Apocrypha or no?

Tu Es Petrus said:

Hey, as long as you're getting a Bible with all 72 books in it, and since it has an Imprimatur, you might as well go whole hog and get a better translation. I highly suggest the RSVCE.

Click to expand...

An Imprimatur (from Latin, "let it be printed") is an official declaration from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church that a literary or similar work is free from error in matters of Roman Catholic doctrine and morals, and hence acceptable reading for faithful Roman Catholics.

Click to expand...

Some reasons I choose this translation.

The GNB has been a popular translation. By 1969, Good News for Modern Man had sold 17.5 million copies. By 1971, that number had swelled to 30 million copies. It has been endorsed by Billy Graham and Christian groups such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, and the Presbyterian Church (USA) [2]. The GNB is one of the authorized versions to be used in the Episcopal Church

Click to expand...

I am covered on all fronts.

JHM said:

Personally I read any of the ancient books I can get ahold of. One has to judge them on their merits; but generally I have found them to be what I consider to be canonical. The "Testament of Levi" speaks of "Fire and Ice", (think nuclear winter); the Book of Jasher gives a somewhat more detailed account of the attempt by "Yahweh" to kill Moses; making it clear that this was not GOD; but rather the Destroying Angel. The Book of Adam and Eve describes a manifestation of "God" which endlessly stands guard at one place, where Adam has built an alter to it, and puts sacrifices on that alter which are consumed by a flame leaping out from the Manifestation of "God", (That one fits in nicely with "The Fallen Angels Code" which I discovered when researching the term "Nephilim").The various books of Enoch are fundamental to understanding what the Fallen Angels did; and also understanding the "Great Flood" in scientific terms. (The year went from 360 days to 365 days and the Earth took up its present 23.5 degree inclination from the verticle at that time.) My guess is it got hit by an asteroid which struck in the ocean and penetrated the crust, there by "Opening the fountains of the deep" and bringing on the rains of the flood by causing a large segment of the oceans to literally boil, hence evaporation and rain.

Click to expand...

??????????????????????????

JHM said:

Not sure what the "CE" is but the Revised Standard is GOOD. The New Revised Standard is Better. The Best I have seen is the Jerusalem, though I don't know if you can get it with complete apocrypha.

Click to expand...

CE stands for "Catholic Edition".

My understanding about the New RSV is that it has gender neutral language, and therefore is not as good. It is never good when translators tweek the text just to be politically correct.

And its "deuterocanonicals", not "apocrypha".

Tu Es Petrus said:

CE stands for "Catholic Edition".

My understanding about the New RSV is that it has gender neutral language, and therefore is not as good. It is never good when translators tweek the text just to be politically correct.

And its "deuterocanonicals", not "apocrypha".

Click to expand...

You have to admit Apocrypha has that sexy don't bring her home to momma sound LoL

JacksLadder said:

.......It has been endorsed by Billy Graham and Christian groups such as the Roman Catholic Church, the .......

Click to expand...

Thats a misleading statement. The Catholic Church as a whole has not endorsed it. The Imprimatur really only means that there is nothing CONTRARY to the Catholic faith in the book. But it does NOT mean that is a good translation. Most Catholic theologians recommend either the RSV (CE) or the NAB (CE). The NAB is what we read at Mass. But the English translation of the Catechism quotes the RSV.

The deciding factor between the two for me is that Jimmy Akin recommends the RSV. Here is an article he wrote about it: LINK

Tu Es Petrus said:

Thats a misleading statement. The Catholic Church as a whole has not endorsed it. The Imprimatur really only means that there is nothing CONTRARY to the Catholic faith in the book. But it does NOT mean that is a good translation. Most Catholic theologians recommend either the RSV (CE) or the NAB (CE). The NAB is what we read at Mass. But the English translation of the Catechism quotes the RSV.

The deciding factor between the two for me is that Jimmy Akin recommends the RSV. Here is an article he wrote about it: LINK

Click to expand...

Interesting I am reading it right now.

I will now have two Bibles a NIV(had it for years) a NKJV NT a Orthodox Study Bible(NT only) and now this one.

JacksLadder said:

Interesting I am reading it right now.

Click to expand...

I'm glad

JacksLadder said:

I will now have two Bibles a NIV(had it for years) a NKJV NT a Orthodox Study Bible(NT only) and now this one.

Click to expand...

The more the merrier, I say. No translation is perfect.

Also, it depends on WHY you are buying a Bible. If you just want to read, then the one that reads easiest for you is probably okay. But if you want to do serious study, then you want the one that is most faithful to the original manuscripts. And in my opinion that one is the RSV-CE.

I own an RSV, an NAB, and a Douay-Rheims.

BTW: I think the Good News Bible has even MORE books than a Catholic Bible. I think it has the 3rd Macabees plus a couple of others that we do not believe are inspired.

Very interesting , I did not know the Good news Bible was on the far end of readability vs precision. I loved the end of the article.

In the end, there is no good reason to select only one translation of the Bible. A Catholic should collect several versions, remaining aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each. Often it is possible to get a better sense of what is being said in a passage by comparing several different translations.

