Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

Personally I do not think that "Song of Songs" should be a part of The Canons of Scripture what do you think

One thing i think a serious Bible/Scripture study should not overlook is the things in the Song of Songs that are referred to as somehow attractive and worth noting and desiring[?]

For example:

1:9 I have compared thee, O my love, to a company of horses in Pharaoh's chariots.
2:7 I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please.
3:6 Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all powders of the merchant?
4:1 Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.
4:2 Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn, which came up from the washing; whereof every one bear twins, and none is barren among them.
4:3 Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, and thy speech is comely: thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks.
4:4 Thy neck is like the tower of David builded for an armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men.
5:15 His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon sockets of fine gold: his countenance is as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars.
6:6 Thy teeth are as a flock of sheep which go up from the washing, whereof every one beareth twins, and there is not one barren among them.
6:7 As a piece of a pomegranate are thy temples within thy locks.
6:12 Or ever I was aware, my soul made me like the chariots of Amminadib.
7:2 Thy navel is like a round goblet, which wanteth not liquor: thy belly is like an heap of wheat set about with lilies.
7:3 Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins.
7:4 Thy neck is as a tower of ivory; thine eyes like the fishpools in Heshbon, by the gate of Bathrabbim: thy nose is as the tower of Lebanon which looketh toward Damascus.
8:9 If she be a wall, we will build upon her a palace of silver: and if she be a door, we will inclose her with boards of cedar.

Today, in most places in the world, if a man were to approach a woman and tell her [romantically?] that her teeth are like flocks of sheep, a sideways look and an excuse to leave quickly might be the reaction he would get! But wait, he calls out, your hair! your hair is like a flock of goats!!!

However, what are these references? Why would they be something to compare with?
One has to go back to those times and discover what was so good about some of these things and how and allegory could be made.

As a thought to consider, were any other things used for description, also used as any part of the Temple?

I think most would find that there are many parts of Song of Songs that relate to a lot of Scripture. Perhaps that is why it is considered worthy to be in the Bible?

I don't know anyone who has ripped it out of their Bible and as far as i know, there are no Bibles that have removed it?


Bless you ....><>
 
I do not think it should be there because it is to sensual, And it should not be in the presence of children or kids or young adults. If you even paraphrase such words in this modern day language, most christian will condemn of such phrases. 1st time i read it over 40 years age i was appalled, because i was reading the whole BOOK of GOD, then when i got to the book of THE SONG OF SONGS! It was out of place. Then later on I found others scholars have felt the same.

I would never read that book in public. And I have read it only one time. And on another occasion I attempt to read it again, and alarm bells went off in my spirit! and I have not been back that way since, even to think about it "Pollutes" my spirit. To me it is going in opposite of the others Books and Letters, Poetry and all of the Wisdom Books of The Bible.

Is there any others, have had that experience with that book of Songs. "SONG of SONGS" [a.k.a Song of Solomon] Canticles.
Do you know if any, that sing those songs in church services?:eyes:

I know what you mean. I feel that specifically according to Jesus, the Torah, the Psalms, and the Prophets were considered "the word of God" or canon of Scripture. The other books, called the writings, do contain the word of God, or infer or reference the word of God, but are more history, poetry, and so on. However, most would agree that for whatever reason, God has seen fit to impress us that these should be included in the collection of letters and books and are of value to our spiritual growth so I hold them as part of this purpose. Just my $.02...
 
A short Definition of "Biblical Terminology" Universally known through out The world.

DeuteroCanonical books
The deuterocanonical books (from the Greek meaning "belonging to the second canon") are books and passages considered by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East to be canonical books of the Old Testament, BUT THAT PROTESTANT denominations do not regard as part of the biblical canon.

Pseudepigrapha books
Pseudepigrapha (also anglicized as "pseudepigraph" or "pseudepigraphs") are falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed
author is not the true author, or a work whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past.[1]

In biblical studies, the term pseudepigrapha typically refers to an assorted collection of Jewish religious works thought to be
written c. 300 BCE to 300 CE.[citation needed] They are distinguished by Protestants from the deuterocanonical books (Catholic and Orthodox) or Apocrypha (Protestant), the books that appear in extant copies of the Septuagint in the fourth century or later[2] and the Vulgate, but not in the Hebrew Bible or in Protestant Bibles.[3] The Catholic Church distinguishes only between the deuterocanonical and all other books; the latter are called biblical apocrypha, which in Catholic usage includes the pseudepigrapha.[citation needed] In addition, two books considered canonical in the Orthodox Tewahedo churches, viz. Book of Enoch and Book of Jubilees, are categorized as pseudepigrapha from the point of view of Chalcedonian Christianity.

