If you could rewrite the Bible what would you change?

[The_Patriot21]

10 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

Did you know that books now considered part of the apocrypha by part of christianity, the deuterocanonicals, were always part of scripture from the beginning of christianity?

 

Completly not true. Even the Catholic church did not recognize them until the council of Trent in 1546 AD. None of them, were written in hebrew-which was the primary language used by Biblical authors during the time the apacryphal books were using. Even the authors didnt claim any inspiration. The jewish church never recognized them, and they were NEVER allowed a place among the sacred books in the first 400 years. 

They also, like the book of enoch, contain many contradictions and downright insults to the Bibles integrity. Not a one of them, should be taken as scriptural, or even factual. Some of them, like the book of maccabees, make interesting reading material, from a historic standpoint, but are in no way scriptural, and should not be used in addition to scripture nor to help one understand scripture.

 

[thereselittleflower]

   

3 minutes ago, the_patriot2015 said:

 

Completly not true. Even the Catholic church did not recognize them until the council of Trent in 1546 AD. None of them, were written in hebrew-which was the primary language used by Biblical authors during the time the apacryphal books were using. Even the authors didnt claim any inspiration. The jewish church never recognized them, and they were NEVER allowed a place among the sacred books in the first 400 years. 

 

That's not true Patriot.

 

Where does your list of New Testament scriptures come from?

 

 

 

[The_Patriot21]

it is-everything I said is true, and I can back it up. If you truly think these books were "accepted" by the early church, then you have been deceived, everything ive said concerning the books history, have been historically fact, and if you want to discuss all the contradictions, I can, though it maybe best to take it to another thread as there are a great many. 

 

Some interesting reading.

https://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible

[Guest Teditis]

I changed the cover of one of my bibles once... new goat-leather!

[thereselittleflower]

     

5 minutes ago, the_patriot2015 said:

it is-everything I said is true, and I can back it up. If you truly think these books were "accepted" by the early church, then you have been deceived, everything ive said concerning the books history, have been historically fact, and if you want to discuss all the contradictions, I can, though it maybe best to take it to another thread as there are a great many. 

 

Some interesting reading.

https://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible

 

Where do you get your list of New Testament books from?

Everyone talks about  "The Canon" of scripture, but how many actually look into history for themselves, rather than read what someone else has to say about it, and see for themselves what "The Canon" of scripture actually is?   I know I didn't for about 40 years.    When I did, I discovered what you are saying, though popular in some circles, is something very different than what happened historically.

 

Have you read "The Canon" of scripture for yourself?  Do you know when these "canons" were written?  Do you know by whom?   Do you know what they contained?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Riverwalker]

The best way, and the way the scholars used, to determine the "scripture" status of an individual letter or book, is how well it meshes and agrees with the other books.  The 66 books we know as the bible are in PERFECT harmony, with no contradictions, no variances.   The apocrypha and the deutero canonical books do not meet this criteria, they are disharmonious in one degree or another and by this disharmoney have shown themselves NOT to be scripture. 

Are they interesting sure. Can you give them the weight of authority of Scripture  absolutely not. Should you adjust your life to aling with these books, absolutely not.

Again...God has chosen what is in the bible, and what is not.

[The_Patriot21]

The apocryphal books, were always considered to be part of the old testament, filling in that section between where our Old Testament ends, and before Christ begins. Seems to me, if you dont even know THAT much, how can you know the authenticity of the books? 

 

And what I am saying is true. And even that aside, you should always, compare any book, that people are claiming as scriptural, to the Bible. If everything lines up with the Bible, ok, even if they arnt Biblical they maybe accurate. But, like River said, the way to tell whether these books are "scripture" or not, is to weigh them against scripture. If the content of the books, are in contradiction to scripture, then they CANNOT be scripture. Scripture is all inspired by God-God would not directly contradict Himself.

 

Some examples: 

The command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7) magic is denounced as satanic throughout the Bible, new and old testament.

Forgiveness of sins by Almsgiving (Tobit 4:11, 12:9) Almsgiving, was never, EVER part of the forgiveness process-new OR old testament, and is in direct contradiction to both.

Offering of money for the sins of the dead. (2 Maccabees 12:43-45) This part is blatantly obvious to ANYONE who has actually studied scripture.

 

this line of thought is popular in many circles, because it is TRUE. No matter of studying can disprove it. However, if you really think Im wrong, please, do try, cite your source. Show me, historically, where anything ive said is false. I Made my assertation-that the apocryphal books are heresy. And Ive backed it up. You said that they were accepted as scripture from day one. You did NOT back that up. In fact, I disproved that. But, if you can actually show some actual empirical proof that your assertation is true, I will throw mine out the window. But its going to take more then "your word" its going to involve some actual, evidence that can be backed up.

[thereselittleflower]

1 minute ago, the_patriot2015 said:

The apocryphal books, were always considered to be part of the old testament, filling in that section between where our Old Testament ends, and before Christ begins. Seems to me, if you dont even know THAT much, how can you know the authenticity of the books? 

 

And what I am saying is true. And even that aside, you should always, compare any book, that people are claiming as scriptural, to the Bible. If everything lines up with the Bible, ok, even if they arnt Biblical they maybe accurate. But, like River said, the way to tell whether these books are "scripture" or not, is to weigh them against scripture. If the content of the books, are in contradiction to scripture, then they CANNOT be scripture. Scripture is all inspired by God-God would not directly contradict Himself.

 

Some examples: 

The command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7) magic is denounced as satanic throughout the Bible, new and old testament.

Forgiveness of sins by Almsgiving (Tobit 4:11, 12:9) Almsgiving, was never, EVER part of the forgiveness process-new OR old testament, and is in direct contradiction to both.

Offering of money for the sins of the dead. (2 Maccabees 12:43-45) This part is blatantly obvious to ANYONE who has actually studied scripture.

 

this line of thought is popular in many circles, because it is TRUE. No matter of studying can disprove it. However, if you really think Im wrong, please, do try, cite your source. Show me, historically, where anything ive said is false. I Made my assertation-that the apocryphal books are heresy. And Ive backed it up. You said that they were accepted as scripture from day one. You did NOT back that up. In fact, I disproved that. But, if you can actually show some actual empirical proof that your assertation is true, I will throw mine out the window. But its going to take more then "your word" its going to involve some actual, evidence that can be backed up.

 

I will and can back up what I said.  That's what I am trying to do - but rather than just throw my proofs at you, I am trying to dialogue with you, which is why I am asking you this question:

 

Where do you get your list of New Testament books?  

 

 

[The_Patriot21]

Look, I see no point in digressing. One question at a time. I presented my evidence. You have not. Once you have presented yours, and assuming I can't disprove them, then we will move on to where the REAL books of the Bible came from.

[The_Patriot21]

On deeper thought, ill add this:

fact is, the only real substance to your claim its been in since the start, is it was included in the original latin vulgate, but only under protest by the person in charge of the latin vulgate, and the church then had not "accepted it" as scripture, they were extremely divided on the issue.  And when the latin vulgate was translated into english-they were left out. It was not accepted as scripture by the catholic church, until the date I gave above. 

 

But like I said, the real divining point, is whether they jive with scripture, not when it was accepted as canonical. They do not jive with scripture, not in the slightest, while the books of the new testament DO jive with scripture-not only with themselves, but with the Old Testament as well. So regardless of when the catholic church accepted the apocryphal books or not, they are NOT scripture, never were, never will be. Where they came from and when they were accepted to the church, is, in reality, irrelevant.