The bottom line: Which is the best version for you? A possibly apocryphal anecdote about Billy Graham has the answer. When asked which Bible version is the best, he replied, "The one you will read."

Click to expand...

Tu Es Petrus said:

I'm glad

The more the merrier, I say. No translation is perfect.

Also, it depends on WHY you are buying a Bible. If you just want to read, then the one that reads easiest for you is probably okay. But if you want to do serious study, then you want the one that is most faithful to the original manuscripts. And in my opinion that one is the RSV-CE.

I own an RSV, an NAB, and a Douay-Rheims.

Click to expand...

I guess right now I want to get re acquainted with Christianity after my absence. I was brought up a Fundamentalist Protestant, my mother and my brother have converted(mother re-converted) to Catholicism.
My father is a Sermon on the Mount Evangelical to the core. So at least wherever I end up their will be a family member there with me LoL.

I also recently saw a History Channel show on the banned books of the Bible and did not realize the Duteroconnical books were mentioned by Jesus in the NT.(Book of Enoch I think)

JacksLadder said:

I guess right now I want to get re acquainted with Christianity after my absence. I was brought up a Fundamentalist Protestant, my mother and my brother have converted(mother re-converted) to Catholicism.

Click to expand...

Ahhaaaaahhhhh. Now its starting to make a little more sense to me.

JacksLadder said:

My father is a Sermon on the Mount Evangelical to the core.......

Click to expand...

I like to think we all are.

JacksLadder said:

......So at least wherever I end up their will be a family member there with me LoL.

Click to expand...

LOL

JacksLadder said:

I also recently saw a History Channel show on the banned books of the Bible and did not realize the Duteroconnical books were mentioned by Jesus in the NT.(Book of Enoch I think)

Click to expand...

Yes. Here is a whole list of quotes for you:
Scripture Catholic - DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

tu es petrus said:

The NAB is what we read at Mass.

Click to expand...

There's a podcast done by a Roman Catholic priest that I listen to from time to time. I thought he said once that the translation for the lectionary readings is its own translation and that they are not available in a regular Bible. Are the readings actually revisions of the NAB or is it exactly the same?

wildboar said:

There's a podcast done by a Roman Catholic priest that I listen to from time to time. I thought he said once that the translation for the lectionary readings is its own translation and that they are not available in a regular Bible. Are the readings actually revisions of the NAB or is it exactly the same?

Click to expand...

My understanding is that they're the same. But I admit I am not 100% sure about that. Next time I go I'll have to grab a missal and see.

Only 66 books of the bible have God's fingerprints on them. These "fingerprints" of God include characteristics reflected in the answers to these questions:

1. Was it written by a prophet of God such as Moses or Paul (Ex 4:1-9, 1 Cor 9:1)?

2. Was it confirmed by acts of God (Heb 1:1, 2:3-4)?

3. Did the human author tell the truth of God known from other revelations and facts (Dt 18:20-22)?

4. Did it have the power of God to edify (2 Tim 3:16-17, Heb 4:12)?

5. Was it accepted and collected by people of God?

The apocrypha has no place in the bible for many reasons:

1. Unlike the canonical books, the apocryphal books do not have either an explicit or implicit claim to be inspired by God. In fact, some even disclaim being prophetic (1 Mac 9:27, 14:41).

2. They were written between 250 bc and the 1st century ad, but according to judaism, the Spirit of prophecy had departed from israel at around 400 bc.

3. Josephus gave the names and numbers of the authentic Jewish OT, which correspond exactly with the 39 books of our OT (Against Apion 1.8).

4. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles every cited any of the Apocrypha in the NT as inspired.

5. Most of the early church fathers in the first 4 centuries did not accept these books as inspired.

6. 5th century Roman Catholic scholar Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate Bible, emphatically rejected the apocrypha.

7. The acceptance of these books in 1546 by the RC church is unjustified since (a) they were the wrong people to make that decision (Christians, not Jews), (b) done at the wrong time (16th century), (c) done for the wrong reasons (to support prayer for the dead 2 Mac 12:45, in response to the reformation and biblical teaching to the contrary Heb 9:27).

8. They contain many heresies and doctrinal errors

9. Some claim to contain childhood miracles of Jesus, but John said He did not perform any miracles until adulthood (jn 2:11)

10. They are rejected by every section of official Christendom.

In summation, only the 66 books of the common canon claim to be and prove to be the divine, inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God; written by prophets of God, collected by people of God, and preserved by the providence of God for the spiritual edification of the people of God (2 tim 3:16-17)

Your criteria is a man-made tradition which nullifies the word of God.

There are 72 boooks in the Bible, and there always were, until the protestants ripped 6 books out in the 16th century.

It looks like from this article that there were some revisions made to the lectionary in 1997: The Roman Catholic Conflict over Biblical Translation This site claims that a revision to the Old Testament of the NAB should be available early this year: USCCB - (NAB) - Frequently Asked Questions

wildboar said:

It looks like from this article that there were some revisions made to the lectionary in 1997: The Roman Catholic Conflict over Biblical Translation This site claims that a revision to the Old Testament of the NAB should be available early this year: USCCB - (NAB) - Frequently Asked Questions

Click to expand...

