|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:04 am
The Apocrypha is not inspired scripture.
REASONS AS OF WHY 1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew). All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin. 2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration. 3. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. 4. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places. 5. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954: Basis for the doctrine of purgatory: 2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin. Salvation by works: Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin. Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin. Magic: Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore. Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception): Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled. 6. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation. 7. No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times. 8. Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East. 9. Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired. 10. Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon. 11. The apocrypha wasn't included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:09 am
Wasn't the Apocrypha in the King James?
The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God. As books of some historical value (e.g., details of the Maccabean revolt), the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material. This followed the format that Luther had used. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:
"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read." King James Version Defended page 98.
In 1599, TWELVE YEARS BEFORE the King James Bible was published, King James himself said this about the Apocrypha: "As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said before)..." King James Charles Stewart Basilicon Doron, page 13
In his, "A Premonition to All Most Mightie Monarches,"--found in his Workes (a collection of the king's writings)--King James said this-- "...Is it a small corrupting of the Scriptures to make all, or the most part of the Apocrypha of equall faith with the canonicall Scriptures...?"
Not only this, but the sixth article of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (1571 edition. The Church of England published the Authorized King James Version) states that
(1) the Old and New Testaments are the Bible-- In the name of the Holy, we do vnderstande those canonical bookes of the olde and newe Testament, of whose authoritie was never any doubt in the Churche... (2) the apocrypha is not the Bible-- And the other bookes, (as Hierome sayeth), the Churche doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not applie them to establish any doctrene. Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977, Vol. III, pp. 489-491.
The Hampton Court Document came as a result of the famous Hampton Court Conference of 1604 when King James specially commanded the translation of the Bible that would one day bear his name. Concerning the apocrypha and the Church of England, it states--
The Apocrypha, that hath some repugnancy to the canonical scriptures, shall not be read...
Select Statutes and Other Constitutional Documents Illustrative of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I, edited by G.W. Prothero, Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, 1894, p. 416
The Apocrypha began to be omitted from the Authorized Version in 1629. Puritans and Presbyterians lobbied for the complete removal of the Apocrypha from the Bible and in 1825 the British and Foreign Bible Society agreed. From that time on, the Apocrypha has been eliminated from practically all English Bibles--Catholic Bibles and some pulpit Bibles excepted.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:12 am
Not even all Catholic "Church Fathers" believed the Apocrypha was scripture.
Not that this really means anything. The truth is not validated by the false. Nevertheless, this may be of interest to some... Jerome (340-420) rejected the Apocrypha:
"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine." Jerome Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon
According to Edward Hills in The King James Version Defended p. 98 other famous Catholics with this viewpoint include Augustine (354-430 who at first defended the Apocrypha as canonical), Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), Cardinal Ximenes, and Cardinal Cajetan.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:50 pm
So... by that logic, those books were in use by the early Christians.
One of the reasons they were rejected by the news was because this new cult had sprung up around Jerusalem and these new books pointed to the messiah. Quite nearly all Jews of this era were using the Septuagint, as it had been in existence for about two hundred years. Indeed, the bible had existed as it was for about a thousand years before Martin Luther decided that some parts of it did not mesh with his protestant ideals. He also wanted to strike the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon.
It seems that you are altering the bible to fit your practices instead of altering your practices to fit scripture.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
Quotable Conversationalist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quotable Conversationalist
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:08 pm
By the way, that selection in Tobit reads:
5The angel then told him: “Slit the fish open and take out its gall, heart, and liver, and keep them with you; but throw away the other entrails. Its gall, heart, and liver are useful for medicine.”* 6After Tobiah had slit the fish open, he put aside the gall, heart, and liver. Then he roasted and ate part of the fish; the rest he salted and kept for the journey.
Raphael’s Instructions. Afterward the two of them traveled on together till they drew near to Media. 7Then the young man asked the angel this question: “Brother Azariah, what medicine is in the fish’s heart, liver, and gall?” 8He answered: “As for the fish’s heart and liver, if you burn them to make smoke in the presence of a man or a woman who is afflicted by a demon or evil spirit, any affliction will flee and never return.
Revelation, chapter 22: 16“I, Jesus, sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the root and offspring of David,* the bright morning star.”j
17The Spirit and the bride* say, “Come.” Let the hearer say, “Come.” Let the one who thirsts come forward, and the one who wants it receive the gift of life-giving water.k
18I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:31 pm
@ brother_edward
If you want to hold a discussion, you do not have to be rude.
I have asked my pastor about this and have showed him this forum, he agrees with the reasoning that is posed. We do not include those books because they are not cannon, some sects do however most do not. But we need to remember that we all believe in the same God and that we shouldn't be auguring or bickering over things like this. Also I checked her sources she copied it as is from the site, if you believe that there is a typo, or that something isn't right then you should post a source so that we know you aren't making it up. Also typos happen, no need to be rude about it. heart
God bless. heart
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|