PDA

View Full Version : Apocrypha



Shade40
Jan 6th 2008, 11:13 PM
Hi,
I've been poking around online a bit and I came across this Apocrypha thing on an online version of the Bible. Curious, I went to the library to check it out. I've read through to Ecclesiasticus, and I have to say, I'd like to know what the deal is with this. What is the Apocrypha and why isn't it a part of the Bible? What is its history? Are there any Christian denominations that consider this a part of scriptures?
Shade40

Clifton
Jan 6th 2008, 11:34 PM
Hi,
I've been poking around online a bit and I came across this Apocrypha thing on an online version of the Bible. Curious, I went to the library to check it out. I've read through to Ecclesiasticus, and I have to say, I'd like to know what the deal is with this. What is the Apocrypha and why isn't it a part of the Bible? What is its history? Are there any Christian denominations that consider this a part of scriptures?
Shade40

I do not know of any Christian Denominations that consider the Apocrypha as part of "inspired scripture" - it did come with the original AV Bible (KJV), and I got that. RSV as well, and I got that too. Both of these I have in two of my Bible Software packages.

The deal is that they are not "canonical" (even though that which was "canonical" did change through the centuries), but were considered "maybe" okay reading for Christians. For sure, for thousands of years believers have always read through "exterior" texts - we still do so today.

There may be a change coming in the future still yet... the new release of the UPDV Bible (http://www.updated.org/) (available as a free download in various formats), v. 2.11 (2006) has included and made the following changes:
First Maccabees (http://read.updated.org/bible/1Ma/) is included (click here (http://www.updated.org/help/first_maccabees.shtml) for more information).
The Wisdom of Sirach (http://read.updated.org/bible/Sir/) is
now being included as it is completed on a chapter-by-chapter basis (click here (http://www.updated.org/sirach.shtml) for more information).
The Book of Acts is no longer included (click here (http://www.updated.org/acts.shtml) for more information).
The order of the books places the New Testament before the Old Testament; and the book of John before Matthew (click here (http://www.updated.org/arrangement.shtml) for more information).

Also, Matthew has been reordered (resequenced), but a PDF File can be downloaded to show new chapter:verse numbers to old chapter:verse numbers.

How this trend follows will probably be out of the reach for our generation.

BTW, did you like the book of Ecclesiasticus? I also have the "NT Apocrypha" in Online Bible - the book of Nicodemus is my fave (thus far?).

Clifton

Meteor
Jan 6th 2008, 11:36 PM
Catholic Bibles include the following books considered apocrypha (excluded) in Protestant Bibles: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 Machabees, 2 Machabees. The books of Esther and Daniel are also longer. Other denominations (Eastern, etc.) include other books.

In its broadest sense, apocryphal books are those which your particular denomination excludes from its Bible because, from my understanding, the books are not considered to be the Word of God by that denomination.

daughter
Jan 6th 2008, 11:43 PM
I do not know of any Christian Denominations that consider the Apocrypha as part of "inspired scripture" - it did come with the original AV Bible (KJV), and I got that. RSV as well, and I got that too. Both of these I have in two of my Bible Software packages.
Catholics tend to think of the Apocrypha as Okay reading, though not as inspired as the Hebrew Jewish texts, or the New Testament period Greek language texts. Some of them were referenced in the NT though.

The deal is that they are not "canonical" (even though that which was "canonical" did change through the centuries), but were considered "maybe" okay reading for Christians. For sure, for thousands of years believers have always read through "exterior" texts - we still do so today.
Sounds a fair definition.

There may be a change coming in the future still yet... the new release of the UPDV Bible (http://www.updated.org/) (available as a free download in various formats), v. 2.11 (2006) has included and made the following changes:
First Maccabees (http://read.updated.org/bible/1Ma/) is included (click here (http://www.updated.org/help/first_maccabees.shtml) for more information).
The Wisdom of Sirach (http://read.updated.org/bible/Sir/) is
now being included as it is completed on a chapter-by-chapter basis (click here (http://www.updated.org/sirach.shtml) for more information).
The Book of Acts is no longer included (click here (http://www.updated.org/acts.shtml) for more information).
The order of the books places the New Testament before the Old Testament; and the book of John before Matthew (click here (http://www.updated.org/arrangement.shtml) for more information).

Also, Matthew has been reordered (resequenced), but a PDF File can be downloaded to show new chapter:verse numbers to old chapter:verse numbers.

How this trend follows will probably be out of the reach for our generation.

BTW, did you like the book of Ecclesiasticus? I also have the "NT Apocrypha" in Online Bible - the book of Nicodemus is my fave (thus far?).

Clifton
I'm rather gobsmacked at them dumping the book of Acts... I read their rational, and just can't believe they'd be so stupid. It's obviously a first century, early account, by a very cautious and orderly historian... why dump it because they think it might have been a different author than Luke? For the record, I've read both Luke and Acts in Greek, and I believe it's the same main author.

Oh, I'm annoyed!

Clifton
Jan 7th 2008, 12:08 AM
I'm rather gobsmacked at them dumping the book of Acts... I read their rational, and just can't believe they'd be so stupid. It's obviously a first century, early account, by a very cautious and orderly historian... why dump it because they think it might have been a different author than Luke? For the record, I've read both Luke and Acts in Greek, and I believe it's the same main author.

Oh, I'm annoyed!


Oh yea - when I discovered that, I knew that MOST people were not gonna be happy about that - plus, some verses in the gospels are no longer there. Supposedly, this is due to new discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls. They may have conferred to the Oxyrhynchus Papyri as well, which sheds as more of a "Caesarian Text" (that's the new name some scholars are using to replace the name "alexandrian".

I do note that the Book Of Matthew appears (so far) to be in better order.

As for the book of Acts, and other verses that are no longer there, well, I got over 50 Bibles in my Bible Software packages (3 of them), so I still have the Book Of Acts and other verses that have been with us the past few centuries ;)

Clifton

walked
Jan 7th 2008, 03:25 AM
Hi Shade40 !

Jesus read from a septuagint bible in the temple, the septuagint bible that He read from has all of the apocrypha writings included in them (as did all of Gods children and priest in post 2nd temple use this same septuagint)
There are two versions of septuagint in our modern times, one with apocrypha and, one with out apocrypha... the version without the apocrypha wasn't composed until after Christ Jesus walked the earth and taught so, He must have read from the septuagint with apocrypha included, the only modifications Jesus made to scripture in the septuagint that I can recall is the teaching of (divorce) and the teaching of an (eye for an eye)
So, this validates the apocrypha for me, please don't let mans institutions validate or decide for you what is profitable for your soul... all things work for the good of those who love God.

Athanasius
Jan 7th 2008, 03:41 AM
The big thing about the Apocrphal writings is that they contradict with agreed canon.
They are interesting history, perhaps filling in the 300-400 year period where God seemed to be 'silent', but nothing more.

jeffreys
Jan 7th 2008, 03:41 AM
Hi,
I've been poking around online a bit and I came across this Apocrypha thing on an online version of the Bible. Curious, I went to the library to check it out. I've read through to Ecclesiasticus, and I have to say, I'd like to know what the deal is with this. What is the Apocrypha and why isn't it a part of the Bible? What is its history? Are there any Christian denominations that consider this a part of scriptures?
Shade40

The Apocrypha is the inter-testamental books that Catholic Bibles have. Catholics believe them to be Holy Writ, and Protestants do not.

It should be noted, however, that there are a LOT of "extra-canonical" writings out there. There are hundreds of "books" in the Pseudapigrapha, as well as dozens upon dozens of various "gospels" and other ancient Christian writings. This was one of the things that created all the buzz about The daVinci Code. So many people had never heard of such things.

But it's important to remember that there are good reasons these extra-canonical writings were excluded from the Bible.

blueshadow
Jan 7th 2008, 03:57 AM
As far as I know, the Apocrypha was originally part of the Biblical canon (which is why Catholics still consider it to be part of the Scriptures). Luther took it out because the Apocrypha was not part of the Jewish canon, while all the other OT books were. He also wanted to take out some NT books; I don't remember specifically which ones. Thankfully, he didn't.

I believe most, if not all, Protestant denominations do not consider the Apocrypha to be inspired. I know Anglicans view it as profitable for teaching but not doctrine, or something like that.

Clifton
Jan 7th 2008, 05:02 AM
As far as I know, the Apocrypha was originally part of the Biblical canon (which is why Catholics still consider it to be part of the Scriptures). Luther took it out because the Apocrypha was not part of the Jewish canon, while all the other OT books were. He also wanted to take out some NT books; I don't remember specifically which ones. Thankfully, he didn't.

I believe most, if not all, Protestant denominations do not consider the Apocrypha to be inspired. I know Anglicans view it as profitable for teaching but not doctrine, or something like that.


I think it was (at least) John's Apocalypse that they did not want to allow in the Canon. Of course, it eventually made it in (again), though, unless something has changed in the past several years, that book is not in the bibles of some countries.

At at time in earlier in history, Jude was not permitted either, because of its reference to the Book Of Enoch, despite it was deemed as Christian material (it is one of the backbones for John's Apocalypse, among many other sources).

Some books that were considered canon are no longer around, like the Apocalypse of Peter, which no extant MS survives of that book now.

Clifton

mcgyver
Jan 7th 2008, 05:51 AM
The Apocrypha are an interesting collection of books, to be sure!

As far as inspiration and acceptance, it is of note that the apocrypha never was accepted as a part of Jewish canon. These writings were held as useful for historical value, but were not considered inspired or of equal veracity with the rest of the Hebrew canon of scripture.

The Jewish scholars of Jamnia, Philo of Alexandria, Josephus, as well as almost all other Jewish scholars rejected these writings as being inspired (The Talmud teaches that the Holy Spirit departed from Israel after the time of Malachi, who lived about four centuries before Christ, while it is generally accepted that the books of the Apocrypha were composed in the vicinity of two centuries before Christ).

The Septuagint (Greek translation of the old testament) was completed in stages between the 3d century and 1st century B.C. (including revisions), and included the Apocrypha. It has been speculated that the reason for a translation into Greek was to provide both "scripture" and "literature" for those Jews in the Diaspora, Greek having been established as the Lingua Franca throughout the world.

between A.D. 382 and A.D 405, St Jerome translated the Bible into Latin (Vulgate) at the commission of Pope Damasus I, with the Apocrypha inserted between the Old and New Testaments. He recommended to the Pope that the apocryphal books not be accepted as of divine origin. He stated: the church should read them “for example and instruction of manners”, but not “apply them to establish any doctrine”, and “they exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture” (Preface to Vulgate Book of Solomon).

But in 782 the Pope at the time declared the Vulgate "The only acceptable Bible" for the Catholic Church (including the Apocrypha) which is why Catholic Bibles, which are based on the Latin Vulgate and not a Greek text, include the Apocrypha. The (supposed) inspiration of the Vulgate was declared officially by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in 1546.

It is interesting to note again that there are absolutely no quotes from the Apocryphal books in the New Testament (save a passing reference in Jude), and early church fathers such as Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and others flatly rejected the books of the Apocrypha.

IMO the Apocryphal books give a wonderful insight into Jewish thought and culture, as well as historical background; which is a great help in understanding our own New Testament, but I can not see them as being inspired...especially considering (once again) the Jews to whom the OT Scripture was entrusted did not consider them inspired.

Incidentally, any scripture read within a Judean Synagogue would have been in Hebrew, probably from the Masoretic or other Hebrew text, not the Septuagint....

Just my 2 pennys....:rolleyes:

excubitor
Jan 7th 2008, 07:55 AM
Those of you who remember me in my KJV Only days might remember me speaking out against the Apocrypha. Its interesting to note that the first KJV contained the apocrypha and I believe you can still buy KJV's with the apocrypha in them.

Just a few points to correct previous statements here.
The Jews used the Hebrew of the Scriptures in the temple.
The Church has always believed that the apocrypha is scripture. The Catholic church do not call them apocrypal they call them deuterocanonical to indicate that they are the second canon.
The church never considered them external texts or historical test or apocryphal or pseudigraphical.

Recently I have had a change of heart on the apocrypha. It is ironic that when Luther advanced his new teaching of Sola Scriptura that one of his first tasks was to strip out books from the canon. Not just the deutero-canonical books but also the book of James and I think there were other threatened books as well.

The argument that the Jewish scholars did not consider the Greek books to be scripture. This argument which can be dressed up to be extremely elaborate is really no argument at all. The Jewish scholars don't recognise any of the NT books either. There is no disputing that the Early churches used the Septuagint which included the deuterocanonical books and considered them scripture. When Paul said " All scripture was given by inspiration of God . . . ." he was including the deuterocanonical books in that list. So why do we abandon books which the apostles and the NT church considered scripture on the sayso of Jewish sages.

In fact it is not even correct to say that Jews don't recognise the Deuterocanonical books. As we have already admitted the deuterocanonical books were in the Septuagint. The Septuagint was used by Jewish scholars, translated by Jewish scholars for the use of Jews throughout the Hellenistic world. There were purist Jews who used the Hebrew, but these were mainly centred in Judae and of course the temple. These Jews despised anything remotely Greek and considered the Greek tongue barbaric.

But all throughout the world Jews spoke Greek as a carry over from the Greco-Macedonian empires. Therefore the vast majority of Jews were using scriptures which contained the apocrypha (as we call it).

There is no doubt in my mind that the reason Luther ditched many books including the apocrypha is because they taught doctrines which did not suit his new belief system. This is certainly the case with the book of James which threatened his new teaching of Sola Fide, Salvation by faith alone.

Ditching books from the Bible at the same time you teach Sola Scriptura seems a tad incompatible to me, I'd be interested to hear what everyone else thinks on this point.

daughter
Jan 7th 2008, 11:57 AM
Luther wanted to get rid of James, Jude, Revelations, and in the OT the book of Esther.

Do we know for sure that Jesus was reading a Greek scroll? May it not equally have been in Hebrew? The Bible doesn't say what version of Isaiah He was reading. I don't think we should get ahead of ourselves and read more into scripture than is there. The fact is, we don't know.