Canon of Scripture (A Biblical Canon).

A biblical canon, also called canon of scripture, is a set of texts (or "books") which a particular Jewish or Christian
religious community regards as authoritative scripture.[1] The English word canon comes from the Greek κανών, meaning "rule" or "measuring stick". Christians were the first to use the term in reference to scripture, but Eugene Ulrich regards the notion as Jewish.[2][3]

Christian Bibles range from the 73 books of the Catholic Church canon, the 66 books of the canon of some denominations or the 80 books of the canon of other
denominations of Protestants, to the 81 books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church canon. The first part of Christian Bibles is the Old Testament, which contains, at minimum, the above 24 books of the Hebrew Bible but divided into 39 (Protestant) or 46 (Catholic) books and ordered differently. The second part is the New Testament, containing 27 books; the four canonical gospels, Acts of the Apostles, 21 Epistles or letters and the Book of Revelation. For example, the King James Biblecontains 80 books: 39 in its Old Testament, 14 in its Apocrypha, and 27 in its New Testament.

Wikipedia.
That we make be one in our religious thinking. and understanding..

For I do believe Our "Canon of Scripture" of The "Protestant Churches" have it right and to be fully believed and to be "received".:pensive:
And I am , and have stated That I am in full agreement of "The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy" in which i have posted and a thread concerning my beliefs concerning The "Word of GOD" in what I believe, that all might see, when in question of My Faith and in whom i believe and how i believe and how i have become solid in my belief. It does not hurt any "Child of The Living GOD" to put on the garments of "Modern Day" "Bereans":pensive:
 
A short Definition of "Biblical Terminology" Universally known through out The world.

DeuteroCanonical books
The deuterocanonical books (from the Greek meaning "belonging to the second canon") are books and passages considered by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East to be canonical books of the Old Testament, BUT THAT PROTESTANT denominations do not regard as part of the biblical canon.

Pseudepigrapha books
Pseudepigrapha (also anglicized as "pseudepigraph" or "pseudepigraphs") are falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed
author is not the true author, or a work whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past.[1]

In biblical studies, the term pseudepigrapha typically refers to an assorted collection of Jewish religious works thought to be
written c. 300 BCE to 300 CE.[citation needed] They are distinguished by Protestants from the deuterocanonical books (Catholic and Orthodox) or Apocrypha (Protestant), the books that appear in extant copies of the Septuagint in the fourth century or later[2] and the Vulgate, but not in the Hebrew Bible or in Protestant Bibles.[3] The Catholic Church distinguishes only between the deuterocanonical and all other books; the latter are called biblical apocrypha, which in Catholic usage includes the pseudepigrapha.[citation needed] In addition, two books considered canonical in the Orthodox Tewahedo churches, viz. Book of Enoch and Book of Jubilees, are categorized as pseudepigrapha from the point of view of Chalcedonian Christianity.

Canon of Scripture (A Biblical Canon).

A biblical canon, also called canon of scripture, is a set of texts (or "books") which a particular Jewish or Christian
religious community regards as authoritative scripture.[1] The English word canon comes from the Greek κανών, meaning "rule" or "measuring stick". Christians were the first to use the term in reference to scripture, but Eugene Ulrich regards the notion as Jewish.[2][3]

Christian Bibles range from the 73 books of the Catholic Church canon, the 66 books of the canon of some denominations or the 80 books of the canon of other
denominations of Protestants, to the 81 books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church canon. The first part of Christian Bibles is the Old Testament, which contains, at minimum, the above 24 books of the Hebrew Bible but divided into 39 (Protestant) or 46 (Catholic) books and ordered differently. The second part is the New Testament, containing 27 books; the four canonical gospels, Acts of the Apostles, 21 Epistles or letters and the Book of Revelation. For example, the King James Biblecontains 80 books: 39 in its Old Testament, 14 in its Apocrypha, and 27 in its New Testament.

Wikipedia.
That we make be one in our religious thinking. and understanding..

