inspiration of a book isn't just an inappropriately high **opinion** of scholars and early Christians?

Has the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls had any effect on which Old Testament books should be considered canonical by Protestants? I didn't know this until yesterday, but the dead sea scrolls contained every book of the Bible in Hebrew, including fragments of Deuterocanonical books (except Esther, although most of that is in the Protestant Bible anyway) I may be operating under the hazy assumption that Protestants only discount the Septuagint because it has its basis in Greek instead of having its basis in Hebrew so correct me if I'm wrong. >That Sirach was originally written in Hebrew may be of some significance for the biblical canon. The book was accepted into the canon of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible by Catholicism and Eastern Orthdoxy but not by Judaism or Protestantism, apparently on the basis that no Hebrew original was thought to exist at the time the Jewish Canon was closed Wikipedia - Sirach I just wonder if this is a source of consternation for any Protestant groups or how/if they justify the texts with their own assumptions and scholarship into what the Jews themselves considered scripture at the time of Christ. --- I'd hope that an answer would include a scholarly refutation of the idea that the original books (at least Sirach and Tobit), being composed in Greek, lacked canonical authority for that reason and no other reason.