Yes, Clifton, I know that the Book of Acts is reasonably safe... but this kind of excercise, digging through the Bible and ditching bits, just makes the basis of Christianity look even shakier to non believers. And Acts is so obviously a first century eye witness account that it hardly matters if it was written by the same Luke that the gospel was written by... though I believe it was. It was certainly written by someone who without drawing too much attention to it, or bigging himself up, travelled with Paul. What motive, besides intellectual pride, would cause someone to dump it?

walked
Jan 7th 2008, 11:59 AM
Incidentally, any scripture read within a Judean Synagogue would have been in Hebrew, probably from the Masoretic or other Hebrew text, not the Septuagint....

Just my 2 pennys....:rolleyes:


The Hebrew nation was in captivity and, when they were released to return to their land to rebuild the 2nd temple, none spoke or wrote in the original Hebrew language anymore and it is still a lost language to this day!... from that point (the return of Gods people from Babylon back to the promised land) the scriptures read in temples/synagogues were the septuagint text/scriptures/bible. the Hebrew language today is not the same language spoken or written in pre-Babylon captivity!

Incidentally,
I'de like to know your references for the quote above, someone is trying to rewrite history.

daughter
Jan 7th 2008, 12:07 PM
What are your references, Walked? I'd like to compare both sides before I make my mind up.

walked
Jan 7th 2008, 12:13 PM
What are your references, Walked? I'd like to compare both sides before I make my mind up.

Read the book of Daniel (http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Daniel/audio/Daniel.m3u) and Nehemiah (http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Nehemiah/audio/Nehemiah.m3u)

Compare modern Hebrew with / pre-Babylon captivity original Hebrew manuscripts

daughter
Jan 7th 2008, 12:18 PM
I'm learning Biblical Hebrew at the moment. Yes, I can tell it's different from the modern language, but then so is modern Greek from Koine. And yes, I've read Daniel quite a lot... how does that prove that Jews stopped reading Hebrew in synagogues? It was my understanding that biblical Hebrew was preserved in synagogues all over the world through regular Scripture reading.

Have you any other evidence to present? Not just walked, anyone?

walked
Jan 7th 2008, 12:32 PM
I'm learning Biblical Hebrew at the moment. Yes, I can tell it's different from the modern language, but then so is modern Greek from Koine. And yes, I've read Daniel quite a lot... how does that prove that Jews stopped reading Hebrew in synagogues? It was my understanding that biblical Hebrew was preserved in synagogues all over the world through regular Scripture reading.

Have you any other evidence to present? Not just walked, anyone?

I commend you for attempting to learn Biblical Hebrew, you will be blessed in your understanding of deeper truths in scripture and a perspective in Hebrew culture that will benefit you and quicken your understanding too.
I honestly wish I had the gonads to attempt to learn it too, I have focused on archaic Greek and have found big benefits in understanding new the testament writings but many Greek words used in NT scripture have huge differences in the same Hebrew words like (repentance) in Greek it means a changing direction of ones thought and in Hebrew it is an act of changing direction of ones course, this could cause major problems in defining what biblical repentance is.

Anyway I added the book of Nehemiah (http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Nehemiah/audio/Nehemiah.m3u) into my references by editing my post above.

walked
Jan 7th 2008, 12:42 PM
The languages spoke, written and read by the post captivity Hebrews were the Aramaic and Greek lanuages.

The scriptures they read in temples/synagogues in post captivity were Aramaic and Greek versions.

I am not sure if Aramaic versions had apocrypha but I know the Greek versions (septuagint) did have apocrypha.

mcgyver
Jan 7th 2008, 01:27 PM
The Hebrew nation was in captivity and, when they were released to return to their land to rebuild the 2nd temple, none spoke or wrote in the original Hebrew language anymore and it is still a lost language to this day!... from that point (the return of Gods people from Babylon back to the promised land) the scriptures read in temples/synagogues were the septuagint text/scriptures/bible. the Hebrew language today is not the same language spoken or written in pre-Babylon captivity!

Incidentally,
I'de like to know your references for the quote above, someone is trying to rewrite history.

Good morning.

I respectfully disagree in that Hebrew was not a "Dead Language" in first century Palestine. Although I will agree that Hebrew (like any language) had changed from pre-Babylonian times...it was still Hebrew. Just as English has changed from pre-Elizabethan times, yet it is still English.

As far as evidence/testimony and sources:

Biblical Testimony:

The Sign over the cross was written in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.
Paul in giving his testimony before Agrippa writes in Acts 26:14: "And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." (KJV)
In Addressing the crowd during the uproar he caused in Jerusalem: And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying, (Acts 21:40 KJV) And: (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) (Acts 22:2 KJV).Archaeological Evidence:

Something easy to check...The Dead Sea Scrolls: Although many are in Aramaic, the majority are in Hebrew. Notably, the "Great Isaiah Scroll" which is at least 1000 years earler than anything we previously had...is in Hebrew. Not to mention the multiplicity of other Hebrew manuscripts found in other digs throughout Palestine.

Historical Evidence:

Here I turn to such eminent personages as Edersheim, Barclay, Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, and Teringo (among others) for help...

Interestingly, the historian J. RobertTeringo wrote (concerning first century worship in the synogogue):

"The fixed order of service began, after the customary greeting, with a prayer while the people remained standing facing the sacred Torah scroll. The reading of the law of Moses was next. The Torah scroll was taken from the chest and placed before a reader who read in the ancient Hebrew tongue and immediately translated it into Aramaic the language of those days. A commentary was always added to this reading. Next, a portion was read from the books of the prophets and, again, immediately translated verse by verse. After a closing prayer, the service was concluded..."

Although Aramaic was the commonly spoken tongue, and Greek the "international language"; there is ample evidence that Hebrew was also spoken by many, and that Hebrew was the language of worship in the Temple and Synagogues.

To assert that one must have read from the Septuagint because Hebrew was "dead" is simply ludicrous, and without basis in fact.

submitted respectfully for your consideration.

Clifton
Jan 7th 2008, 02:25 PM
Those of you who remember me in my KJV Only days might remember me speaking out against the Apocrypha. Its interesting to note that the first KJV contained the apocrypha and I believe you can still buy KJV's with the apocrypha in them. ...



You can get the KJV with the Apocrypha as a module for the
e-Sword Bible Software (http://www.e-sword.net/bibles.html)

e-Sword is one of the three Bible Software packages I use.

Clifton

mcgyver
Jan 7th 2008, 03:21 PM
The languages spoke, written and read by the post captivity Hebrews were the Aramaic and Greek lanuages.

The scriptures they read in temples/synagogues in post captivity were Aramaic and Greek versions.

I have done as you asked and quoted some (easily checked) sources, to include scriptural citations. Can you cite your sources for the above assertion? Perhaps expound as to how you arrived at your conclusion?

I'd like to check the sources out for myself...Credentials, Methodology, Published works, etc., as well as understand your reasoning for coming to these conclusions...thanks :)

walked
Jan 7th 2008, 03:49 PM
Incidentally, any scripture read within a Judean Synagogue would have been in Hebrew, probably from the Masoretic or other Hebrew text, not the Septuagint....

Just my 2 pennys....:rolleyes:


The biblical testimony you give, has nothing to do with
"any scripture read within a Judean Synagogue would have been in Hebrew, probably from the Masoretic or other Hebrew text, not the Septuagint..."

The archaeological evidence you give are writings by a sect alienated by mainstream Judaism and not read in temples and synagogues nor is a date of the said writings established so, also has nothing to do with
"any scripture read within a Judean Synagogue would have been in Hebrew, probably from the Masoretic or other Hebrew text, not the Septuagint..."

The historical evidence is your best reference but not sufficient to prove your comment I quoted

Reasons 1, My 1st argument is to what I highlight in red
below, this only says they read in ancient Hebrew tongue, it does not say the text was written in ancient Hebrew if they could translate the reading into Aramaic then I suggest they could translate reading the Greek into Hebrew.....
That is what your challenge to my statement about the reading of the septuagint was by you posting
"any scripture read within a Judean Synagogue would have been in Hebrew, probably from the Masoretic or other Hebrew text, not the Septuagint..."
"The fixed order of service began, after the customary greeting, with a prayer while the people remained standing facing the sacred Torah scroll. The reading of the law of Moses was next. The Torah scroll was taken from the chest and placed before a reader who read in the ancient Hebrew tongue and immediately translated it into Aramaic the language of those days. A commentary was always added to this reading. Next, a portion was read from the books of the prophets and, again, immediately translated verse by verse. After a closing prayer, the service was concluded..."

Reason 2, These are commentaries by "Historians" you chose and only gave their comments and no dates, no locations and no cultures being spoke of by your "Historian"
(the earliest Christians also gathered at synagogues)
(Paul traveled from city to city to synagogues teaching and converting)
So,
(culture) was your "Historian" commenting on christians gathered at synagogues or orthodox Jews gathered ? Im sure this reading tradition is practiced today in the modern Hebrew language, the question is (what language was post captivity scripture read from)

(date) was your "Historian" commenting on pre-captivity reading practices? or, post captivity reading-practices? pre and post captivity is the question on what was read

(location) was your "Historian" commenting of reading practices in the Holyland synagogues? or easter Med. synagogues? western Med. synagogues? Asian minor synagogues? central Med. synagogues? African synagogues? all of the geographical area's mentioned had developed varied traditions and practices.
The reading Christ did in the temple/synagogue that I mentioned and you challenged was in Jerusalem.

mcgyver
Jan 7th 2008, 04:23 PM
Dear brother, I am not trying to be either contentious nor accusatory....

You have made broad and sweeping statements, most notably that scriptures read in the Temple or Synagogue (specifically in Palestine) must of needs have been in either Aramaic or Greek, because (if I understand you correctly) no one either spoke or wrote in "pre-captivity" or "original" Hebrew. (Post #14).

In post #19 you (once again) state that:


The languages spoke, written and read by the post captivity Hebrews were the Aramaic and Greek lanuages.

The scriptures they read in temples/synagogues in post captivity were Aramaic and Greek versions.

All this to "prove" (if I understand correctly) that Jesus read from the Septuagint, which includes the Apocrypha, and therefore (by default) the Apocrypha must be inspired....

Am I correct thus far?

In so far as answering your previous post, I don't even know where to start!


this only says they read in ancient Hebrew tongue, it does not say the text was written in ancient Hebrew if they could translate the reading into Aramaic then I suggest they could translate reading the Greek into Hebrew.....

I am sorry, brother...but this makes no sense. Would you open an English language bible, Read it In German, and then translate it into Italian for your audience??? Let's get real here :P

Or perhaps we should throw away Centuries of Jewish tradition in the transmission of scripture? Of worship perhaps?

As far as credentials...Put the names into a search engine and see what comes up...

As far as a wealth of manuscripts in Hebrew...You're the one who stated that they must have been in Greek or Aramaic...

I've complied with your request of citing sources...Will you cite yours?

Clifton
Jan 7th 2008, 04:55 PM
Luther wanted to get rid of James, Jude, Revelations, and in the OT the book of Esther.

I was not aware that James was one of those books. Of course, I'm at the age of 50 now, so perhaps I knew, and just forgot.:blush:


Do we know for sure that Jesus was reading a Greek scroll? May it not equally have been in Hebrew? The Bible doesn't say what version of Isaiah He was reading. I don't think we should get ahead of ourselves and read more into scripture than is there. The fact is, we don't know.I often read that He read from the Sept. - I have a translation of the DSS (Dead Dea Scrolls) of Isaiah.


Yes, Clifton, I know that the Book of Acts is reasonably safe... but this kind of excercise, digging through the Bible and ditching bits, just makes the basis of Christianity look even shakier to non believers. And Acts is so obviously a first century eye witness account that it hardly matters if it was written by the same Luke that the gospel was written by... though I believe it was. It was certainly written by someone who without drawing too much attention to it, or bigging himself up, travelled with Paul. What motive, besides intellectual pride, would cause someone to dump it?They claim because of new evidence, and contradictions to the Gospels (yet, they did not clearly point them out, other than by book reference).

Having so many English Bibles and a handful of Greek New Testaments, and The Hebrew, I am not bother by missing text in any of them, no more than of marginal glosses , conflations, additions, etc. - after all, don't we alway read exterior texts as well? ;)

Κλιφτον

mcgyver
Jan 7th 2008, 05:02 PM
Just a quick follow up...

In Ezra (post captivity), a letter was written to King Artaxerxes:

In the days of Artaxerxes also, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabel, and the rest of their companions wrote to Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the letter was
written in Aramaic script, and translated into the Aramaic language. (Ezra 4:7 NASB).

I think that we may make a reasonable assumption that even at this time Aramaic was quickly overtaking Hebrew as the common, spoken tongue.

In Nehemiah (Post captivity also) there is an interesting passage of scripture, Ezra reads the Law (Torah) to the people:

Also Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, the Levites, explained the law to the people while the people remained in their place. They read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading.(Nehemiah 8:7-8 NASB)

The questions become obvious: The Torah was being translated from one language into another language. What were the languages? Hebrew to Aramaic? Aramaic to Hebrew? Greek at this time was absolutely unknown in this part of the world, and the Septuagint not even imagined.

How then would this impact the premise that "Pre-Captivity" Hebrew was dead and spoken or read by no one post captivity?

mcgyver
Jan 7th 2008, 05:11 PM
I'm really curious here....

Why is the belief so widespread that Jesus read from the Septuagint, when the Gospels record not a single Apocryphal quote; and cultural context would indicate that this was not the case?

Just wondering how it has become so widespread...Perhaps as a method of including the Apocrypha as inspired? :hmm:

Shade40
Jan 7th 2008, 06:11 PM
Sorry that I have not responded as of yet.
A lot of this discussion has gone over my head. I'd like to know more about the Bible historically, but I don't know much right now save for the history written in the Bible.
As to what I think of the Apocrypha right now... Some of the books have seemed weird to me and some I enjoyed. I really liked the book of Judith, as I found the story easy to follow. Esdras was different from what I am used to, especially with Ezra's great long talk with the angel and the angel's explanation of prophecy. I personally found Wisdom of Solomon boring. (At least, I think that was the one. I'm writing without the book in front of me right now.) All it seemed to do was describe wisdom as a beautiful woman.
If I may sum up what was said above, in order to see if I understand correctly, the Apocrypha was written during the time between the Old and New Testament? And it is not considered to have been the Word of God because God's Spirit was not on any of the people at that time?

mcgyver
Jan 7th 2008, 06:15 PM
If I may sum up what was said above, in order to see if I understand correctly, the Apocrypha was written during the time between the Old and New Testament? And it is not considered to have been the Word of God because God's Spirit was not on any of the people at that time?

