Axxman Posted September 13, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 24 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,292 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/21/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted September 13, 2009 It is well known that the catholic Bible has some books in it that the Christian Bible does not include in their Bible. The catholic church simply picked out some writings and decided that they wanted them put into the Bible, but were never recognized by the Jews in Old Testament times as part of the Word of God. I briefly checked out the Codex Sinaiticus that you posted, and I have a major problem with it; that being it includes the apocryphal, the additional books of the Bible that the catholic church has incorporated into the catholic Bible, whose authorship is considered questionable for authenticity, and erroneous. It is also "well known" that the King James Bible 1611 included those same apocryphal books. Just because a book is not canonical does not make it evil. In other words, "apocrypha" is NOT a dirty word. You also use the definition that "apocryphal" means questionable or erroneous...that is far from an accurate definition. They are clearly not divinely inspired and that is the reason the Christian Bible excludes these additional books called the apocryphal.In fact,before the famous Roman Council of Trent met to deal with the crisis of protestantism, these additional books were never regarded as part of the Bible by many many people. The Holy Scriptures has and always will be a Book written by God through His Hebrew prophets and Hebrew writers and the Scriptures to be specifically cannonized as inspired Scripture of the Bible was done by the Jews, and not the Roman Catholic Church. So God has only inspired the writings of the bible? No other Christian was ever inspired by God in their writings? And who specifically do you turn to in the decision making process? Lots of people think King James was inspired and used by God to give us the "Authorized Version" of God's word...and he included the apocryphal books. Whats up with that? You are also way off on your opinion that apocryphal books were not used until the Council of Trent. Apocryphal writings were used all the way back to 1st century Christians. It is completely false that the Apocrypha is a Catholic only (or Catholic conspiracy) tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikki1 Posted September 13, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 98 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,260 Content Per Day: 0.23 Reputation: 55 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted September 13, 2009 (edited) Blessings Axxman: It is also "well known" that the King James Bible 1611 included those same apocryphal books. Just because a book is not canonical does not make it evil. In other words, "apocrypha" is NOT a dirty word. You also use the definition that "apocryphal" means questionable or erroneous...that is far from an accurate definition. You are correct in that early editions of the KJV (and other reformation Bibles) included the apocryphal books, but for historical references only and was not to be used as additions to the cannon of Scripture, according to Alexander McClure, a biographer of the KJV translators. He even listed the reasons, seven in all, assigned by the KJV translators for rejecting the apocryphal as inspired. The Articles of the Church of England even reject the apocraphal as inspired, and have no scriptural authority. Moreover, the apocraphyl books were placed between the Old and New Testament and not intermingled within the Old Testament itself as is done in the catholic Bible. So God has only inspired the writings of the bible? No other Christian was ever inspired by God in their writings? Please read what I wrote Axxman. The Holy Scriptures has and always will be a Book written by God through His Hebrew prophets and Hebrew writers and the Scriptures to be specifically cannonized as inspired Scripture of the Bible was done by the Jews, and not the Roman Catholic Church. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:21 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Timothy 3:16 And who specifically do you turn to in the decision making process? Lots of people think King James was inspired and used by God to give us the "Authorized Version" of God's word...and he included the apocryphal books. Whats up with that? I don't know about lots of people, but I have purchased several KJB, as that is my Bible of choice, even though I own others, and not a one of them have ever included the apoccryphal. You are also way off on your opinion that apocryphal books were not used until the Council of Trent. Apocryphal writings were used all the way back to 1st century Christians. It is completely false that the Apocrypha is a Catholic only (or Catholic conspiracy) tradition. I refuse to turn this into a "catholic" thread, but out of courtesy, I will respond to your statement above. The apocryphal books, 15 in all included in the Roman catholic Bible has been rejected by non-Catholics as cannonized and inspired Scripture. As far as the Council of Trent, it was an attempt by the Catholic Church to counteract the protestant reformation. Prior to that, the Jewish rabbis in the Talmud referred to the term apocryphal to mean "not canonical Scripture". Nikki Edited September 13, 2009 by nikki1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axxman Posted September 14, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 24 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,292 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/21/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted September 14, 2009 Hi Nikki... You are correct in that early editions of the KJV (and other reformation Bibles) included the apocryphal books, but for historical references only and was not to be used as additions to the cannon of Scripture, according to Alexander McClure, a biographer of the KJV translators. He even listed the reasons, seven in all, assigned by the KJV translators for rejecting the apocryphal as inspired. Sorry Sis...wrong again. The "seven reasons" are an invention of Alexander McClure. They were NOT from the KJV translators as so many believe. Beyond that his seven reasons (written in the 1800's) are horribly outdated and have been roundly disproven or have been found to be without proper scholarship. In fact, even after the apocrypha was removed from the KJV 1611...the translators still used apocryphal verses as cross-reference notes in the KJV margins. The Articles of the Church of England even reject the apocraphal as inspired, and have no scriptural authority. Moreover, the apocraphyl books were placed between the Old and New Testament and not intermingled within the Old Testament itself as is done in the catholic Bible. Nope again. The Church of England did not say they held these books as