For I do believe Our "Canon of Scripture" of The "Protestant Churches" have it right and to be fully believed and to be "received".:pensive:
And I am , and have stated That I am in full agreement of "The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy" in which i have posted and a thread concerning my beliefs concerning The "Word of GOD" in what I believe, that all might see, when in question of My Faith and in whom i believe and how i believe and how i have become solid in my belief. It does not hurt any "Child of The Living GOD" to put on the garments of "Modern Day" "Bereans":pensive:
Well I'm confused about what you believe. You say you believe the Protestant canon is correct, but you don't believe it should include the song of songs. The two statements are contradictory.
 
Looks like an interesting read @Beetow .


Bless you ....><>
May i ask, "how many women can a man love"

Solomon's Foreign Wives (1 King 11)BSB
1King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh—women of Moab, Ammon, Edom, and Sidon, as well as Hittite women. 2These women were from the nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, for surely they will turn your hearts after their gods.” Yet Solomon clung to these women in love.… :pensive:
3He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines— and his wives turned his heart away. 4 For when Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and he was not whole heartedly devoted to the LORD his God, as his father David had been.…:pensive:

Exodus 34:16
And when you take some of their daughters as brides for your sons, their daughters will prostitute themselves to their gods and cause your sons to do the same.

Nehemiah 13:26
Did not King Solomon of Israel sin in matters like this? There was not a king like him among many nations, and he was loved by his God, who made him king over all Israel--yet foreign women drew him into sin.

Proverbs 31:3
Do not spend your strength on women or your vigor on those who ruin kings.:pensive:

I think i see the Light Now! And know why it is in "The Canon of Scripture" I see "The AUTHORIZATION" of The very Hands of GOD, that HE has So "Ordain" it to be:pensive:

And Solomon paid a penaty, 10 tribes was tore away from his Kingdom.

(Hermeneutics, Grammatical Historical 101).
and
"No isolated Scripture, shall be isolated from itself" "And the Word of GOD shall accomplish for that in which it was sent":pensive:

I see it, as plain as Day! why GOD has place it there. "Canticle of Canticle":pensive:

And i did not force it or "Allegorizes" it, But i still, will "ponder" it, before i will reveal what has been revealed. All these years I question its place in the "Canon" and took no ones explanation either of "Theologian or Biblical Scholars" and held my peace, but wonder why it was there. And now I am settled and content of It's its place. "Hallelujah"
 
Well I'm confused about what you believe. You say you believe the Protestant canon is correct, but you don't believe it should include the song of songs. The two statements are contradictory.
Well like i have stated, read the "Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy" all of it . and please skip no words you do not understand.:pensive: and please do not put words in my mouth and replay my words with yours.:) it is so easily done.

For your information: The Word "believe" and "think" are two completely different words. and have different meanings. It would be nice if a lot of people would know what a "Quote" is and know how to use it properly. :pensive:
 
You use "Believe" when you're saying something based on a fact you heard but you don't want to sound too confident or arrogant. In other words, there's more truth or conviction behind it. You use "think" more when stating you're opinion. We use “Believe” to express something we consider as true, correct or real.
 
Well I'm confused about what you believe. You say you believe the Protestant canon is correct, but you don't believe it should include the song of songs. The two statements are contradictory.
Again i did not say the "Protestant Canon" for there are more than one. I said The "Canon of Scripture" of "The Protestant Churches". When jumble words around you make words say anything you want.

You keep saying, I said, but no you said:
"Well I'm confused about what you believe. "You say you believe the Protestant canon is correct, but you don't believe it should include the song of songs." those are your arraignment of words not mines. That is your private interpretation of what i said.
 
May i say this again, sometimes we have to read slowly and we must not think that we are comprehending right away of what we are reading. We must digust especially Biblical words of expression. And do not assume we understand right away what is being said. especially if it is new to us. for why are most of us on here , to repeat what we have heard in our churches , from what our church has taught us, from what our pastors have taught us from what our bible classes in church have taught us, from what thoughts we have receive from Sunday School. Or from teaching from some book we have read who might not be a accredit source but we like what we have read?
Many are on here, because we believe GOD has place us here. For edification and growth in so many different ways, that cannot be number. Some are false some are True. Each individual who are the True Child of GOD is place in the Universal Body of Christ. that has no walls. And with in this Body is the "Gifts" given. :pensive:
 
Ok, I'll quote you exactly

Personally I do not think that "Song of Songs" should be a part of The Canons of Scripture

And


I do believe Our "Canon of Scripture" of The "Protestant Churches" have it right

---


Please explain how these statements are not contradictory.
 