That pretty well sums it up from the Jewish perspective.:)

mizzdy
Jan 7th 2008, 07:05 PM
This topic seems to always come up and for some time it was a great concern to me. What bible is the correct bible, what bible did Christ read from etc. I spent months in research about it all, only to still be somewhat confused. After reading on the internet and getting a few books I ran onto a book that explains things far better than any I have read. I am not sure if I can put authors names and the book titles here or not and if I am not then someone will take the names out? The name of the book is 'Searching for The Origional Bible' I will leave the authors name out since anyone can google it. There are so many books out there with the same contents but I found this one easy to read from a laymans point of view.

As for the the translation that Christ and the apostles read I do remember reading that they read from the Hebrew text, also from the Aramic Targums and from the Septuagint. Although I don't ever remembering reading that Christ Himself read from the Septuagint but that it was read from in the early churches.

walked
Jan 7th 2008, 09:01 PM
This teaching of men that Gods Spirit withdrew from His creation for several hundred years before the 2nd temple was built is just that a teaching of men just so men can put God in the box that fits their definition of God.

whos spirit preserved Daniel to work Gods will on earth while in captivity?

whos spirit moved an inspired Daniel to work Gods will on earth in captivity?

whos spirit moved king Cyrus of Babylon to work Gods will on earth during this said time?

whos spirit inspired Esther to work Gods will on earth during this said time?

whos spirit moved king Artaxerxes in Persia to work Gods will on earth during this said time?

The list goes on and on to prove Gods spirit never left His creation during any period of time in History, this is no evidence for the apocrypha not being inspired writings

God Spirit can raise stones to praise/worship and testify of Him if man refuses to, He can inspire a donkey to read, speak or write in any language to proclaim His will to the rest of His creation when man refuses to.

mcgyver
Jan 7th 2008, 09:15 PM
Granted.

But by the same token, there is no evidence for the inspiration of the Apocrypha....

So the question remains: Do we re-open the canon, and accept as inspired writings that the Jews (to whom the OT was entrusted), never accepted as inspired themselves?

If so, where and when does it end?

walked
Jan 7th 2008, 09:22 PM
Granted.

But by the same token, there is no evidence for the inspiration of the Apocrypha....

So the question remains: Do we re-open the canon, and accept as inspired writings that the Jews (to whom the OT was entrusted), never accepted as inspired themselves?

If so, where and when does it end?

I'm not saying and never have said here or anywhere that the apocrypha is inspired, I say that there is no evidence that it is not inspired and.... I also said that all things work for the good of them that love Him.
The apocrypha being included in (all things)

And Mcgyver, it doesn't end..... individual men, priest/pastors, popes, cultures, nations, mans institutions and denominations of faith do not determine what is or isn't inspired by God, there is not one thing in all of Gods creation that was created that does not have a purpose for being created. Wisdom and understanding is revealed by God in a relationship with God and not found in what men say!
When man is in an ongoing/continual relationship with God, Gods holy Spirit will reveal truth and bring to remembrance to mans mind truth and, comfort mans heart with truth. God is faithful and His will, will be revealed to those who seek (((Him))) earnestly.

God has revealed ways for His individual faithful servants who have been called out from the fallen world by Him, He has revealed ways and has given those His Spirit to discern what is from Him and what is not from Him.
The revelation by Him doesn't have to be validated by men saying this is inspired and this is not inspired by God. (all things work for the good of those that love Him)

nzyr
Jan 7th 2008, 09:35 PM
As far as I know, the Apocrypha was originally part of the Biblical canon (which is why Catholics still consider it to be part of the Scriptures). Luther took it out because the Apocrypha was not part of the Jewish canon, while all the other OT books were. He also wanted to take out some NT books; I don't remember specifically which ones. Thankfully, he didn't.

Jerome wanted to leave the Apocrypha out too when he put together the Vulgate bible. But the catholic church wouldn't let him. Since the Jewish people of his day didn't have any of those books in which he could translate from he left them in the old Latin. I don't think the Apocrypha was ever part of the accepted canon. They were books a lot of people had, but that they didn't know where they came from or who wrote them. I don't consider the Apocrypha scripture. I've read them. I just don't trust them.

mcgyver
Jan 7th 2008, 10:18 PM
I'm not saying and never have said here or anywhere that the apocrypha is inspired, I say that there is no evidence that it is not inspired and.... I also said that all things work for the good of them that love Him.
The apocrypha being included in (all things)

And Mcgyver, it doesn't end..... individual men, priest/pastors, popes, cultures, nations, mans institutions and denominations of faith do not determine what is or isn't inspired by God, there is not one thing in all of Gods creation that was created that does not have a purpose for being created. Wisdom and understanding is revealed by God in a relationship with God and not found in what men say!
When man is in an ongoing/continual relationship with God, Gods holy Spirit will reveal truth and bring to remembrance to mans mind truth and, comfort mans heart with truth, truth and comfort being that God is faithful and His will, will be revealed to those who seek (((Him))) earnestly.

God has revealed ways for His individual faithful servants who have been called out from the fallen world by Him, He has revealed ways and has given those His Spirit to discern what is from Him and what is not from Him.
The revelation by Him doesn't have to be validated by men saying this is inspired and this is not inspired by God. (all things work for the good of those that love Him)


O.K...

Am I correct in assuming then, that you are saying that the Lord has revealed to you that the Apocrypha is Theopneustos (Lit. God-breathed, inspired), by some sort of revelation? A revelation that He withheld from His chosen people (Israel) to whom the scripture was entrusted....or am I misreading your post? :confused

walked
Jan 7th 2008, 10:24 PM
mcgyver (http://bibleforums.org/member.php?u=14349) you know there is an old saying about one assuming things.

No, you are not correct in your assumption.

What I said was and is what I've said, no more and no less.
There is no hidden meaning in what I've said or, no veiled messages in what I've said or, no cunning introductions to something new under the sun in what I've said.

Athanasius
Jan 7th 2008, 10:28 PM
I'm not saying and never have said here or anywhere that the apocrypha is inspired, I say that there is no evidence that it is not inspired and....

I believe there is a lot of evidence to prove the Apocrypha isn't inspired.
You need only one contradiction between the Bible and the Apocrypha to force a decision--which one is inspired; the Bible, or the Apocrypha?

God cannot contradict his word.

Tobit 12:9
for almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin. Those who regularly give alms shall enjoy a full life;

As compared to:

1 John 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Alright, which book is inspired?
Oh, this as well. . .

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/sirach/sirach12.htm Sirach chapter 12.

mcgyver
Jan 7th 2008, 10:38 PM
mcgyver (http://bibleforums.org/member.php?u=14349) you know there is an old saying about one assuming things.

No, you are not correct in your assumption.

What I said was and is what I've said, no more and no less.
There is no hidden meaning in what I've said or, no veiled messages in what I've said or, no cunning introductions to something new under the sun in what I've said.

That's why I asked the question! So as not to assume "facts not in evidence"; but yet you (seem) to feel that the Apocrypha is of equal inspiration with other scripture and belongs in the canon.

You had to formulate that premise in some way....As Xel'Naga pointed out...if the Apocrypha is inspired...We have a BIG problem...

walked
Jan 7th 2008, 10:39 PM
I believe there is a lot of evidence to prove the Apocrypha isn't inspired.
You need only one contradiction between the Bible and the Apocrypha to force a decision--which one is inspired; the Bible, or the Apocrypha?

God cannot contradict his word.

Tobit 12:9
for almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin. Those who regularly give alms shall enjoy a full life;

As compared to:

1 John 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Alright, which book is inspired?

There are to numerous to count perceived contradiction in canonized scripture.
There are as many perceived contradictions as there are readers who come away with misunderstandings of what was read.
They key words here being perceived contradictions.
any written or spoken words can be made to look as a contradiction to the same authors writings or speech.

They same can be brought to apocrypha.

Further you have not provided any examples of the contradictions in your broad statement for some hopeful clarification.

Athanasius
Jan 7th 2008, 10:42 PM
There are to numerous to count perceived contradiction in canonized scripture.
There are as many perceived contradictions as there are readers who come away with misunderstandings of what was read.
They key words here being perceived contradictions.
any written or spoken words can be made to look as a contradiction to the same authors writings or speech.

They same can be brought to apocrypha.



You're making the issue relativistic and creating a straw man out of it.

We're discussing whether or not the Apocrypha is inspired, not how 'x' amount of apparent contradictions in the Bible give substance to the idea that the Apocrypha is inspired.
'The Bible has this many contradictions, and since the Bible and the Apocrypha contradict, they must both be inspired!' - Doesn't cut it.

Do you mind then, explaining how those three verses don't contradict?

(1) Apocrpyha - almsgiving expiates sin (in other words, giving things can work as atonement)
(2) Bible - Nothing we do, not even works, can expiate our sin.

If you are simply going to say it's my perception that creates the contradiction. Then also fulfill your other duty; to teach me how to really read these verses.

Untamed
Jan 8th 2008, 08:09 AM
Bible - Nothing we do, not even works, can expiate our sin.


(Jas 2:18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

The Apocrypha (socalled) has been for me a very good resource, but then I am not in a denominational or doctrinal box. Jerome started the use of the term Apocrypha and prior to him the texts were well used and respected by christians.

The LXX (Septuagint has them on up thru the Geneva and King James. They were removed in 1885 if memory serves me. I personally have heard most if not all of the arguements for and against these texts but I put no stigma upon them and have found them a great benefit to me.
I would far rather read the ancient texts than those of the modern authors.

Untamed

Clifton
Jan 8th 2008, 01:15 PM
(Jas 2:18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

The Apocrypha (socalled) has been for me a very good resource, but then I am not in a denominational or doctrinal box. Jerome started the use of the term Apocrypha and prior to him the texts were well used and respected by christians.

I concur. Ya know, the Bible does reference other Books, like the Book Enoch (in Jude), and if memory serves correctly (though I have not yet had my 2nd cup of coffee yet:)), Jasher, and some others in the OT.


The LXX (Septuagint has them on up thru the Geneva and King James. They were removed in 1885 if memory serves me. I personally have heard most if not all of the arguements for and against these texts but I put no stigma upon them and have found them a great benefit to me.
I would far rather read the ancient texts than those of the modern authors.

I believe 1885 is the year of the RV Bible. RSV came out in 1947, and they either had included in the Apocrypha in their 1957 version, or had them a separate purchase - not sure which, but I got it as a module in my Online Bible Software

Clifton

walked
Jan 8th 2008, 04:33 PM
You're making the issue relativistic and creating a straw man out of it.

We're discussing whether or not the Apocrypha is inspired, not how 'x' amount of apparent contradictions in the Bible give substance to the idea that the Apocrypha is inspired.
'The Bible has this many contradictions, and since the Bible and the Apocrypha contradict, they must both be inspired!' - Doesn't cut it.

Do you mind then, explaining how those three verses don't contradict?

(1) Apocrpyha - almsgiving expiates sin (in other words, giving things can work as atonement)
(2) Bible - Nothing we do, not even works, can expiate our sin.

If you are simply going to say it's my perception that creates the contradiction. Then also fulfill your other duty; to teach me how to really read these verses.

Although two other wise posters have addressed your question already as to the perceived contradiction, Id'e like to add this also...

Just because one is obedient to Gods instruction and/or Gods law does not automatically mean that the motivation of the one in obedience is to obtain salvation, pure obedience to Gods instruction and law is preformed in reverence and motivated by ones love for the instruction and law giver (God)

Keeping/being obedient to Gods instruction and law brings its own rewards apart from salvation in Christ. Keeping Gods instructions and law are righteous acts by men but, this is not the righteousness that redeems men or covers mans sin, Christ righteousness and His blood covers sin and redeems.

Buck shot
Jan 8th 2008, 04:43 PM
[quote=excubitor;1492507]Those of you who remember me in my KJV Only days might remember me speaking out against the Apocrypha. Its interesting to note that the first KJV contained the apocrypha and I believe you can still buy KJV's with the apocrypha in them.

"remember me in my KJV Only days" Now those words really scare me.

Yes, the 1611 KJV does include these books that if you study them do not seem to be inspired by God. Mine also contains the background of the men that were brought together to translate the texts. I have one and it truly reads like "Shakespeare". It's just plain beautiful.

Maybe you should study the writing so that you can decide for yourself if they are from God or just written by men whom love the Lord. Either way we should "study to show ourselves approved". We are not called to approve others.

walked
Jan 8th 2008, 04:50 PM
Maybe you should study the writing so that you can decide for yourself if they are from God or just written by men whom love the Lord. Either way we should "study to show ourselves approved". We are not called to approve others.
Amen ! :pp :pp :pp :pp

All things work for the good of those who love God.

Untamed
Jan 8th 2008, 05:20 PM
I do very much respect the canon of the sixty six books and their use for doctrinal authority. Beyond them is a wealth of texts that give us a wealth of insight and an expanded veiw of ancient people and times. There are many books either referenced or mentioned in the bible that have gone from sight, having been suppressed and or destroyed. Some of the books are reappearing after a long absence and are indeed a treasure trove.
The arguements against books like 1 Enoch are are now being shown clearly to be unfounded fear spread forth to suppress them.
Exsample: One arguement was that 1 Enoch was written somewhere in the centuries long after the C.E. The schrolls of Qumran have since proved that to be false, in fact 1 Enoch is so old all they can say for certain it is in a word, old.
That peticular text seems to indicate the writer knew it would become hidden from veiw and resurface, in the text it says when it resurfaces people would be reading it in their own languages. Pretty kewl ! !
The Dead Sea schrolls included about a thousand schrolls, one hundred fifty have disappeared without a trace, interesting isn't it?
The book of Jasher is another well known text that may have never been considered scripture but was an historical record at the very least referenced to by our Bibles.
Beyond the Apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writtings there are also the sacred legends, targums, Midrash, Talmud, and for those who have a more adventurous spirit there is the Zohar.
Though I thoroughly enjoy all of these the young or new christian should study and fill their souls with the Old and NT first as it in itself will appear a sufficent task in and of itself.