not having 'scriptural authority.' What it say's is that they do not use "them to establish any doctrine." In other words they held them to have no doctrinal authority, the difference is obvious. This fact is born out in that the 1611 KJV encourages the use of the Apocrypha in devotional reading and public worship...which was ordained by the Church of England. So...is the Church of England your final authority for what is canonical or not?? They do hold some catholic doctrines to be true, you know... I don't know about lots of people, but I have purchased several KJB, as that is my Bible of choice, even though I own others, and not a one of them have ever included the apoccryphal. Actually they ALL included the apocrypha until the 1800's. Who had the authority to remove whatever books they didn't like in the 1800's? I refuse to turn this into a "catholic" thread, but out of courtesy, I will respond to your statement above. The apocryphal books, 15 in all included in the Roman catholic Bible has been rejected by non-Catholics as cannonized and inspired Scripture. As far as the Council of Trent, it was an attempt by the Catholic Church to counteract the protestant reformation. Prior to that, the Jewish rabbis in the Talmud referred to the term apocryphal to mean "not canonical Scripture". I agree this should not be turned into a "catholic thread" but it is difficult to discuss the history of the apocrypha without referencing the war that has been waged between the two factions. You are correct that protestants in the last 200 years have worked very hard to reject ANY writings that the Catholics use. As a protestant I understand why that is...however, it does not mean that just because the catholics read a history book that suddenly that book becomes trash. It also makes it difficult to avoid the discussion when your whole problem with this newly discovered tablet is that it might be some catholic conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikki1 Posted September 14, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 98 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,260 Content Per Day: 0.23 Reputation: 55 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted September 14, 2009 (edited) Hi Axxman, I can see you don't believe what I am telling you, nevertheless, it doesn't make it any less true as far as I am concerned and I really don't see any reason to continue this dialogue. If you want to learn more about the apocryphyl, you can do a search on the web because there are many reliable sites that will confirm what I am telling you, and most importantly, reading the Old Testament in a non Catholic Bible will confirm the canonization of the Holy Scriptures by the Hebrew prophets in the Old Testament. I acquired my information from a book entitled False Doctrines written by John R.Rice, published by Sword of the Lord Publishers as well as reading the Old Testament in a non-Catholic KJV Bible, together with the Jewish Encyclopedia and writings of Josephus. Who had the authority to remove whatever books they didn't like in the 1800's? The Roman Catholic Church never had the authority to put these additional 15 uninspired books into the Old Testament, and all I can do is repeat myself and tell you that in the Protestant denominations, the apocryphyl are not in any of the Christian Bibles I have ever seen or purchased, and I have seen literally too many to count. Nor do any of my many Christian friends in my fellowship group have the apocryphal in their Bibles. From what I know of the apocryphal books, they were written somewhere between a few hundred years preceding to somewhere around a hundred years or so following the birth of Christ, and it is a fact that the Roman Catholic Church considers these books part of the inspired Scripture. In 1546, the Council of Trent decreed that the canon of the OT should include them, even though they never had any authority to do so. They took it upon themselves to do this even though the Jews or Hebrew prophets had already canonized the OT as written in the Book of Deuteronomy and several other places throughout the Holy Scriptures. This is all noted in the Jewish Encyclopedia. On a side note here, and then I'm done with this, the Roman Catholic Church wasn't even around or heard of when the Holy Scriptures were canonized by the Jews. Blessings, Nikki Edited September 14, 2009 by nikki1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted September 14, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 683 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 11,128 Content Per Day: 1.99 Reputation: 1,352 Days Won: 54 Joined: 02/03/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/07/1952 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Oh, Lord here we go again, around and around. If you don't like the "additonal" books, and don't believe they belong in any bible (i agree with you on this point 100%), just read the books of the codex that are in the bible! This stretches ones mind, and makes one question, and thats a good thing as long as you do it in complete faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axxman Posted September 14, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 24 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,292 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/21/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted September 14, 2009 Hey Nikki, I can see you don't believe what I am telling you, nevertheless, it doesn't make it any less true as far as I am concerned and I really don't see any reason to continue this dialogue. If you want to learn more about the apocryphyl, you can do a search on the web because there are many reliable sites that will confirm what I am telling you, and most importantly, reading the Old Testament in a non Catholic Bible will confirm the canonization of the Holy Scriptures by the Hebrew prophets in the Old Testament. I acquired my information from a book entitled False Doctrines written by John R.Rice, published by Sword of the Lord Publishers as well as reading the Old Testament in a non-Catholic KJV Bible, together with the Jewish Encyclopedia and writings of Josephus. Now wait a minute... If you are referencing John Rice then you know that the apocrypha is not the invention of the Catholic church, as you stated. You also know that the apocrypha was being used by Jews in the first century! So what gives? Its kinda disengenuous of you to act like I need to learn more about the apocrypha when you are making statements that directly conflict with your own source of information. I don't need any confirmation of the canonization of scriptures either. What I would like to know, and you seem to not be able to answer (which is odd considering you have John Rice's book handy) is ...who do you trust to make the determination of whether something was inspired of God? To spare you the time of looking up John Rice's answer, I'll tell you who he sites as