Twice in the Old Testament, references are made to the book of Jasher, thereby making it an inherently sacred work. But it was left out of scripture. It also gives witness to much of what Moses wrote about in the Pentateuch. Without it, we only have one witness to such things - being Moses himself - making all of that, thereby, in his own words, unestablished.
It may be that some future revelations of divine intent may appear if we apply this basic premise of Moses insomuch as officially canonizing Jasher.
Likewise, the writings of Enoch are also omitted from scripture even though they are quoted by Jude in one place and mention of his testament about the eternal life of Abel, appears in Hebrews, which we consider sacred scripture.
If such scripture is truly sacred, it must be consistent in the very integrity it claims to purport. Should it not be, should it not live up to it's own integrity, we must question why? I believe there are good things to be discovered in the questions that a critical examination of scripture can present.
__________________ First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. - Mahatma Ghandi
Last edited by BethelArsonist; 6th June 2007 at 02:56 AM.
Well, I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but if the books of Jasher and Enoch were to have been included, the Jews would have included them. They did not - we do not. The books are available - for free on the internet - so no one is stopping you from reading them. They are fascinating - especially Jasher.
We are taught to think the church was meeting the suggestion of King James when they compiled the Bible, in the idea of revealing the inner works of the priesthood to the public. But this is a lie. Obviously the church had reasons of it's own not to fully disclose to the public what scripture itself says is full and appropriate.
According to Moses and his precept for establishing something, we have two witnesses in these two omissions that the church of the 17th century has cheated the world of God.
I could be wrong but I was under the impression that both the Book of Jasher and Enoch were still missing at the time the KJV was compiled.
I do agree that they have scriptural validation for being included today.
Is this thread about the KJV or about missing books or a combo of the two?
KJV - nice translation; now outdated because of further textual discoveries; badly outdated because of obsolete language - STILL ABLE TO BRING SINNERS TO SALVATION!
Moses said that two witnesses establish a matter. But the compilers of the King James Bible obviously had no concern for obeying biblical precepts in the way they compiled scripture.
Twice in the Old Testament, references are made to the book of Jasher, thereby making it an inherently sacred work. But it was left out of scripture. It also gives witness to much of what Moses wrote about in the Pentateuch. Without it, we only have one witness to much of what Moses did - being Moses himself - making all of that, thereby, in his own words, unfounded, and therefore unworthy of belief, if we believe him.
There are a couple of factual inaccuracies in your post. First of all, the translators who worked on producing the Authorized Version of 1611, did not "compile" the scriptures. The Greek text from which they worked was one put together by Erasmus 100 years earlier.
However, Erasmus did not compile the scriptures either; he followed the canonical tradition that had been in place for more than a millenium: 39 OT books, 12 Apocrypha and 27 NT books.
If you wish to blame someone for the canon, you'll need to place the blame a whole lot furhter back than King Jimmy.
About Jasher, if you and I were to agree today on the inspired nature of that book, which version would we look to? There are several books out there purporting to be the Biblically referred one. Another question, why were there no fragments of Jasher found in the Dead Sea Scrolls? They found all the OT there, they found the apochrypha and Enoch and a whole lotta other shtuff too. Why no Jasher? Perhaps it was already lost before the time of Christ, unless you can point us to the right one.
About Moshe, concerning whom you said we cannot believe because he has no other witness, all the prophets spoke under God's authority and thus God was the other witness.
Originally Posted by BethelArsonist
Likewise, the writings of Enoch are also omitted from scripture even though they are quoted by Jude in one place and his testament about the eternal life of Abel, which is mentioned in Hebrews, also appears in what we consider sacred scripture.
Suffice it for now, the people who made sure Enoch was not canonized lived some 1,200 years before King James and his band of cohorts.
Originally Posted by BethelArsonist
If such scripture is truly sacred, it must be consistent in the very integrity it claims to purport. Should it not be, should it not live up to it's own integrity, how then can we believe anything in it?
We are taught to think the church was meeting the suggestion of King James when they compiled the Bible, in the idea of revealing the inner works of the priesthood to the public. But this is a lie. Obviously the church had reasons of it's own not to fully disclose to the public what scripture itself says is full and appropriate.
This historical explanation you pose here bears no resemblance to anything I know that happened at the time of the KJV's origin. Please explain.
Originally Posted by BethelArsonist
According to Moses and his precept for establishing something, we have two witnesses in these two omissions that the church of the 17th century has cheated the world of God.
If you read a little more history you may be able to make a better argument next time.
Last edited by SummaScriptura; 5th June 2007 at 06:00 PM.
Thanx for your input, Gojira69. I did not see any cause to edit my initial post after the subsequent replies. And perhaps I could have sounded less protestant in my terminlogy. I also knew the KJV was not compiled in 1607-1611, so I should have said "interpreted" into English. I do not know, however, if such compilation was all that the priesthood considered inspired at that time. And it is my understanding, heresay as it may be through church babble, that King James had intended the KJV to be for everyone instead of just the priesthood.
I agree with most everything else you said. And I wish I had time to make a thorough comparative study of the different versions of Jasher. I find it very fascinating. But I do think it is necessary as the second witness to Moses, particularly because "the people" do not have a direct line with God to confirm things.
__________________ First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. - Mahatma Ghandi
Thanx for your input, Gojira69. I did not see any cause to edit my initial post after the subsequent replies. And perhaps I could have sounded less protestant in my terminlogy. I also knew the KJV was not compiled in 1607-1611, so I should have said "interpreted" into English. I do not know, however, if such compilation was all that the priesthood considered inspired at that time. And it is my understanding, heresay as it may be through church babble, that King James had intended the KJV to be for everyone instead of just the priesthood.
I agree with most everything else you said. And I wish I had time to make a thorough comparative study of the different versions of Jasher. I find it very fascinating. But I do think it is necessary as the second witness to Moses, particularly because "the people" do not have a direct line with God to confirm things.
I completely agree it IS fascinating. I'm unfamiliar with Jasher and honestly am unsure of the history of each of the purported versions out there. I certainly will need to look into it soon. I'm totally on-board with Enoch as you can see from my site: http://www.thebookofenoch.info/ I'm a novice with the apocrypha, and picked up a wonderful copy today. I intend to give this a serious examination on vacation next month.
Here is an interesting quote to get your engine going... from the "Apocrypha",
Originally Posted by the author of 2 Esdras in 14:44-48 (or RCC 4 Ezra)
So during the forty days ninety-four books were written. And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying, "Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people. For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge." And I did so.
Revised Standard Version
The writer of 2 Esdras claims in addition to the 24 books of the TaNaKh (our O.T.) there are another 70 books which are beneficial but will not be for general use. That's a pretty good definition of "apocrypha" by the way.
I can say I have not made a thorough study of the Apocrypha, but I have read it through and found it rather disappointing. What I have found much more interesting, however, is the Babylonian Talmud. Not the Jerusalem Talmud. But the earlier one.
It is very enlightening in regards to how the ancient Jews thought, by which (by the way), I do not mean the Jews of the captivity, the true heirs. It illustrates quite clearly that there are two completely different divisions of Jewry - that these are very distinctly different in thought from the ancient prophets. (see John 8:37-on) And we only hear about one of them today. This earlier Talmud tells of their history and manners apart from the true Judah. It is that of Edom. This did not used to be such a hidden truth. In fact, the Hebrew Encyclopdedia of 1925 actually contains the quote : Edom is in modern Jewry.
I don't think they are so open about that any more.
__________________ First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. - Mahatma Ghandi
Linear Mode