Untamed


Untamed.

walked
Jan 8th 2008, 05:39 PM
Amen ! to that too Untamed (http://bibleforums.org/member.php?u=25204)
All things work for the good of those who love God.

Honestly I have a septuagint w/Greek-English lex in it and with apocrypha but barely read in it, its just a ref material for me.

I am diehard KJV person but, also have an interlinear Greek-English zondervan parallel NT, these two are my daily bread so to speak and, strongs and thayers is my gravy.
But, I don't fear looking into any other non canon writings just because they are non canonized. God has used many, many things to reveal more things to me, I know He isn't confined to any single book or writing canonized or not.

Clifton
Jan 8th 2008, 05:57 PM
Interesting that anyone would argue against 1 Enoch, unless they are also arguing against the Orthodox Version of Revelation, since it draws (http://www.dabar.org/RHCharles/Revelation/intro-VII.htm) some of its sayings from that; or in the least, since the Orthodox Version of Revelation appears to use the DSS Revelation (or Essene if your prefer) as some template, perhaps it was that drawing from 1 Enoch, but the parallels did end up in the Orthodox Version of Revelation.

Clifton
P.S. The web page here within has to be scrolled a ways toward the bottom, where the heading of the chart reads:
§ 7. Passages dependent on or parallel with passages in the Jewish Pseudepigrapha

Untamed
Jan 8th 2008, 07:02 PM
I am diehard KJV person


Me to.



Interesting that anyone would argue against 1 Enoch


The biggest arguement against 1Enoch by the organiized church is the mention of angels cohabitating with the daughters of men, that seems to leave them squeamish even though it is evidenced in Genesis, which is also denied to this day. Other explanations for ch.6 have come forward but are only worth a chuckle at best.
Evidance of the Enoch text is obviuos in several canon texts and the NT writers seem to be quite familiar with it.

Untamed

Athanasius
Jan 8th 2008, 07:20 PM
Although two other wise posters have addressed your question already as to the perceived contradiction, Id'e like to add this also...

Sorry, but if you're going to make the issue a relative, then just stop.
No one has explained it; there are still contradictory doctrines concerning the 'expiation' of sin.

As you'll note, I said above that while I do not believe the books are inspired, they are 'useful' (Mostly the Maccabees) for learning about the period between the Old and New Testaments. Other than that, they are definitely not inspired.

Clifton
Jan 8th 2008, 09:24 PM
The biggest arguement against 1Enoch by the organiized church is the mention of angels cohabitating with the daughters of men, that seems to leave them squeamish even though it is evidenced in Genesis, which is also denied to this day. Other explanations for ch.6 have come forward but are only worth a chuckle at best.
Untamed


Like Aliens from Outer Space :D

nzyr
Jan 8th 2008, 10:40 PM
Me to.



The biggest arguement against 1Enoch by the organiized church is the mention of angels cohabitating with the daughters of men, that seems to leave them squeamish even though it is evidenced in Genesis, which is also denied to this day. Other explanations for ch.6 have come forward but are only worth a chuckle at best.
Evidance of the Enoch text is obviuos in several canon texts and the NT writers seem to be quite familiar with it.

Untamed
Enoch isn't scripture. I believe it to be a forgery. I don't believe Enoch wrote it. I don't believe Enoch gave it to Noah. I don't believe Noah saved it in the ark and then gave it to whomever. And then all of the sudden it shows up in Qumran or whatever.

Clifton
Jan 8th 2008, 11:10 PM
Enoch isn't scripture. I believe it to be a forgery. I don't believe Enoch wrote it. I don't believe Enoch gave it to Noah. I don't believe Noah saved it in the ark and then gave it to whomever. And then all of the sudden it shows up in Qumran or whatever.

Actually, it was discovered long before "Qumran", and was ordered/sequenced and translated by Robert H. Charles.

About these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” -Jude 1:14-15 WEB
And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgment upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him. [cp. Jude 1:14-15] -1 Enoch 1:9
Revelations derives some its entries from 1 Enoch, maybe even 2 Enoch (I'll post some allusions and later). ;)

Clifton
Jan 9th 2008, 12:08 AM
John’s Apocalypse (the Orthodox Revelation in the Bible) derives some its entries from 1 Enoch, maybe even 2 Enoch - the following are footnotes from personal project (based on the works of many others, like R.H. Charles), called “Jap Consecution”:

1:13 1 Enoch 46:1 which first applies to the Messiah, this phrase which in Dan 7:13 = "the saints." 4 Ezra 13:3 where the Syriac presupposes ομοιον υιω ανθρωπου.

(1:14b) Later Interpolation: “like snow”, probably due to the depravation of 1:14a. If the Author ever did write such clause as this within his documents, it would be in the previous verse, v.13 as an adjective phrase for His garment, i.e. “clothed with a garment, white as / whiter than snow” - and would more than likely be a phrase that concurs with that in 1 Enoch 14:20, “whiter (i.e. ‘more white’) than snow”. The adjective phrase refers to His raiment/garment/clothing, not “hair”, and is thus used also like this in Daniel 7:9 and Revelation Q (i.e. DSS/Essene Revelation) (which renders it properly). The witty Editor may have derived his interpolation from one of these 3 sources, but being unintelligent, did not remember what the clause was an adjective phrase used for. Also cf. context of 1 Enoch 46:1-3, 71:10 for rest of verse. Lamech's son, Noah described the same in 1 Enoch 106:1-6 (fragment of the Book of Noah).

(1:14c) Cf. Revelation Q, p.44, “His eyes were like a flame of fire”; Also cf. 1 Enoch 106:5 in regard’s to Lamech’s son, “resembling the sons of the God of heaven…his eyes are as the rays of the sun…”

1:20 or, messengers (here and wherever angels are mentioned). cf. I Enoch 18:12-16, 21:3-6 for its usage of the term “seven stars”.

4:1 cp. Testament of Levi 5:1; See also 1 Enoch 14:15.

4:6 Cp. 15:2. Also Cp. 2 Enoch 3:3 "They showed me a great sea" (i.e. in the first heaven). Cp. Testament of Levi 2:7.

5:11 cp. 1 Enoch 14:22, and Revelation Q Para. 7.

6:11 In 1 Enoch 47 the end will come when the number of the martyrs is complete exactly as in our text. 47:3-4 "I saw the Head of Days when He seated Himself upon the throne of His glory....And the hearts of the holy were filled with joy, Because the number of the righteous had been offered.” RHC: Here the martyrs are regarded as an offering to God just as in our text 14:4.

7:1 See Charles, Vol. i. 204, 192 (note), where this conception is shown to be in 1 Enoch.
7:1 compare imagery of Isa. 11:12, Jer. 49:36, Ezek. 37:9, Dan. 7:2, Mat. 24:31, Enoch 18:2-5. [sic: have to go back and see which Enoch book this is.]

8:8 [sic: part of the interpolation of 8:7-12 section] "like a great burning (with fire) mountain" = The diction is almost identical, but the ideas are quite different. In 1 Enoch the stars are really spirits or angels undergoing punishment. In this interpolated passage 8:7-12 the "burning mountain" in 8:8 and "the burning star" in 8:10 are purely physical things. Contrast our author's use in 9:1.

9:1 Cp. 1 Enoch 86:1, "Behold a star fell from heaven and it arose…" etc.

9:20 Cp. 1 Enoch 99:7, "Who worships stones . . . impure spirits and demons."

14:10 1 Enoch 48:9 "As straw in the fire, so shall they burn before the face of the holy."

14:14 1 Enoch 46:1 which first applies to the Messiah, this phrase which in Dan 7:13 = "the saints." 4 Ezra 13:3 where the Syriac presupposes ομοιον υιω ανθρωπου.

15:2 2 Enoch 3:3 "They showed me a great sea" (i.e. in the first heaven)

17:14 cp. 1 Enoch 9:4, expressing even further, “God of the ages… ”

There are others within foundations and providences upon Pseudepigrapha / Apocryphra, but the next excerpt of "Jap Consecution" is the last based upon 1or 2 Enoch (2 Enoch is also known as “The Secrets Of Enoch”):

Chapter 20-c

20:11.13.12.14.15. Vision of a great white throne, and of Him that sat thereon. Disappearance of the former heaven and earth. Judgment of those risen from the dead, both bad and good. Death and hell cast into the lake of fire.

(11) I saw a great white throne, and him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. There was found no place for them.{iv}
(13) (a) “The Treasuries[151] [of The Righteous]” gave up the dead who were in it (sic: the righteous who had not suffered martyrdom from the "treasuries" or "chambers”). (b) Death and Hades[152] [of The Unrighteous] gave up the dead who were in them (sic: the wicked). (c) They were judged, each one according to his works. ((a,b). 1 Enoch 51:1 "Sheol also shall give back that which it has received, and hell shall give back that which it owes."; <<(c). Psalm 62:12>>) See also, Endnote:{v}.

Footnotes: (endnotes not included in this post for sake of brevity)

[151] (20:13) Interpolation by the Editor, “the sea”, which has dislodged the original. (sic: Perhaps the original document said, “[temporary] chambers/treasuries” of the saints of the “Chilioi”(“Millennium”) Period? “Paradise”?) Besides, we see in the context of v.11 that “the sea” has already vanished (“passed away”) Cf. Proverbs 7:27 and 2 Esdras 4:34-37 for “chambers”. Also, see Expanded Note in Appendix-E for this verse. Also, see RHC Vol. II. 194 sqq.

[152] (20:13) Heb. Sheol.
.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 9th 2008, 12:58 AM
Clifton, was your last post from your own study or from a particular book or website? If it was from a particular source, please cite the source. :)

Clifton
Jan 9th 2008, 02:50 AM
Clifton, was your last post from your own study or from a particular book or website? If it was from a particular source, please cite the source. :)


It is from my own project. "Jap Consecution", I am working on to make available to others, including WP files, which others may use for their own studies and their own projects - Like others do, I am taking advantage of expired copyrights, Public Domain Bibles,. etc., not to mention, looking at texts like The Book Of Enoch, which I got as a Microsoft Word file. The PRIMARY source of this work stems from RHC ( Robert Henry Charles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._H._Charles) ):
“A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Revelation of St. John”, R.H. Charles, T & T Clark, (c) 1920. Which also is the same whom brought us the Pseudepigrapha - the 2 Books of Enoch and so on. His work on the forementioned work on Revelation consisted of 25 years (on top of the 8 years experience with Revelation). The Chapter 20c excerpts from "Jap Consecution" are derived from WEB (http://www.worldenglishbible.com/index.html) Bible, RHC, and or my english renderings (which would be very little).


“A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Revelation of St. John” consists of two volumes, and I have each volume in a PDF File. Since you are a moderator here, you have my email address with this account, so if you wish, let me know and I will be most happy to email them to you, or, provide Canadian Links where the two volumes can be download in PDF format, as well as other formats ;) I'll even send you a WordPerfects of the Jap Consecution project if you want - all that is left to do, is insert the summaries (out of another WP file) and some proofreading and comparing to RHC's English translation (since he utilized several manuscripts, and resequenced things, as he done with 1 Enoch).

Clifton

mcgyver
Jan 9th 2008, 05:09 AM
Ok hows this then:

First you will have to agree that the evidence of our love of God is our obedience to God, to His law and instructions, if you agree with that, then...

The giving of alms is in Gods instructions so, doing this (giving of alms) this would be in obedience to God (evidence of our love of God) if you agree with that, then....

love covers a multitude of sins (expiates sin), the highest form of love is love/obedience to God.
(love/obedience... covers/expiates... a multitude of sin)

see ? ...no contradiction if there is no misunderstanding

Pure obedience to God, pleases God and according to scripture love covers a multitude of sin and according to scripture evidence of our love is our obedience to Gods law and instructions and (giving alms) is in His instructions.

Where is the contradiction at?

Expiate: (From Webster's)
Etymology:Latin expiatus, past participle of expiare to atone for, from ex- + piare to atone for, appease, from pius faithful, piousDate:circa 1500
transitive verb
1 obsolete : to put an end to
2 a: to extinguish the guilt incurred by b: to make amends for <permission to expiate their offences by their assiduous labours — Francis Bacon>intransitive verb

Not the same as cover. (to conceal, to overlay, etc.)

I will say that your post is an interesting exercise in deductive reasoning...But then by the same reasoning I can "prove" that Barney is the Antichrist....

(Following verses from XelNaga's post...italics mine)

Tobit 12:9
for almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin. Those who regularly give alms shall enjoy a full life; (Note nothing is said about love of God being a motivation for giving alms.) Do anything you want, but give alms and you'll be O.K.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Giving Alms, going to church, being a "good" person, even "loving God" (Saul of Tarsus was extremely Zealous for God, Even to the point thinking that he was doing God's work in persecuting the church), will not expiate sin! Only by the blood of Christ is our sin expiated!

Are you serious in saying that you see no contradiction?

walked
Jan 9th 2008, 05:41 AM
for almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin. Those who regularly give alms shall enjoy a full life; (Note nothing is said about love of God being a motivation for giving alms.) Do anything you want, but give alms and you'll be O.K.

Christ said obedience to Gods law and instruction is the evidence of our love of God.
I said obedience in alms giving would be evidence of love and, love covers a multitude of sin according to scripture (love/obedience covers a multitude of sin)



Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Giving Alms, going to church, being a "good" person, even "loving God" (Saul of Tarsus was extremely Zealous for God, Even to the point thinking that he was doing God's work in persecuting the church), will not expiate sin! Only by the blood of Christ is our sin expiated!

Obedience to Gods law and instruction have rewards in themselves apart from salvation.
Just because one is obedient to Gods instruction and/or Gods law does not automatically mean that the motivation of the one in obedience is to obtain salvation.
pure obedience to Gods instruction and law is preformed in reverence and motivated by ones love for the instruction and law giver (God) and not preformed to obtain salvation.



Are you serious in saying that you see no contradiction?

Yes, I am serious

Also, if you don't see covering sin from the eyes of God as expiates sin then, I don't have anything more to share with ya about the perceived contradiction so, don't use anymore of your energy expounding on it directly to me cuz I probably wont respond to the sinking level you have brought it to in your last post.

walked
Jan 9th 2008, 05:55 AM
Sorry, but if you're going to make the issue a relative, then just stop.
No one has explained it; there are still contradictory doctrines concerning the 'expiation' of sin.