references of proof...St. Jerome (a catholic), St Augustine (a catholic), Pope Gelasius (a catholic pope!), and Luther (who didn't believe half the NT was inspired)...LOL!!! Please tell me, that like Rice, you receive the support of a bunch of Catholics and a guy who doubted the inspiration of 5 books of the new testament...and readily changed scripture to fit his doctrines. Somebody should have told Rice that if he intended to write a catholic bashing book....he might want to refrain from using them as his support group...lol. The Roman Catholic Church never had the authority to put these additional 15 uninspired books into the Old Testament, and all I can do is repeat myself and tell you that in the Protestant denominations, the apocryphyl are not in any of the Christian Bibles I have ever seen or purchased, and I have seen literally too many to count. Nor do any of my many Christian friends in my fellowship group have the apocryphal in their Bibles. No...now see...we already know that isn't true. Even John Rice (your source) wrote in his book..."And even the apocryphal books which some Jews in Alexandria, Egypt decided should be published along with the regular Old Testament canon of scriptures were selected by these Jews, and were not originally selected by the Catholic Church." -- John Rice, False Doctrines, pg. 19 (emphasis mine) Soooo...you know those Jews you keep talking about who canonized the scriptures...it appears at least some of them rather like these apocryphal books. Thats why they were used for hundreds of years BEFORE the catholic church usurped them for their own. All the way up until King James and his version the apocryphal books were still in the bible. All the way up until the 1800's in America nearly every bible had an apocrypha. It was NEVER considered a "catholic only" thing. From what I know of the apocryphal books, they were written somewhere between a few hundred years preceding to somewhere around a hundred years or so following the birth of Christ, and it is a fact that the Roman Catholic Church considers these books part of the inspired Scripture. In 1546, the Council of Trent decreed that the canon of the OT should include them, even though they never had any authority to do so. They took it upon themselves to do this even though the Jews or Hebrew prophets had already canonized the OT as written in the Book of Deuteronomy and several other places throughout the Holy Scriptures. Now this I agree with. The Catholic Church went a step further than they should have (my opinion) in canonizing the apocrypha. Clearly, they had no more authority to do that...than someone else proclaiming them uninspired and removing them altogether. The catholics required the apocrypha...and protestants made "apocrypha" a bad word. Both extreme positions. On a side note here, and then I'm done with this, the Roman Catholic Church wasn't even around or heard of when the Holy Scriptures were canonized by the Jews. But the apocrypha was around...and while it wasn't canonized...it was deemed important enough by the Alexandrian Jews, to be included along with the OT scriptures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikki1 Posted September 14, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 98 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,260 Content Per Day: 0.23 Reputation: 55 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted September 14, 2009 Nice try, Axxman... You only included part of the picture when quoting John R. Rice. As I said, I am done with this as it does absolutely nothing to edify. Blessings, Nikki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axxman Posted September 14, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 24 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,292 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/21/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted September 14, 2009 Nice try, Axxman... You only included part of the picture when quoting John R. Rice. As I said, I am done with this as it does absolutely nothing to edify. Well, yes...I suppose I could have included the entire chapter of his anti-cathloic diatribe...but I chose to just focus on a single sentence that CLEARLY showed that Jews were using the apocrypha and published it with the canonized scripture...and that your source agreed. edify: To inform or instruct to improve understanding; To instruct especially so as to encourage intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement. I'd say this has been most edifying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believer1997 Posted September 14, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 66 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 6,363 Content Per Day: 1.12 Reputation: 119 Days Won: 9 Joined: 11/07/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted September 14, 2009 Thank you Axxman for the information - I appreciate the discretion you took regarding Rice. I've read many of his sermons for a class I took years ago and he was quite the... firebrand. I think the discovery of the artifact in Egypt is fascinating - I'd love to get a view of it up close! Blessings!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikki1 Posted September 14, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 98 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,260 Content Per Day: 0.23 Reputation: 55 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted September 14, 2009 (edited) Nice try, Axxman... You only included part of the picture when quoting John R. Rice. As I said, I am done with this as it does absolutely nothing to edify. Well, yes...I suppose I could have included the entire chapter of his anti-cathloic diatribe...but I chose to just focus on a single sentence that CLEARLY showed that Jews were using the apocrypha and published it with the canonized scripture...and that your source agreed. edify: To inform or instruct to improve understanding; To instruct especially so as to encourage intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement. I'd say this has been most edifying... Well, then, if you are familiar with John R. Rice's very informative writings on false doctrines, especially the Roman Catholic Church, as you appear to be, I also notice that you chose to distort the truth, and leave out pertinent information concerning the Jews and the apocryphyl, which is another reason why I will not discuss this with you any further. For the record, though, I will not agree with anything you have twisted and distorted regarding what I have written. I think I have already answered your questions in all of my remarks if you really want answers and are not just playing games, look diligently enough,..... you will find your answers. Maybe not the answers you want to hear, but they are there. Blessings and have a wonderful day in the Lord, Nikki Edited September 14, 2009 by nikki1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts