If you could rewrite the Bible what would you change?

[RustyAngeL]

3 hours 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. 

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.

 

Wow pat very impressive!  Thanks!

[The_Patriot21]

24 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

How is it irrelevant?    You even included them in the statement  "the current 66 books."

How am I wrong about their history?

I gave  you history about "the canon" of scripture.   This is something you can verify for yourself.

The same people who gave us the list of New Testament books gave us the list of Old Testament books in their decisions  - the particular "canon" of the respective council.  Why do people accept the New Testament list but not the Old Testament list contained in the same  "canon"  ?

 

Should we not be talking about "the canon" of scripture, which, by direct association, includes these councils of the Early Church and all the books they included?

Should we be talking about  "something else" of scripture?    I am quite confused by your posts right now.  I am not sure what you mean when you speak of the history of scripture and the books in our bible if you are saying these lists aren't historical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well your history about the apocryphal books was wrong-i showed you that with verifiable evidence-and here you present another history about the canon-seeing while presenting no verifiable evidence? How can anyone be expected to believe you?

 

And like I said. When held up to scripture the apocryphal books directly contradicts scripture. I showed you that to, and you have simply ignored it. Ignoring evidence and attempting to rewrite history does not change the facts. The facts are the apocryphal books, are not part of scripture. You have so far presented zero evidence to suggest they are, have ignored evidence that prove you wrong beyond any shadow of a doubt, and now are side tracking into NT history to avoid the fact that you have no evidence to back your assertions, and want us to believe your new assertion, again without evidence.

 

So again. Present evidence that your assertions concerning the history of the apocryphal books or admit you were in error over their history. Then, we can move onto your next argument for the "authenticity" of the apocryphal books.

[Willa]

The Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit as to the truth of what you are saying.  There is inward evidence that the Bible and cohesivenes in the Bible, proving that it has one Author.  It does not concradict itself.  Those books that contradict the total of Scripture do not belong to the whole.  They are spurious.  Even if certain verses seem to be inspired, that fact that they contain error is in itself proof that they are spurious.  So we also reject the book of mormon as well.  It contains inspired verses quoted from the King James Version of the Old Testament and then injects a lot of garbage, as though the verses that are inspired will lend credence to the garbage.  Instead, they just stink up the whole book.  So it ìs with spurious books of the Old and New Testaments.  They are defiled by the garbage so we need to toss them out or they will defile the credibility of the inspired books as well.  

3 hours 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.

 

[Qnts2]

4 hours 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?

The beginning of Christianity consisted of all Jewish believers. Jewish people never accepted the apocrypha as scripture.

[Omegaman 3.0]

Nothing, I figure it is just the way God wants it. If He wants to change it, He can, since He has elected not to, it must be good enough. It should be remembered, that it is not always written with the intention, that everyone will always understand everything in it. That is not an accident!

[thereselittleflower]

2 hours ago, the_patriot2015 said:

Well your history about the apocryphal books was wrong-i showed you that with verifiable evidence-and here you present another history about the canon-seeing while presenting no verifiable evidence? How can anyone be expected to believe you?

 

And like I said. When held up to scripture the apocryphal books directly contradicts scripture. I showed you that to, and you have simply ignored it. Ignoring evidence and attempting to rewrite history does not change the facts. The facts are the apocryphal books, are not part of scripture. You have so far presented zero evidence to suggest they are, have ignored evidence that prove you wrong beyond any shadow of a doubt, and now are side tracking into NT history to avoid the fact that you have no evidence to back your assertions, and want us to believe your new assertion, again without evidence.

 

So again. Present evidence that your assertions concerning the history of the apocryphal books or admit you were in error over their history. Then, we can move onto your next argument for the "authenticity" of the apocryphal books.

Carm is not verifiable evidence Patriot.  Carm is an opinion, and unfortunately it leaves a lot of the details about this particular subject out of the picture and presents a very lopsided view of where we get our scriptures.

I am sorry, but Carm just does not line up with the historical data on this one.

And I already have presented history of their inclusion in the canons.

What other kind of history are you looking for?

Do you want links?  - like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo

and like this?

http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

• the canon itself purports to give a list of books which were traditionally read in the African churches: “quia a patribus ista accepimus in ecclesia legenda.”

 

Patriot, if you don't accept these canons, why do you use the term  "canon of scripture"  ?

 

[thereselittleflower]

2 hours ago, Qnts2 said:

The beginning of Christianity consisted of all Jewish believers. Jewish people never accepted the apocrypha as scripture.

 

Then why did they use the Septuagint as scripture?  It included all these books in contention here.

The reason why the Early Church used the Septuagint as scripture is because the Jews had been using the Septuagint as scripture for a couple hundred years before Christ was even born.   

The Jews used the Septuagint because Greek was the Lingua Franca of the day and most Jews spoke, read and wrote Greek. 

Today the Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint.

The New Testament, when it quotes the Old Testament, is over 80% of the time quoting the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew version of the Old Testament.  In addition, there are many references to the books in question in the New Testament.

The Septuagint was the scripture of the first christians. This is simply a matter of history.  I don't understand why anyone questions this.   It's very puzzling.

 

 

 

[The_Patriot21]

that is why CARM does not count. When dealing with FACTS, opinion is worthless. 

 

As far as the synod of hippo, and Carthage, all they do is prove my earlier point-yes the apocraphyl books were around during the early church. Some churches did accept them as canon, while others did not. That is why they were in the original Latin Vulgate. Also note, the person who put together the latin vulgate, did not think they belonged-he was strongly against it, but got overruled, in large part because of the church leaders in the time. But, there were just as many leaders in that time, that were anti-apocraphyl books as for. And my point still stands-the catholic church, did not accept it until the date I listed earlier, at that point the only ones against it were the protestents. Before that, even the catholic church was divided on the matter.

 

None of the apostles used the apocryphal books, there arnt even any vague "possible" quotes to them unlike the book of enoch (not saying the bible quotes that either, but there are passages that at least make it believeable) and there is no evidence the early church ever used them. They were around yes-but they were not accepted as canon by the majority of the church in the early few centuries.

 

However, since you finally addressed that issue, how about the issue of contradictions between the apocryphal books and the Bible? Ive listed several-which youve ignored. So please, explain how they can have errors-and still be considered inspired. Especially glaring contradictions.

 

As far as your argument that they used the exact same "Canons" to form our current Bible that they used to say the apocrypha is part of it, the fact that were having this discussion in and of itself proves how false of an argument that is. There were MANY MANY ancient texts that were put together to form the Bible, and many different people that came together several times to discuss this. Important to note, and I touched on this earlier, that while the original latin Vulgate included the apocryphal books, when the KJV was translated from the latin vulgate, they left out the apocryphal books. Why? because the people doing the translating recognized them for what they are-heretical. The NASB was translated from multiple greek texts other then the latin vulgate, and they also, left out the apocryphal books, for the same, obvious reason-they were false.

[thereselittleflower]

12 minutes ago, the_patriot2015 said:

that is why CARM does not count. When dealing with FACTS, opinion is worthless. 

 

As far as the synod of hippo, and Carthage, all they do is prove my earlier point-yes the apocraphyl books were around during the early church. Some churches did accept them as canon, while others did not. That is why they were in the original Latin Vulgate. Also note, the person who put together the latin vulgate, did not think they belonged-he was strongly against it, but got overruled, in large part because of the church leaders in the time. But, there were just as many leaders in that time, that were anti-apocraphyl books as for. And my point still stands-the catholic church, did not accept it until the date I listed earlier, at that point the only ones against it were the protestents. Before that, even the catholic church was divided on the matter.

 

None of the apostles used the apocryphal books, there arnt even any vague "possible" quotes to them unlike the book of enoch (not saying the bible quotes that either, but there are passages that at least make it believeable) and there is no evidence the early church ever used them. They were around yes-but they were not accepted as canon by the majority of the church in the early few centuries.

 

However, since you finally addressed that issue, how about the issue of contradictions between the apocryphal books and the Bible? Ive listed several-which youve ignored. So please, explain how they can have errors-and still be considered inspired. Especially glaring contradictions.

 

As far as your argument that they used the exact same "Canons" to form our current Bible that they used to say the apocrypha is part of it, the fact that were having this discussion in and of itself proves how false of an argument that is. There were MANY MANY ancient texts that were put together to form the Bible, and many different people that came together several times to discuss this. Important to note, and I touched on this earlier, that while the original latin Vulgate included the apocryphal books, when the KJV was translated from the latin vulgate, they left out the apocryphal books. Why? because the people doing the translating recognized them for what they are-heretical. The NASB was translated from multiple greek texts other then the latin vulgate, and they also, left out the apocryphal books, for the same, obvious reason-they were false.

 

Patriot, I am not sure where you are getting your information that some accepted them and some didn't back in the Early Church.    Every canon from each council was in agreement.  

In regards to Jerome, you are mistaken. While he originally considered them uninspired, he did change his mind.

• "What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches?  But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:24-90], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant.  I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us.  If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’"   [Against Rufinius Book 2, Section 33]

 

 

 

 

 

[The_Patriot21]

If he changed his mind later on, it was only under duress or pressure from the church, and none of your evidence (wikipedia, first off is not the best of sources, second off does not prove what you are claiming) shows that the entirety of the early church was in agreement. the links I showed above did prove they were not. The changing of his mind, does not make him right-nor does it mean that everyone else thought that those books were inspired.Your evidence, has come up short, but I do thankyou for actually presenting it, and since we are at an impass here, let us move on to the next point. 

 

Which is the obvious, and blatant, contradictions between the apocraphyl books and the Bible, some of which, I listed earlier.