Ok hows this then:

First you will have to agree that the evidence of our love of God is our obedience to God, to His law and instructions, if you agree with that, then...

The giving of alms is in Gods instructions so, doing this (giving of alms) this would be in obedience to God (evidence of our love of God) if you agree with that, then....

love covers a multitude of sins (expiates sin), the highest form of love is love/obedience to God.
(love/obedience... covers/expiates... a multitude of sin)

see ? ...no contradiction if there is no misunderstanding

Pure obedience to God, pleases God and according to scripture love covers a multitude of sin.
And according to scripture evidence of our love is our obedience to Gods law and instructions.
And (giving alms) is in His instructions.

Where is the contradiction at?

walked
Jan 9th 2008, 05:57 AM
Xel'Naga

I'de like to share this with you.
Its an old thread of mine from last year.
I hope it might bless you if you take an extra few moments to read it.

Titled (creating my own god)

I don't remember which member here I saw use this phrase (creating my own god) in one of the threads I was reading here at bibleforums but, it really took me, made me think ...what in the world is this guy talking about?...I cant even remember the content he was commenting on but, now that a few days have passed it must have stuck in my mind somewhere because even though I wasn't aware of it God was going to use this lil'phrase to reveal a deep understanding to me of the position God puts man in an expects us to not trespass out of.

I'll try my best to explain what was revealed to me that brought a new shade of light on the unsearchable depth of the holy attributes of the Lord.
When I read the bible I'm really culturally distant from the writer and this brings a barrier to my understanding of what thoughts they are trying to express in their writing because they express it from the view of the culture they were in at the time they wrote it, which I'm not real familiar with most of the time.
..so to make things that I read in Gods word fit, sometimes I have to assume this or that is what they meant and, by doing this I create god instead of God revealing himself to me.

Does that make any sense?
I really don't know away to explain it better right now.

So as innocent a thing as that may sound
..(assuming things because I don't understand and I want things to fit together for me)
As innocent as that may seem..its actually idolatry, Ive created an image of God in my mind that He didn't portray/reveal to me.
So I think I'm safe in saying that if I assume something about God or Gods principles, attributes, purpose, plan .....in the eyes of God, I'm creating an idol and not assuming.

So from now on I'm going to be content in my understanding thus far and not assume anything about the nature of God until it is revealed to me by Himself.

Just something I wanted to share because it is going to make a BIG difference in my life in the future, God willing.

Thank you and, God bless you.

I could also apply this to anything else where I don't have a revealed by God Himself understanding yet.
(creating my denominational doctrine)
(creating my cross to carry and follow Jesus)
(creating my Jesus to follow)
(creating my salvation)
(creating my renewing of mind)
(creating my growth in holiness and perfection)
(creating my fruits of the Spirit)
on and on..there's probably no end.

mcgyver
Jan 9th 2008, 01:33 PM
Also, if you don't see covering sin from the eyes of God as expiates sin then, I don't have anything more to share with ya about the perceived contradiction so, don't use anymore of your energy expounding on it directly to me cuz I probably wont respond to the sinking level you have brought it to in your last post.

If I lacked grace or was perceived as being insulting in my last post, then I tender my apologies....:hug:

I simply see not a Perceived contradiction, but a Direct contradiction concerning the nature of atonement in the above passages (Apocrypha & Bible), so therefore I must disagree with your conclusions, however I respect your right to come to that conclusion.

Athanasius
Jan 9th 2008, 02:20 PM
Ok hows this then:

First you will have to agree that the evidence of our love of God is our obedience to God, to His law and instructions, if you agree with that, then...

The giving of alms is in Gods instructions so, doing this (giving of alms) this would be in obedience to God (evidence of our love of God) if you agree with that, then....

love covers a multitude of sins (expiates sin), the highest form of love is love/obedience to God.
(love/obedience... covers/expiates... a multitude of sin)

see ? ...no contradiction if there is no misunderstanding

Pure obedience to God, pleases God and according to scripture love covers a multitude of sin.
And according to scripture evidence of our love is our obedience to Gods law and instructions.
And (giving alms) is in His instructions.

Where is the contradiction at?

I'm not of sound mind, so I apologize in advance if I come off as brash.
I'm also going to have to firstly agree with mcgyver. . .

Now then;
I agree, yes, with the first thing you said.
I agree, yes, with the second thing you said.

I don't agree with the third thing you said.
And I'll explain why.

Firstly; It is a conditional showing of love.
I can give alms, but I can still hate my enemies.
I can give alms, but I can put off forgiving the person who hurt me.
I can give alms, but I don't necessarily have to accept Christ.

To pose the question this way;
If I didn't believe in God but still gave alms, would my sins still be expiated?

In other words, by turning a showing of love towards God into an act of expiation, we would have to dually concede that being 'good' grants us a position in grace; accepting of Christ or not.
Hence the Catholic position that we can simply live 'good, moral' lives and still be granted Grace.

Normally I would bring up a few more things, but, I'm honestly not in the mood. This morning I'll leave people to their certainties.

nzyr
Jan 9th 2008, 02:39 PM
Revelations derives some its entries from 1 Enoch, maybe even 2 Enoch (I'll post some allusions and later). ;)This is not true.

Clifton
Jan 9th 2008, 03:02 PM
This is not true.

Actually it is, I have already posted the references. Can you provide proof to the otherwise? Actually, it is not possible to do that now.

As for The Book of Enoch, it was discovered long before "Qumran", and was ordered/sequenced and later on translated by Robert H. Charles (http://www.qub.ac.uk/rascal/Biogs/CharlesR.html) (lived 1855-1931 A.D.).

Even the current canon reveals that in one of the apostles of Peter (though, at the moment, I can't remember quite where), and the Book Of Jude, which I did post but perhaps you overlooked?;)

Here it is again?

About these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” -Jude 1:14-15 WEB
And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgment upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him. [cp. Jude 1:14-15] -1 Enoch 1:9 (http://members.cox.net/8thday/enochhistory.html)
Do you accept the Book Of Jude as an authentic part of the current Canon? Or, since it references The Book Of Enoch, do you think the Book Of Jude was a 20th Century entry?

I have also already posted that the Orthodox Version Of Revelation in the Canon, as well as DSS Revelation (which I call Revelation Q, a construction by me, mostly based on DSS), derives some of it's contents from the Books Of Enoch, as well as other Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Books. The NT is a lot of quotes from previous times of it time, especially the Tanach (The Hebrew Scriptures, OT).

nzyr
Jan 9th 2008, 03:51 PM
John received the Revelation from an angel sent by Jesus. John did not get the Revelation from the book of Enoch.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
- Revelation 1:1.
And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

- Revelation 22:8-9

Here's an interesting article about the canonicity of the book of Enoch from www.gotquestions.org:

The Book of Enoch is any of several pseudepigraphal (falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is unfounded) works that attribute themselves to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah; that is, Enoch son of Jared (Genesis 5:18). Enoch is also one of the three people in the Bible taken up to heaven while still alive (the only others being Elijah and Jesus), as the Bible says "And Enoch walked with God, and he was not; for God took him." (Genesis 5:24; see also Hebrews 11:5). Most commonly, the phrase "Book of Enoch" refers to 1 Enoch, which is wholly extant only in the Ethiopic language.

The biblical book of Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch in verses 14-15, “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: ‘See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.’” But this does not mean the Book of Enoch is inspired by God and should be in the Bible.

Jude’s quote is not the only quote in the Bible from a non-biblical source. The Apostle Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but that does not mean we should give any additional authority to Epimenides’ writings. The same is true with Jude, verse 14. Jude quoting from Enoch 1:9 does not indicate the entire book is inspired, or even true. All it means is that particular verse is true. It is interesting to note that no scholars believe the Book of Enoch to have truly been written by the Enoch in the Bible. Enoch was seven generations from Adam, prior to the Flood (Genesis 5:1-24). Evidently, though, this was genuinely something that Enoch prophesied – or the Bible would not attribute it to him, “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men…” (Jude 14). This saying of Enoch was evidently handed down by tradition, and eventually recorded in the Book of Enoch.

We should treat the Book of Enoch (and the other books like it) in the same manner we do the other Apocryphal writings. Some of what the Apocrypha says is true and correct, but at the same time, much of it is false and historically inaccurate. If you read these books, you have to treat them as interesting but fallible historical documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.

http://www.gotquestions.org/book-of-Enoch.html

mcgyver
Jan 9th 2008, 03:53 PM
I agree with Clifton that there are both allusions to, and quotes from the Apocrypha within some of the (canonical) books of the bible.

However, I cannot see that these references can be used as stand alone evidence to infer inspiration to the rest of the Apocryphal book from whence they came.

That there may be some measure of truth contained within a writing, IMO does not equate the whole of that writing with "Holy Writ".

For example: Several years ago I was doing a study on Paul...and I was astounded to find that in his preaching to the gentiles, he on several occasions used direct quotes as well as allusions to quotes from well know Greek philosophers of the time to illustrate and clarify his points to his gentile audience (give me some time, and as the Lord wills I'll go back through my notes and post some of these quotations...very interesting); yet I think that we may say with some degree of certainty that these pagan, polytheistic gentile philosophers were anything but inspired.

I guess this gives truth to the old saying that: "Even a blind hog will root up a truffle now and then" :P

But coming full circle:

My question concerns the Jewish canon of (OT) scripture. It is my understanding that Jewish OT canon has never been in serious doubt...and that the Jews did not accept the Apocrypha as being of the same stature with the "canonical" (for lack of a better term) OT books.

Therefore, there must have been a reason that God's chosen people, to whom He entrusted His precious Word; rejected these writings as inspired.

IMO we must then be very circumspect in declaring them to be of equal worth or value with the rest of the (OT) canon.

EDIT: Nzyr made the same points while I was yet typing...:D

Clifton
Jan 9th 2008, 04:54 PM
John received the Revelation from an angel sent by Jesus. John did not get the Revelation from the book of Enoch.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
- Revelation 1:1.
And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

- Revelation 22:8-9

We must differentiate that The Seer (Yochannon / John) compiled from resources of current times and past times, as Jewish were wont to do in prophetic writings of what God showed them (IOW, a setting of analogies as best as can go into future scenarios). Also, if you have a red letter Bible, you will note that not all words are in Red. There are some things in the Orthodox Revelation that The Seer was shown, but inserted his comments within.

Also, I never said the Seer "got" the Whole Book Of Revelation from the Whole Book Of Enoch (it is MUCH longer), and never did I say that the Book Of Enoch (or any other Apocrypha, or Psuedepigrapha for that matter) was "inspired". The book was consider in earlier times as a valued sacred text, but, as mentioned by Jona Lendering, "The First book of Enoch is one of the Old Testament pseudepigrapha, in other words a book with a Jewish, religious content that was once regarded as one of the sacred scriptures, but was not recognized as truly inspired by the rabbis who made the canon of the Jewish Bible...."

http://members.cox.net/8thday/enochhistory.html

I emphasized that The Seer used resources (and I did mention more than just Enoch, within this thread) of "his time" and "past time" to cast events that ARE (v1:2 , 19) and WILL happen. Also, it was not out of the ordinary for a prophet or seer to receive things that are consistent with previous writings. And Jewish And Greek sources were used as well, such as those pertaining to the Neron Era and Vespasian Era, especially, and they are most certainly not inspired.

Also, there were books in the canon at times through Christian History that were in the canon that are no longer in the Bible - in fact, no extant MSS exist any longer (as far as we know) of The Apocalypse Of Peter exits, though some excerpts do exist. And for the record, the Orthodox Revelation was not always allowed with the canon of books, it was forbidden, even the reformation attempted to forbid it, and it is still not globally part of the Bible, but MOSTLY is. Some beg to differ with you and I that whether or not it should be allowed or not - some Christians think it is a work Satan got it, while others believe it was a plagiarism work (or stolen) with some adjustments and changes from the DSS Revelation (and various other reasons). One of the reasons I beg to differ is mentioned within the above paragraph. DSS documents date back as far as 200 B.C. (at least) or earlier, but from what I gather, it appears that DSS Revelation is not earlier than 69 B.C.

Also, your quote "must shortly come to pass" appears to be out-of-sync with the underlying Greek text, and is a bit misleading, and shows no translation of the Greek "eν" ("en": 1722) - the Greek snippet is as follows:
"...the things that are to occur [B]with speed (“eν ταχει”),...", Or with, quickness, suddenness. It refers to rapidity of motion, meaning, when these things begin to happen, they will happen with speed / quickness / suddenness (especially when compared to thousands of years of Earth History). Your quote "must shortly come to pass" implies the events of the Orthodox Revelation was completed by the end of the first century, or early second century - some of us out beg to differ.



Here's an interesting article about the canonicity of the book of Enoch from www.gotquestions.org: (http://www.gotquestions.org:)

The Book of Enoch is any of several pseudepigraphal (falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is unfounded) works that attribute themselves to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah; that is, Enoch son of Jared (Genesis 5:18). Enoch is also one of the three people in the Bible taken up to heaven while still alive (the only others being Elijah and Jesus), as the Bible says "And Enoch walked with God, and he was not; for God took him." (Genesis 5:24; see also Hebrews 11:5). Most commonly, the phrase "Book of Enoch" refers to 1 Enoch, which is wholly extant only in the Ethiopic language.

The biblical book of Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch in verses 14-15, “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: ‘See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.’” But this does not mean the Book of Enoch is inspired by God and should be in the Bible.

Jude’s quote is not the only quote in the Bible from a non-biblical source. The Apostle Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but that does not mean we should give any additional authority to Epimenides’ writings. The same is true with Jude, verse 14. Jude quoting from Enoch 1:9 does not indicate the entire book is inspired, or even true. All it means is that particular verse is true. It is interesting to note that no scholars believe the Book of Enoch to have truly been written by the Enoch in the Bible. Enoch was seven generations from Adam, prior to the Flood (Genesis 5:1-24). Evidently, though, this was genuinely something that Enoch prophesied – or the Bible would not attribute it to him, “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men…” (Jude 14). This saying of Enoch was evidently handed down by tradition, and eventually recorded in the Book of Enoch.

We should treat the Book of Enoch (and the other books like it) in the same manner we do the other Apocryphal writings. Some of what the Apocrypha says is true and correct, but at the same time, much of it is false and historically inaccurate. If you read these books, you have to treat them as interesting but fallible historical documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.

http://www.gotquestions.org/book-of-Enoch.htmlThank you for the link, for me and others to evaluate (though it looks like it is of text I read long ago) - I believe we should evaluate all things. Collectively, we still know that YHWH is real ;)

Thanks for writing.

NOTES:
BYZANTINE = The Greek New Testament According to the Byzantine-Majority Textform
DSS Revelation = also referred to as the Essene Revelation. I will post a link to the earlier translation (eventually) in the Thread I started;

"Qumran, Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxyrynchus, Etc."

I misspelled Oxyrhynchus, and cannot find out how to correct it :(

Clifton
Jan 9th 2008, 05:43 PM
I agree with Clifton that there are both allusions to, and quotes from the Apocrypha within some of the (canonical) books of the bible.

However, I cannot see that these references can be used as stand alone evidence to infer inspiration to the rest of the Apocryphal book from whence they came.

That there may be some measure of truth contained within a writing, IMO does not equate the whole of that writing with "Holy Writ".

For example: Several years ago I was doing a study on Paul...and I was astounded to find that in his preaching to the gentiles, he on several occasions used direct quotes as well as allusions to quotes from well know Greek philosophers of the time to illustrate and clarify his points to his gentile audience (give me some time, and as the Lord wills I'll go back through my notes and post some of these quotations...very interesting); yet I think that we may say with some degree of certainty that these pagan, polytheistic gentile philosophers were anything but inspired.

I guess this gives truth to the old saying that: "Even a blind hog will root up a truffle now and then" :P

But coming full circle:

My question concerns the Jewish canon of (OT) scripture. It is my understanding that Jewish OT canon has never been in serious doubt...and that the Jews did not accept the Apocrypha as being of the same stature with the "canonical" (for lack of a better term) OT books.

Therefore, there must have been a reason that God's chosen people, to whom He entrusted His precious Word; rejected these writings as inspired.

IMO we must then be very circumspect in declaring them to be of equal worth or value with the rest of the (OT) canon.

EDIT: Nzyr made the same points while I was yet typing...:D

Either I was not aware about Paul and to allusions, etc. Greek philosophers, or forgot. Were not some Greek philosophers Godly men? Or no?

The issue that the Orthodox Revelation has references to OT, NT, and Pseudepigrapha Books was generally determined by the Greek usage (which is a moot point or hypothesis if the source was Hebrew).

Koine Greek works quite differently, than say, the English Language:
SUBJECT - VERB - OBJECT; and so on. Koine Greek Nouns are declinable, and what is the Subject and the Objection were determined by the declined forms (in the case of nouns, the endings), so it might be
VERB - SUBJECT - OBJECT;
OBJECT - VERB - SUBJECT;
SUBJECT - OBJECT - VERB, and other positions.
There are some cases were word order is constrained. But, I say this to convey that different writers employed different ways of writing their Greek, since they had this latitude of not having to conform to strict word orders as we English do.

IMO, the issue that Jude 1:14-15 and 1 Enoch 1:9 is too uncanny. OTOH, I'm sure the stories of Adam and Eve were handed down throughout history. Don't know if 2 The Books Of Adam and Eve are legit of that history or not, but they moved me, heartily.

History has shown one thing for sure, one way or another, we read exterior books - some people are buying Rick Warren ones, etc. And perhaps they are well in good - me, I'm a historian buff :D, but not a very good typist :(

Free Indeed
Jan 9th 2008, 07:26 PM
For example: Several years ago I was doing a study on Paul...and I was astounded to find that in his preaching to the gentiles, he on several occasions used direct quotes as well as allusions to quotes from well know Greek philosophers of the time to illustrate and clarify his points to his gentile audience (give me some time, and as the Lord wills I'll go back through my notes and post some of these quotations...very interesting); yet I think that we may say with some degree of certainty that these pagan, polytheistic gentile philosophers were anything but inspired.

Sorry to butt in here, and I don't want to derail the thread. But I do want to mention that a good number of the philosophers were *not* polytheistic, and Gentiles can be inspired as well as Jews.

Socrates, for example, was charged with "corrupting the youth" because of his monotheism. His star pupil, Plato, introduced the concept of the Trinitarian notion of God into theology, and John paraphrased several quotes from Plato in the first chapter of his Gospel. Also, consider St. Augustine's voluminous works showing the Platonic influence on Christianity.

Clifton
Jan 9th 2008, 07:58 PM
Sorry to butt in here, and I don't want to derail the thread. But I do want to mention that a good number of the philosophers were *not* polytheistic, and Gentiles can be inspired as well as Jews.

Socrates, for example, was charged with "corrupting the youth" because of his monotheism. His star pupil, Plato, introduced the concept of the Trinitarian notion of God into theology, and John paraphrased several quotes from Plato in the first chapter of his Gospel. Also, consider St. Augustine's voluminous works showing the Platonic influence on Christianity.

Not surprising with Augustine (whom crystallized the Millennium and started a new era), and earlier Christian writers - like most people they just read other materials. Such was the same for the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha - they weren't deemed as totally inspired but were read by earlier believers. Of course, as one example, The Book Of Jude was not permitted into the canon as inspired because it was well known back then that it had quoted from The Book Of Enoch (at a point in time when that book became little used). I understand The Reformation attempted to bump out James, Jude (probably for the same reason as aforementioned), and Revelation - I think they were successful in bumping out Revelation, but it got back in. Mercy, had it been kept out, just think of the good Hollywood movies and the writings in The Dead Zone that we would have missed :D

Studyin'2Show
Jan 9th 2008, 08:18 PM
I think they were successful in bumping out Revelation, but it got back in. Mercy, had it been kept out, just think of the good Hollywood movies and the writings in The Dead Zone that we would have missed :D:rofl::rofl::rofl:

mcgyver
Jan 9th 2008, 08:43 PM
Knight Templar...You are of course,correct...perhaps I "painted with too broad a brush"...:P

Clifton, thanks for your input and insight....(If Greek wasn't a reflexive language think of the fun we'd miss! :lol:)

The point that I was driving at however, is one of being very circumspect in that which we accept as Theopneustos...That simply because there is a truth to be found; in and of itself does not mean the entire writing is "truth".
It seems that the Bible is under attack as never before (no surprise) and there seems to be a push on to include anything that remotely smacks of antiquity or Jesus...:rolleyes:

If we understand the formation of our canon...In My Opinion one central fact comes through: We have the books that we have not because a certain group or council voted to include them, but because no man could keep them out. I am confident that God worked in the hearts and minds of the early church in moving them to recognize that which is inspired. Revelation and James are two prime examples...:)

Therefore I am extremely hesitant to accept the Apocrypha as of equal value with the body of scripture....

daughter
Jan 9th 2008, 09:03 PM
Clifton, could you provide me with a link so I can see what text you are referring to when you talk about "Orthodox Revelation." Is it different from the one in most Western Bibles? And if so, what makes you treat it as more authorative than say the Majority Text or Textus Receptus versions?

Clifton
Jan 9th 2008, 09:31 PM
Clifton, could you provide me with a link so I can see what text you are referring to when you talk about "Orthodox Revelation." Is it different from the one in most Western Bibles? And if so, what makes you treat it as more authorative than say the Majority Text or Textus Receptus versions?

:hmm: I need to remember that not everybody here has been on disability for several years and galloping on the internet so much with their time :)

Orthodox Revelation



The “Orthodox Version Of Revelation” refers to the ones that in English Bibles (and in the Bibles of most other Countries), and what may be the underlying GNTs (Greek New Testaments), i.e. Textus Receptus (e.g. Beza or Scrivener). Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, Hodges/Farstad Majority (that’s where your “MT” notes come from in NKJV Bibles), Nestles/UBS, (“NU” notes in NKJV) and Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine-Majority. 85+% of the text in these are in agreement;

While some of the differences in the English may cause confusion between correspondents using different Bibles, especially those using different textforms (GNTs), some of these differences are minor. There are differences in Revelation, say, for example (which “end-time” writers like to make an issue of), 9:16...As for calling “John’s” Revelation the “orthodox version”, it has turned out to be a habit (which I have followed from others) with some people over the past few years on the Internet and Forums/Groups to distinguish that from the DSS/Essene/Qumran Version. Excerpts of these texts are generally quoted (as tag-liners, etc.) on the Internet (forums, groups, etc.)

As for GNTs (Greek New Testaments), I prefer the Byzantine-Majority, but I am no longer so hyped-up over GNTs anymore.

Clifton

Parallels or the like to the Orthodox Revelation in parenthesis:

(4:6)‡ And before the throne there was a sea of glass like crystal: And reflected within it, were all the mountains and valleys of the Earth, And all the creatures abiding therein.
(4:10)‡ And the thirteen elders [guess the number got "promoted" to 24 in the Orthodox Revelation] bowed down before the splendour of him, who sat upon the throne, whose face was hidden, and rivers of light streamed from their hands, one to the other,
(4:8) ¥ And they cried, "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
(4:11) ¥ Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power:
For thou hast created all things."
(5:1)‡ And then I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne, [whose face was hidden,] a book written within and on the back, Sealed with seven seals.
(5:2) And I saw [an] angel proclaiming with a loud voice "Who is worthy to open the book. And to loose the seals thereof?"

daughter
Jan 9th 2008, 09:50 PM
Okay.... so what's the unorthodox purple quoted from? Now I'm really confused!:hmm:

Clifton
Jan 9th 2008, 10:08 PM
Okay.... so what's the unorthodox purple quoted from? Now I'm really confused!:hmm:


Oh, I thought it was possible that you may had read DSS/Essene/Qumran texts when I referenced them, or at least the English version that came out in the 1920's. Such quotes are within other DSS Readings as well. I will refer you to the thread
Qumran, Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxyrynchus, Etc.

Yes, I know I misspelled Oxyrhynchus ;-)

I posted Message #7 in the thread to a link to the DSS Revelation today. If you have not read that version of Revelation yet, please note my post regarding the the numerical adjectives of the angels, where it "appears" that the "third" angel is missing. The seventh angel comes and sound when time is no more.

Whoops! Some might think we got off topic here - of course, a study of history shows that at times in church history, the orthodox revelation was considered as what we know term as Apocrypha.

Clifton

From the Book of Hymns of the Dead Sea Scrolls:
“I have reached the inner vision and through Thy spirit in me I have heard Thy wondrous secret. Through Thy mystic insight Thou hast caused a spring of knowledge to well up within me, a fountain of power, pouring forth living waters, a flood of love and of all-embracing wisdom like the splendor of eternal Light.”

********************
55: (22:5) And there shall be no night there; And they need no candle, neither light of the sun, for The Lord God[22] gives them light: And they shall reign for ever and ever.
56: (EPILOGUE) I have reached the inner vision, and through thy spirit in me. I have heard thy wondrous secret. Through thy mystic insight, Thou hast caused a spring of knowledge, To well up within me, A fountain of power pouring forth living waters; A flood of love and all embracing wisdom, like the splendor of eternal light.

Footnote(s):
22. Essene Book Of Jesus: The Sevenfold Peace, reads “Lord God”, thus it is used here.

walked
Jan 10th 2008, 07:26 AM
I'm not of sound mind, so I apologize in advance if I come off as brash.
I'm also going to have to firstly agree with mcgyver. . .

Now then;
I agree, yes, with the first thing you said.
I agree, yes, with the second thing you said.

I don't agree with the third thing you said.
And I'll explain why.

Firstly; It is a conditional showing of love.
I can give alms, but I can still hate my enemies.
I can give alms, but I can put off forgiving the person who hurt me.
I can give alms, but I don't necessarily have to accept Christ.

To pose the question this way;
If I didn't believe in God but still gave alms, would my sins still be expiated?

In other words, by turning a showing of love towards God into an act of expiation, we would have to dually concede that being 'good' grants us a position in grace; accepting of Christ or not.
Hence the Catholic position that we can simply live 'good, moral' lives and still be granted Grace.

Normally I would bring up a few more things, but, I'm honestly not in the mood. This morning I'll leave people to their certainties.

Its not the act of giving alms, its the act of obedience, where the love that covers sin is found.
The act of an obedient heart is evidence of love that covers sin and not the act of giving the alms its self....
Jobs faithful obedience to Gods instruction is what pleased God not the individual acts of obedience by Job but Jobs faithful obedience was the evidence of His love for God and what pleased God!

You are correct any fallen man to can give alms but it was just an act of giving and not an act of obedience and not pleasing to God nor evidence of love of God (evidence of love is obedience to God)

If you cant understand this....
I'm done, I'll pray you will understand soon.

Steve777
Jan 11th 2008, 01:35 PM
Behold are not these things written in the Book of Jasher!!!

Do a google for the online copy of the apocryphal Book of Jasher and be blown away with the greatest story never told!

Speaks in detail of the days of Noah ... of the time when women refused to have babies because their husbands would cast them off for younger "better" looking women ... retells how God visited the flood upon the offspring of Adam due to in part "that they mixed the species of animal upon animal creating confusion" ... Jesus said as in the days of Noah so shall it be when the Son of Man comes .... gene mixing ... childless vain people forever clutching at perpetual youth ... hmmmm sounds like now ...!!!

The Book of Jasher

jaybird
Jul 11th 2016, 04:15 PM
i dont see the problem with the non canon books. Jesus taught us to seek and knock, put your faith in that, read the books and decide for yourself.
people should remember that it wasnt Jesus that said these books should not be part of the bible, it was councils of men. these are the same councils that gave us the crusades, inquisitions, thought common people were to stupid to read bibles and would not think twice of killing an entire village of women and children if they thought they had a different opinion than the official doctrines of the time, i dont need a council to tell me how to think.

jayne
Jul 11th 2016, 05:30 PM
Behold are not these things written in the Book of Jasher!!!

Do a google for the online copy of the apocryphal Book of Jasher and be blown away with the greatest story never told!

Speaks in detail of the days of Noah ... of the time when women refused to have babies because their husbands would cast them off for younger "better" looking women ... retells how God visited the flood upon the offspring of Adam due to in part "that they mixed the species of animal upon animal creating confusion" ... Jesus said as in the days of Noah so shall it be when the Son of Man comes .... gene mixing ... childless vain people forever clutching at perpetual youth ... hmmmm sounds like now ...!!!

The Book of Jasher

God cannot lie. God is not the author of confusion. The Bible and the "book of Jasher" (which is not the book mentioned in the Old Testament) contradict one another in many, many places.

Both the Bible and the book of Jasher cannot be true. One of them is false.


The Bible says that Pharaoh died in the Red Sea (Psalm 136). The book of Jasher [81] says that Pharaoh escaped because as he watched his men drowning he suddenly "believed in God" and "thanked him" and God spared him, sent an angel to transport Pharaoh to Ninevah where he reigned a long time.
The Bible says that the Red Sea was split into two parts and that the children of Israel walked a path. (Exodus 14; Joshua 3). The book of Jasher says the Red Sea was divided into 12 parts.
The Bible says that Moses was 40 when he fled Egypt and that he fled to Midian. The book of Jasher (71 - 73) says that Moses was 18 when he left Egypt and he went to Cush and became king there for 40 years. Then he went to Midian where someone named Reuel put him in prison for 10 years because he thought the Cu****es were after him.
The Bible says that Joseph, when talking to his brothers before he revealed himself, kept Simeon as a guarantee that they would come back with Benjiman. The Bible says that Joseph had Simeon bound before their eyes. (Genesis 42) The book of Jasher (51) says that Joseph tried to have Simeon bound but that Simeon was not willing and he fought back and that he "could not be bound" at all.


Either the Bible is wrong or the book of Jasher (which again, is not the ancient, ancient book mentioned in the Bible) is wrong.

mailmandan
Jul 11th 2016, 11:23 PM
God cannot lie. God is not the author of confusion. The Bible and the "book of Jasher" (which is not the book mentioned in the Old Testament) contradict one another in many, many places.

Both the Bible and the book of Jasher cannot be true. One of them is false.


The Bible says that Pharaoh died in the Red Sea (Psalm 136). The book of Jasher [81] says that Pharaoh escaped because as he watched his men drowning he suddenly "believed in God" and "thanked him" and God spared him, sent an angel to transport Pharaoh to Ninevah where he reigned a long time.
The Bible says that the Red Sea was split into two parts and that the children of Israel walked a path. (Exodus 14; Joshua 3). The book of Jasher says the Red Sea was divided into 12 parts.
The Bible says that Moses was 40 when he fled Egypt and that he fled to Midian. The book of Jasher (71 - 73) says that Moses was 18 when he left Egypt and he went to Cush and became king there for 40 years. Then he went to Midian where someone named Reuel put him in prison for 10 years because he thought the Cu****es were after him.
The Bible says that Joseph, when talking to his brothers before he revealed himself, kept Simeon as a guarantee that they would come back with Benjiman. The Bible says that Joseph had Simeon bound before their eyes. (Genesis 42) The book of Jasher (51) says that Joseph tried to have Simeon bound but that Simeon was not willing and he fought back and that he "could not be bound" at all.


Either the Bible is wrong or the book of Jasher (which again, is not the ancient, ancient book mentioned in the Bible) is wrong. Amen sister! The apocrypha is a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ that is rejected by the Protestants and officially accepted by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 as being inspired.

If the Apocrypha was Scripture, then it should not have any errors. But since it does have errors, as will be demonstrated below, this puts into question whether or not the Roman Catholic Church has properly used its self-proclaimed position as the teaching authority of the Christian Church. If it can error in such an important manner as what is Scripture, can it be trusted to properly teach the Christian Church? Absolutely not!

When we look into the apocrypha itself, we find numerous problems. For example, we see it advocating magic where the smoke of a fish heart on a fire drives away devils.

Condones the use of magic

Tobit 6:5-7, "Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them."

Is it true that the smoke from a fish's heart, when burned, drives away evil spirits? Of course not. Such a superstitious teaching has no place in the word of God.

Teaches that forgiveness of sins is by human effort.

Salvation by works:

Tobit 4:11, "For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness."
Tobit 12:9, "For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting."
We know from Scripture that alms (money or food given to the poor or needy as charity) does not purge our sins. The blood of Christ is what cleanses us--not money or food given to poor people. "but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin." (1 John 1:7).

Money as an offering for the sins of the dead:

2 Maccabbees 12:43, "And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection."

Can anyone truly accept that money isn't offering for the sins of dead people? Such a superstitious and unbiblical concept has no place in Scripture.

The Catholic tradition of purgatory teaches that, upon death, many souls enter a spiritual realm between heaven and hell during which their sins are dealt with until they are prepared to enter heaven. It is a place where sin is "purged" before a person can enter heaven. Furthermore, Catholic tradition encourages the living to do works on behalf of the dead in order to improve the situation of those in purgatory. But what does the Bible say about purgatory?

First, it must be clearly noted that the Bible does not teach purgatory. Catholic theologians typically refer to a book in the apocrypha to support their belief in purgatory. In the apocrypha, the book of 2 Maccabees states,

"Making a gathering . . . sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead). And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins" (2 Maccabees 12:43-46).

From this, Catholic doctrine teaches that prayers for the dead were offered before the time of Jesus to improve the condition of the soul. Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever spoke of the Apocrypha as Scripture or mentioned purgatory.

Wrong historical facts:

Judith 1:5, "Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him."
Baruch 6:2, "And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace."
The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1

Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. "And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

Obviously the apocrypha has serious problems. From magic, to salvation by works, to money as an offering for the sins of the dead, and blatant incorrect historical facts--it is full of false and unbiblical teachings. It isn't inspired of God. Likewise, neither is the Roman Catholic church, which has stated the apocrypha is inspired. This shows the Roman Catholic church is not the means by which God is communicating his truth to his people, that the Magisterium has erred greatly, and that it is infested with man's false tradition rather than God's absolute truth.

dan
Jul 12th 2016, 01:29 AM
Hi,
I've been poking around online a bit and I came across this Apocrypha thing on an online version of the Bible. Curious, I went to the library to check it out. I've read through to Ecclesiasticus, and I have to say, I'd like to know what the deal is with this. What is the Apocrypha and why isn't it a part of the Bible? What is its history? Are there any Christian denominations that consider this a part of scriptures?
Shade40

Due to Ezra's interaction with God's Angel, Umiel, and the fulfilled prophecy in it, I consider 2Ezra (2Esdras) to be scriptural and prophetic, however, 2Ezra DOES REQUIRE THE JEWS TO KEEP 40 BOOKS SECRET FROM "COMMON" KNOWLEDGE, AND, AS SUCH, (AND WITHOUT SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION AS TO WHICH BOOKS ARE RELEVANT TO THIS COMMAND), THERE IS SOME CONTROVERSY AS TO WHETHER WE, AS CHRISTIANS ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THIS COMMAND ABOUT THE 40 BOOKS AND INCLUDE 2EZRA IN THE "SECRET" GROUP, OR, TO ASSUME THAT THE JEWS WERE SUCCESSFUL IN KEEPING THE 40 BOOKS THAT WERE REQUIRED TO BE KEPT SECRET, UNAVAILABLE.

DUE TO THE WONDERFUL REVELATIONS OF 2EZRA, AND IT'S GENERAL AVAILABILITY, I PREFER TO BELIEVE THAT THE JEWS WERE ABLE TO HIDE THE REQUIRED BOOKS AND ENJOY READING IT REGULARLY.

IF 2EZRA WAS INTENDED TO BE KEPT SECRET, AND THAT SECRECY WAS NOT ATTAINABLE, WHAT BETTER WAY TO MAKE IT APPEAR SO, THAN TO DISAVOW IT'S VALIDITY?

I THINK IT IS SUSPICIOUS THAT 2EZRA WAS PART OF THE BIBLE UNTIL THE BIBLE WAS AVAILABLE TO ALL!

ALSO, IF GOD HAD TRULY WANTED IT KEPT SECRET, HE WOULD HAVE MADE IT SO!

Protective Angel
Jul 12th 2016, 02:41 AM
God cannot lie. God is not the author of confusion. The Bible and the "book of Jasher" (which is not the book mentioned in the Old Testament) contradict one another in many, many places.

Both the Bible and the book of Jasher cannot be true. One of them is false.


The Bible says that Pharaoh died in the Red Sea (Psalm 136). The book of Jasher [81] says that Pharaoh escaped because as he watched his men drowning he suddenly "believed in God" and "thanked him" and God spared him, sent an angel to transport Pharaoh to Ninevah where he reigned a long time.
The Bible says that the Red Sea was split into two parts and that the children of Israel walked a path. (Exodus 14; Joshua 3). The book of Jasher says the Red Sea was divided into 12 parts.
The Bible says that Moses was 40 when he fled Egypt and that he fled to Midian. The book of Jasher (71 - 73) says that Moses was 18 when he left Egypt and he went to Cush and became king there for 40 years. Then he went to Midian where someone named Reuel put him in prison for 10 years because he thought the Cu****es were after him.
The Bible says that Joseph, when talking to his brothers before he revealed himself, kept Simeon as a guarantee that they would come back with Benjiman. The Bible says that Joseph had Simeon bound before their eyes. (Genesis 42) The book of Jasher (51) says that Joseph tried to have Simeon bound but that Simeon was not willing and he fought back and that he "could not be bound" at all.


Either the Bible is wrong or the book of Jasher (which again, is not the ancient, ancient book mentioned in the Bible) is wrong.

Steve probably isn't going to read your reply. He hasn't been here in 8 years. ;)

jayne
Jul 12th 2016, 12:00 PM
Steve probably isn't going to read your reply. He hasn't been here in 8 years. ;)

13084 Thanks!! I see that now.

mailmandan
Jul 12th 2016, 12:13 PM
13084 Thanks!! I see that now. At least others will see it and it was a good post. ;)

SeekFirstTheKingdom
Jul 12th 2016, 01:40 PM
In my experience, the "apocrypha is of THE DEVIL" camp are adamant that the LORD Himself fashioned the current 66 book canon and nothing outside of that is of Him. Whether it be Paul literally quoting from The Wisdom of Solomon (Ephesians 6), Jude pointing to the book of Enoch, 'apocryphal books' being referenced (by name) in books within the 66 book canon, it always seems to be a matter of "nothing to see here, don't wander off the narrow path now"...brow-beat, shame, parrot, etc. (could be exaggerating a tad there :D)

Discernment is required folks, being filled with the Holy Ghost and having the ability to chew the meat and spit out the bones while having a firm foundation in the scriptures is crucial when looking into the 'apocryphal books'. As some have mentioned, Tobit, the 'gospel of Judas' and other books are so easily identifiable as bones to spit out (blasphemous, etc). On the other hand, some of the books not only don't contradict the 66 book canon, but are referenced and quoted verbatim by men of God in the 'bible' (accepted canon). The 66-book-only camp relies heavily on the opposing camp of debate to have zero knowledge of councils and the politics of MAN who decided what would be and wouldn't be considered the word of God (shame and WOE to them by the way, I wouldn't want to have to answer to God for deciding for others what His word is or isn't). Even Ethiopian brethren have a different canon of scripture in their 'bibles'.

The LORD bless everyone hungry enough to read the other books for themselves and ask the Holy Spirit to show them where His finger print is (if anywhere) instead of just being brow-beaten and shamed into staying in line with what someone with a religious spirit believes. Freedom in the LORD Jesus Christ to read the scary forbidden books...oh so wonderful :)

In fairness, I understand and have seen people go a bit wonky in embracing the apocryphal writings by making the error in assuming that you have to either accept them all and everything in them or reject them. The truth is, some of them are wicked and blasphemous to the core and need to be marked as such, but others certainly don't merit being thrown out along side of them. There's nothing wrong with sticking with the 66 book canon without ever even looking at the other books. But if someone knows the word, is firmly rooted in scripture and is filled with the Holy Ghost, and they want to read the apocryphal writings and ask the LORD to lead and guide them into discernment and truth, they shouldn't be shamed or brow-beaten.

mailmandan
Jul 12th 2016, 02:06 PM
In my experience, the "apocrypha is of THE DEVIL" camp are adamant that the LORD Himself fashioned the current 66 book canon and nothing outside of that is of Him. Amen! Roman Catholics are determined to accept the apocrypha because it lends credibility to their false doctrines.

Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving (Tobit 4:11; 12:9).
Offering of money for the sins of the dead, atoning for sin etc.. (2 Maccabees 12:43-46).

jayne
Jul 12th 2016, 06:16 PM
Whether it be Paul literally quoting from The Wisdom of Solomon (Ephesians 6)

No, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon (not Solomon) is "literally quoting" Isaiah. And Paul makes reference to Isaiah.

Isaiah 59:17 - "He put on righteousness as his breastplate, and the helmet of salvation on his head; he put on the garments of vengeance and wrapped himself in zeal as in a cloak." Wisdom 5:18 - "He shall put on righteousness as a breastplate, and true judgment instead of an helmet." Ephesians 6:14 - "Stand firm therefore, by fastening the belt of truth around your waist, by putting on the breastplate of righteousness..."

Paul DOES make several allusions to content from the Wisdom of Solomon in Romans - several.

Do you know why he does that? To refute the uninspired and false Jewish tradition found there. Wisdom 2:24 says, "Through the devil's envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it". Paul says in Romans 5 that through "ONE MAN" sin entered the world - not the devil. There's so much more to compare. Paul, in Romans, is directly contradicting - at least 20 times - the Wisdom of Solomon and it's judgment of the Gentiles as not worthy and Jews as blameless.

Wisdom 4 says that the "ungodly bastard saplings" [Gentiles and their children] will be "cut off". Paul says in Romans 11 that part of Israel was cut off and Gentile "grafted" IN.


Discernment is required folks, being filled with the Holy Ghost and having the ability to chew the meat and spit out the bones while having a firm foundation in the scriptures is crucial when looking into the 'apocryphal books'.

Yes, discernment is the key. But if one does not know the Bible at all - as is the case with so MANY people across the internet who support these false teachings and claim them as harmless - what's the point in asking for discernment if you aren't going to have a foundation on the Bible?

You can read all the "scarey and forbidden books" you choose. I've read some of them for myself and am reading more. And BECAUSE I have a foundation on scripture, I discern them to be [a] true where they have copied from the Bible and [b] false where they have just made up fiction or man-made religious tradition that is false.

Uninspired. False doctrines. Fictionalized stories. WHY do people cling to these books and support them so?

SeekFirstTheKingdom
Jul 13th 2016, 01:30 AM
I personally see Ephesians 6 reference or allude to Wisdom 5 (more than just one verse) and yes, another witness would/could be Isaiah 59:17, but I won't disparage you for the way you see it at all. As far as suggesting that Paul alluded to Wisdom to refute Jewish traditions, I hadn't yet considered that and would be happy to do that no doubt. Off the top of my head, I would be careful with isolating there because even in the OT we see the LORD mention cutting off/wiping out but then repenting and leaving a remnant or having mercy and choosing mercy over judgment, etc.

Also, for you to state that certain things are fictionalized stories and false doctrines as if you are the judge and jury on that...not so much. I don't know why people cling to certain books, some do it to support their motives to lord over people with religion, some do it to justify their own agendas, some believe what their pastors told them or what (Jane, or someone else) posted on bibleforums, others have read the books available, sought the LORD and took the meat and spit out the bones not worrying about what others think.

There are cool little nuggets in the 66 book canon that point elsewhere, some people follow the trails no matter who thinks what. Some people read Jude and think, hrm, wait a minute here, what dispute about the body of Moses, others see 'is it not written in the book of (fill in the blank here) and think, wait a minute, shouldn't I read that book for myself or at least be able to see for myself without being brow-beaten by someone? etc. I even enjoy reading the clearly uninspired texts just to be wise as a serpent and to see the sinister twists put in there so that I can reverse engineer them and see where someone was trying to detract/divert so that I can praise the LORD all the more for His truth. I would rather take the time to read heretical writings of varying religions/cults/agendas for myself, I am a big boy, firmly grounded in my faith, and it has really helped in evangelism where people have expressed appreciation that I have read the things I refute instead of just saying "oh that's of the devil" without searching through it myself etc.

My personal conviction from my personal experience is that out of all of the apocryphal/pseudepigraphical texts I've read, there are certainly portions which are no-doubt inspired. There is also a whole bunch of blasphemous and heretical writings which not only contradict the scriptures, but just don't pass the smell test and hold no weight or water. I don't throw the baby out with the bath water, and I don't mind if someone disagrees.

jaybird
Oct 2nd 2016, 07:12 AM
if Apocrypha are false books why does Jesus use teachings that can only be found in them and no where else in the bible?

ProDeo
Oct 2nd 2016, 09:41 AM
Amen! Roman Catholics are determined to accept the apocrypha because it lends credibility to their false doctrines.
Yes.


Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving (Tobit 4:11; 12:9).
OTOH we have Pet 4:8


Offering of money for the sins of the dead, atoning for sin etc.. (2 Maccabees 12:43-46).
As is the mysterious practice of baptism on behalf of the dead which Paul did not condemn.

mailmandan
Oct 2nd 2016, 12:13 PM
if Apocrypha are false books why does Jesus use teachings that can only be found in them and no where else in the bible? What are these alleged teachings?

jaybird
Oct 2nd 2016, 06:08 PM
What are these alleged teachings?

i posted them on the other thread

mailmandan
Oct 3rd 2016, 11:23 AM
i posted them on the other thread Do you admit that the apocrypha is not part of the canon of Scripture?

Slug1
Oct 3rd 2016, 01:37 PM
i posted them on the other threadWhat other thread?

Athanasius
Oct 3rd 2016, 02:15 PM
Presumably this one: http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/268039-7-books-missing/page5

keck553
Oct 3rd 2016, 02:15 PM
It's not that the Apocrpha is false, its that it is not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Jesus can quote a truth or a fact though, whatever its source. For example Jesus quoted Hillel on the Golden rule.

There are some anomalies that flat out disqualify some books though, like praying to the dead.

Stew Ward's Hip
Oct 3rd 2016, 03:04 PM
It's not that the Apocrpha is false, its that it is not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Jesus can quote a truth or a fact though, whatever its source. For example Jesus quoted Hillel on the Golden rule.

There are some anomalies that flat out disqualify some books though, like praying to the dead.

True dat.

Paul quoting Greek poets doesn't make the Greek poets "inspired."

Athanasius
Oct 3rd 2016, 03:18 PM
True dat.

Paul quoting Greek poets doesn't make the Greek poets "inspired."

Neither does it make anyone quoting Paul, inspired. Just before someone throws that out...

dan
Oct 3rd 2016, 03:59 PM
Remember that the only qualification for a prophet is that he have his prophecy come true.

2Esdras has prophecy that has already come true, IMO.

2Esdr 1:35 Your houses will I give to a people that shall come; which not having heard of me yet shall believe me; to whom I have shewed no signs, yet they shall do that I have commanded them.
2Esdr 1:36 They have seen no prophets, yet they shall call their sins to remembrance, and acknowledge them.
2Esdr 1:37 I take to witness the grace of the people to come, whose little ones rejoice in gladness: and though they have not seen me with bodily eyes, yet in spirit they believe the thing that I say.
2Esdr 1:38 And now, brother, behold what glory; and see the people that come from the east:
2Esdr 1:39 Unto whom I will give for leaders, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Oseas, Amos, and Micheas, Joel, Abdias, and Jonas,
2Esdr 1:40 Nahum, and Abacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zachary, and Malachy, which is called also an angel of the Lord.

THEY are called Christians.

Praise, God.

Athanasius
Oct 3rd 2016, 04:01 PM
Remember that the only qualification for a prophet is that he have his prophecy come true.

2Esdras has prophecy that has already come true, IMO.

2Esdr 1:35 Your houses will I give to a people that shall come; which not having heard of me yet shall believe me; to whom I have shewed no signs, yet they shall do that I have commanded them.
2Esdr 1:36 They have seen no prophets, yet they shall call their sins to remembrance, and acknowledge them.
2Esdr 1:37 I take to witness the grace of the people to come, whose little ones rejoice in gladness: and though they have not seen me with bodily eyes, yet in spirit they believe the thing that I say.
2Esdr 1:38 And now, brother, behold what glory; and see the people that come from the east:
2Esdr 1:39 Unto whom I will give for leaders, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Oseas, Amos, and Micheas, Joel, Abdias, and Jonas,
2Esdr 1:40 Nahum, and Abacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zachary, and Malachy, which is called also an angel of the Lord.

THEY are called Christians.

Praise, God.

Where does Scripture say that the prophecy coming true is the only prophetic qualification? Nothing like being unable to distinguish between false and authentic prophets.

keck553
Oct 3rd 2016, 04:20 PM
True dat.

Paul quoting Greek poets doesn't make the Greek poets "inspired."

Good point. I love that sermon by the way.

keck553
Oct 3rd 2016, 04:21 PM
Neither does it make anyone quoting Paul, inspired. Just before someone throws that out...

Well, unless it's from the KJV of course......:lol:

Athanasius
Oct 3rd 2016, 04:23 PM
Well, unless it's from the KJV of course......:lol:

We all know Paul read the KJV ;)

keck553
Oct 3rd 2016, 04:26 PM
We all know Paul read the KJV ;)

Well, all Southern Baptists know that silly.

Athanasius
Oct 3rd 2016, 04:45 PM
Well, all Southern Baptists know that silly.

I haven't been back to the South ever since suggesting that Paul used the NRSV. I tried to deal halfway and agree with them on the NASB, but...

keck553
Oct 3rd 2016, 06:20 PM
I haven't been back to the South ever since suggesting that Paul used the NRSV. I tried to deal halfway and agree with them on the NASB, but...

I know a pastor who was nearly stoned at the local Baptist Association for merely mentioning NASB.

Athanasius
Oct 3rd 2016, 06:40 PM
Makes sense. It does, after all, stand for 'Not Around Southern Baptists'.

Stew Ward's Hip
Oct 3rd 2016, 06:50 PM
I know a pastor who was nearly stoned at the local Baptist Association for merely mentioning NASB.

Isn't getting stoned at a baptist association meeting a bit of an oxymoron?

keck553
Oct 3rd 2016, 07:53 PM
Isn't getting stoned at a baptist association meeting a bit of an oxymoron?

Yeah, because Jesus drank unfermented grape juice, don't you know?

Slug1
Oct 3rd 2016, 08:04 PM
Yeah, because Jesus drank unfermented grape juice, don't you know?Baptists prove Jesus can work miracles... not only did He drink unfermented grape juice but He also managed to miraculously be accused of being a wine-bibber.

Imagine... drinking only juice that is UNfermented (according to Baptists) and still be accused of being a drunkard. Some may not think that is a miracle, but at the least... is amazing :P

By the way... a book I ordered arrived last week: "The search for God and Guinness" by Stephen Mansfield :) Oh wait, thats for the other thread.

Athanasius
Oct 3rd 2016, 08:07 PM
The greater miracle is that He managed to convince the worst elements in society not to drink *mind blown*

keck553
Oct 3rd 2016, 08:16 PM
Baptists prove Jesus can work miracles... not only did He drink unfermented grape juice but He also managed to miraculously be accused of being a wine-bibber.

Imagine... drinking only juice that is UNfermented (according to Baptists) and still be accused of being a drunkard. Some may not think that is a miracle, but at the least... is amazing :P

By the way... a book I ordered arrived last week: "The search for God and Guinness" by Stephen Mansfield :) Oh wait, thats for the other thread.

LOL. Well that explains Peter being a drunken sailor before he met Jesus and read King James.

As you can imagine I was quite disappointed when an Baptist elder told me he was looking forward to drinking really good grape juice in reference to Matthew 26:29. But thanks be to God, we are now going to a Nazarene congregation where people actually love each other according to John 13:35.

If anyone didn't want to die of cholera or some other nasty illness, fermentation was necessary as a disinfectant. It might have been weaker than our wines, but it's well written that the kinfolk at that Cana wedding really appreciated that miracle.

Somewhat related....my uncle who is a Mormon said he drank dirty water instead of hot coffee in the Russian prison camp and wound up with dysentery. I'm sure his "works" really pleased his god.....sigh.....

Athanasius
Oct 3rd 2016, 08:47 PM
Reminds me of a story I heard, of a father whose son was dying - and would die - from a snake bite, and refused to give him whiskey to dull the pain. But you know, 'holiness'.

jaybird
Oct 4th 2016, 05:09 AM
haha im enjoying reading all the baptist jokes. thats all i have ever gone to my whole life. they are very strict. they label me a trouble maker.

mailmandan
Oct 4th 2016, 11:09 AM
haha im enjoying reading all the baptist jokes. thats all i have ever gone to my whole life. they are very strict. they label me a trouble maker. Do you know the difference between Catholics and Baptists in regards to liquor? Catholics will actually acknowledge each other at the liquor store. :lol:

jayne
Oct 4th 2016, 12:58 PM
.............nevermind...................

Athanasius
Oct 4th 2016, 01:30 PM
I saw before the edit :O

They're in good fun, I hope!

Sojourner
Oct 4th 2016, 02:21 PM
Mod Note:
I'm Pentecostal myself, and while I understand no one intends to be mean-spirited, I would suggest that the feelings of sensitive Baptist members are being overlooked in all the joking around. Besides, things have gotten way off-topic...

keck553
Oct 4th 2016, 04:20 PM
It's a real serious issue though, with many SBC congregations dying these days. The Baptist church I went to claimed it was satan who is killing the SBC, but many others, including myself and my wife (my wife went to Baptist churches most of her life and me for quite a while) believe traditions and legalism is the cause.

It's sad because most Baptists I know are saved and redeemed lovers of God and the traditions and church culture they are comfortable with is changing and leaving them behind, especially the older Baptists.

On the other hand SBC congregations have a lot of autonomy so many recognize tradition isn't a Biblical mandate and are willing to follow God outside of their comfort zone, and from what I know those congregations are thriving.

I think a thread about this decline with our Baptist brothers and sisters input would be really interesting, perhaps edifying.

Pbminimum
Oct 4th 2016, 04:55 PM
It's a real serious issue though, with many SBC congregations dying these days. The Baptist church I went to claimed it was satan who is killing the SBC, but many others, including myself and my wife (my wife went to Baptist churches most of her life and me for quite a while) believe traditions and legalism is the cause.

It's sad because most Baptists I know are saved and redeemed lovers of God and the traditions and church culture they are comfortable with is changing and leaving them behind, especially the older Baptists.

On the other hand SBC congregations have a lot of autonomy so many recognize tradition isn't a Biblical mandate and are willing to follow God outside of their comfort zone, and from what I know those congregations are thriving.

I think a thread about this decline with our Baptist brothers and sisters input would be really interesting, perhaps edifying.

That thread topic would be informative and interesting for sure. I have seen it both ways and can tell you first hand what your talking about is spot on.

dan
Oct 29th 2016, 03:28 AM
Where does Scripture say that the prophecy coming true is the only prophetic qualification? Nothing like being unable to distinguish between false and authentic prophets.

If you had Bibleforums free software you could look it up yourself:

DEUT 18:16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
DEUT 18:17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
DEUT 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
DEUT 18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
DEUT 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
DEUT 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
DEUT 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

JER 28:9 The prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the LORD hath truly sent him.

Athanasius
Oct 29th 2016, 10:46 AM
'Only' qualification. Another is that God has sent them, and they aren't agents of demonic deception. The quote from Jeremiah also qualifies the requirement with prophesying peace.

dan
Oct 31st 2016, 12:17 AM
'Only' qualification. Another is that God has sent them, and they aren't agents of demonic deception. The quote from Jeremiah also qualifies the requirement with prophesying peace.

Although I have never heard of an evil prophet, if God is involved in all prophecy that comes true, I can't see Him giving ANY abilities in this realm to evil.

And besides, God doesn't change.

DEUT 18:16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
DEUT 18:17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
DEUT 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
DEUT 18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
DEUT 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
DEUT 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
DEUT 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

JER 28:9 The prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the LORD hath truly sent him.

My previous post stands.

Athanasius
Oct 31st 2016, 10:45 AM
You've never read Matthew 7.15? 'Beware false prophets....' ? Or, Matthew 24.24., 'For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.'?