I do not think it should be there because it is to sensual, And it should not be in the presence of children or kids or young adults. If you even paraphrase such words in this modern day language, most christian will condemn of such phrases. 1st time i read it over 40 years age i was appalled, because i was reading the whole BOOK of GOD, then when i got to the book of THE SONG OF SONGS! It was out of place. Then later on I found others scholars have felt the same.

I would never read that book in public. And I have read it only one time. And on another occasion I attempt to read it again, and alarm bells went off in my spirit! and I have not been back that way since, even to think about it "Pollutes" my spirit. To me it is going in opposite of the others Books and Letters, Poetry and all of the Wisdom Books of The Bible.

Is there any others, have had that experience with that book of Songs. "SONG of SONGS" [a.k.a Song of Solomon] Canticles.
Do you know if any, that sing those songs in church services?:eyes:

Plough Boy, can I please urge you read this book again, but this time in context?

The context is, the Shulamite woman is the church and the Beloved is Christ. It's a love story stuffed full of passion, intimacy, romance and heartache.

So when the prophets and epistle writers talk about the bride of Christ, this is it!
 
May i say this again, sometimes we have to read slowly and we must not think that we are comprehending right away of what we are reading.
And may I say, sometimes we have to write slowly and we must not think that we are comprehending right away of what we are writing.
 
For I do believe Our "Canon of Scripture" of The "Protestant Churches" have it right
Again i did not say the "Protestant Canon" for there are more than one.
If there is, then, more than one "Protestant Canon," of these, which "Canon of Scripture" of The "Protestant Churches" ... 'have it right'?

Rhema

PS: Bonus question. Name two "Canon of Scripture" of The "Protestant Churches" that differ.

PPS: Bonus question rephrased: Name two "Protestant Churches" whose "Canon of Scripture" differ.
 
I do not think it should be there because it is to sensual, And it should not be in the presence of children or kids or young adults. If you even paraphrase such words in this modern day language, most christian will condemn of such phrases. 1st time i read it over 40 years age i was appalled, because i was reading the whole BOOK of GOD, then when i got to the book of THE SONG OF SONGS! It was out of place. Then later on I found others scholars have felt the same.

I would never read that book in public. And I have read it only one time. And on another occasion I attempt to read it again, and alarm bells went off in my spirit! and I have not been back that way since, even to think about it "Pollutes" my spirit. To me it is going in opposite of the others Books and Letters, Poetry and all of the Wisdom Books of The Bible.

Is there any others, have had that experience with that book of Songs. "SONG of SONGS" [a.k.a Song of Solomon] Canticles.
Do you know if any, that sing those songs in church services?:eyes:
There is a lot if consideration in this string and I hesitate, almost, to say anything but the History of this passage of Holy Scripture seems important to me. I am reminded that the Jewish Parent of the First Century considered a male a child until the age of Thirty. Being a child, they were not allowed to marry, nor were they allowed to read The Song of Songs because it was to sensual for unmarried men. If we properly teach this book we must teach the relevance of each instance and therefore, though it can be considered "coded" today, this is not material for children and the unmarried. I believe the book is where it belongs because I believe in the original Cannon as did the Catholic Church, originally.
 
Evidently, some who are reading this Thread i created, are not following my consecutive posts and it seems they have not "rightly" understood The Title of this Thread.:pensive: In which i feel, i could not or cannot express it any better.:pensive: For I believe my words that I express in the order that they was presented appears to be "Theologically" sound concerning my arguments concerning The Canonicity of "Canticle of Canticle" into the "Canon of Scripture":pensive:.

I have even given my reasons why, and my form of "hermeneutics' i have used over 40 years, "Grammatical History' Exegesis. I have stated also how i feel about " Bible Inerrancy". in which i am in total agreement of "CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY" which is listed here on "TalkJesus" more than one time.

Finally, i did come to a conclusion which is "Posted" at Post # 46. And i still do not see how come those who posted after "post #46". Do not understand those words either. I call my self posting it in the most of"layman" terms as I could possibly do, and I cannot make any plainer

One thing i do ask, in order to understand my argument. One must read the "Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy" and read all of by post concerning my argument. and take not "One Sentence" in Isolation of "The text" of how i presented it. And then at least you can see my view and my approach to "The Whole "Biblical Text" at whole. And not a book or letter In "isolation' of its self.


Final Statement: by PloughBoy
I do believe that the Canticle of Canticle has a rightful place in The "Canon of Scripture" by "Exegesis', I have been convince by "Scripture alone" and not the assurance by mortal man. But Scripture alone, I do believe by "The revelation" of Jesus Christ" our LORD.
and I am "Content". "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense" 'But wait on GOD':pensive:

He has never fail me in all of these 44 plus years in "Biblical Truth" I went from faith to "TRUST" :pensive: And what a big difference it is.:pensive:
 
May I say this as well. The word "layman" and "Layman Terms" have two different meanings.

"Layman Terms":

Why do people say layman's terms:
We use simple layman's terms when we try to explain a complex issue so an average person can easily understand it. ... Speaking in layman's terms is not to dumb down. But to educate using terms that the average person would easily be able to digest. You need to use the little words first to define what the big words mean. :pensive:

How many times have you told your lawyer or "Realtor" or Doctor, when they would be discussing with you. And you did not understand the true meaning, And you stop them!:eyes: And you told them, "Tell me That In "layman" terms. And then they refresh themselves and, they repeated it into a language you could understand! Because we are talking about something important!! "Money or Health"!:confused:

If you do not understand something and you want to know or a word. You do do go on like you understand a word or concept! You stop! Would you please if you can:eyes: make that a little plainer. because, i want to fully understand what you are saying and then i can make an assessment of what you are trying to say!

And today, we have internet. Then we have to be careful too, many definitions are so "bias" there! That is why a scholar of any kind, use to have a "Unabridged Dictionary" within his home. Or do you remember in "grammar school" we had assignments to go to the local library and use the "Unabridged" Dictionary, for "Collegiate Dictionaries" could not get the job done! And i think personal every student of the bible should have a "Unabridged Dictionary" in their home.
From a $130.00 new down to under $10.00 used. But we all know we become a "nations" of "quick gratification" and "fast food. And we all know what "fast Food" will do for your "health"! The will created a "Pharmacy' in your own home.:pensive:

You remember when we were instructed just how to read "dictionaries" was so healthful. So is "Biblical Encyclopedias'. was not "The Thompson Chain Reference Study Bible NIV of early 1980's so thrilling! With its extensive definitions of Bible Words and names. You could spend hours and hours just reading the definitions of Biblical words and their origins.

Our children do not want to hear these helps of truth anymore, and do we every wonder why?

"train up a child in a way it should go, and it will not depart" "bad company corrupt good morals" Now what is bad company in the Biblical sense, in The eyes of GOD? "And the weeds grew and choked them"
In my yard all kinds of weeds grow, even false grass, it looks like grass but it is a weed growing among the real grass. for those who do not know grass cannot tell the difference.

Mark 4:7
Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the seedlings, and they yielded no crop.:pensive:
 
@PloughBoy if I understand right, you changed your mind about the Song of Songs at some point between post 1 and post 46.
 
@PloughBoy if I understand right, you changed your mind about the Song of Songs at some point between post 1 and post 46.
yes :pensive: I came to a conclusion and I do believe and understand why, GOD has "ordain' it to be a part of the "canon of Scripture" pertaining to The "Protestant Churches" Movement.. For i was not convince by man, but by "Scripture Alone":pensive: And by "Exegesis" and by "grammatical historical" hermeneutics. And the Truth that is revealed in Jesus Christ our LORD.:pensive: ""No isolated Scripture, shall be isolated from itself". The Spirit of GOD ran the whole Book of The Entire Bible through my being. every dot and tittle and The Light came on. "When the plain sense of scripture, makes common sense seek no other sense", all my "theological training also came in to play". For now I am with "contentment" concern the place that the Canticle of Canticles occupies in "The Canon of Scripture".:pensive:
 
I am reminded that the Jewish Parent of the First Century considered a male a child until the age of Thirty.
Source?

The Bar Mitzvah (LINK) would greatly suggest otherwise.

I believe in the original Cannon as did the Catholic Church, originally.
But "originally," the Catholic Church did not believe in the Catholic canon. Even as late as the council of Nicaea, the book of Revelation was in dispute, and was never accepted by the Church of the East. Its inclusion in the canon can be attributed solely to Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria who listed it as canonical in 367 AD (while at the same time dropping out the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache that had been considered canon by the "original" Catholics).

Thanks,
Rhema

PS: I guess I ought to mention that the Catholic view on the canon and on scripture is markedly different than the Protestant view.
 
Back
Top