Your second link is definitely authoratative - for American Catholics at least.

Regarding the OP, here are seven answers to seven common false accusations:

1. Why did the Catholic Church add seven books—1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith—to the Old Testament? John forbids this: “I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book” (Rev. 22:18).

It’s always good to start a disagreement with agreement. So before you explain the Catholic canon of the Old Testament to Protestant, agree that no one has the right to add or subtract books from the Bible. That’s about as much common ground as you may have to build on.

Quoting Rev. 22:18 against Catholics is ineffective. For one thing, the next verse could be used by the Catholics against Protestants with the same opposite force: "[A]nd if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book" (Rev. 22:19).

But neither verse applies to this debate. John is speaking only about the book of Revelation, not the entire Bible. None of the apostles knew the Bible. The books that comprise Scripture were not canonized until centuries after Christ. Even when that list was established in A.D. 382, the writings were not collected into a single book until after the printing press came into existence. Even Guttenburg’s Bible was published in more than one volume.

Besides, the Greek word here for "book" is more accurately translated as "scroll." The book of Revelation likely was written on a scroll, but it would have been impossible for the entire Bible to be.


2. Since the Jews were “entrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2), shouldn’t we have the same Old Testament canon as they do?

Though this is not a sound objection, it at least requires a detailed answer.

God’s written word was entrusted to the Jews, but he never provided them with an inspired table of contents. For that reason, there has been ample disagreement over the canon—especially among Jews.

The Old Testament took over one thousand years to compile, and the list of inspired books grew continuously as God’s word was revealed. This gradual accretion indicated that the Jewish people felt no need for a static canon but remained open to further revelation. They divided their sacred writings into three parts: the law, the prophets, and the writings (which were canonized in that order). By the time of Christ, the law—and most likely the prophets—was set in number, but the writings were not yet closed.

In Jesus’ time, the Samaritans and Sadducees accepted the law but rejected the prophets and writings. The Pharisees accepted all three. Other Jews used a Greek version (the Septuagint) that included the seven disputed books, known as the deuterocanonicals. Still other Jews used a version of the canon that is reflected in the Septaguint and included versions of the seven books in question in their original Hebrew or Aramaic.

When the Christians claimed that they had written new scriptures, Jews from a rabbinical school in Javneh met around year 80 and, among other things, discussed the canon. They did not include the New Testament nor the seven Old Testament works and portions of Daniel and Esther. This still did not settle the Pharisee canon, since not all Jews agreed with or even knew about the decision at Javneh. Rabbis continued to debate it into the second and third centuries. Even today, the Ethiopian Jews use the same Old Testament as Catholics.

If anything is certain, it is that there was no common canon among the Jews at the time of Christ.


3. But the seven deuterocanonical books were added at the Council of Trent (1546) in order to justify Catholic doctrinal inventions.

This is a myth that always comes up but is simple to answer. At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).

Further, if Catholics added the deuterocanonical books in 1546, then Martin Luther beat us to the punch: He included them in his first German translation, published the Council of Trent. They can also be found in the first King James Version (1611) and in the first Bible ever printed, the Guttenberg Bible (a century before Trent). In fact, these books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out.

Luther had a tendency to grade the Bible according to his preferences. In his writings on the New Testament, he noted that the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were inferior to the rest, and they followed "the certain, main books of the New Testament." In 1519, this same attitude fueled his debate against Johannes Eck on the topic of purgatory. Luther undermined Eck’s proof text of 2 Maccabees 12 by devaluing the deuterocanonical books as a whole. He argued that the New Testament authors had never quoted from the seven books, so they were in a different class than the rest of the Bible.


4. Well, if the New Testament never quotes from these seven books, doesn’t that indicate that they were not considered to be inspired?

Following this reasoning, we’d have to throw out the eight other Old Testament books—such as the Song of Songs—that are also not quoted in the New Testament. If we’re not willing to do that, we have to agree that the absence of a quote in the New Testament does not suggest that a book is not inspired.

Though there are no quotes, the New Testament does make numerous allusions to the deuterocanonical books. For one strong example, examine Hebrews 11:35: "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release that they might rise again to a better life." Nowhere in the Protestant Old Testament can this story be found. One must look to a Catholic Bible to read the story in 2 Maccabees 7.


5. But the book of Judith says that Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Assyrians, when he was really king of the Babylonians. If a book has errors, it can’t be inspired.

In reading Scripture, it is imperative that we understand the genre of the work. Is it a historical passage? An apocalyptic one? A parable? A proverb? Knowing this influences how the book should be read. When Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds (Matt.13:32), he is not providing a treatise on botany. After all, there are seeds smaller than the mustard seed. When Jesus spoke in parables, the people understood that he was telling a story, and they did not expect it to conform to historical or scientific precision.

The same goes with the book of Judith. "Judith" means "lady Jew," and she personifies the nation of Israel, as "Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyrians" personifies the enemies of the nation. The Jews of the time were aware that Nebuchadnezzar was not the king of the Assyrians but that the Babylonians and Assyrians were two of the nation’s worst foes joined into one by the author of Judith for the sake of parable.


6. Which translation did the first Christians use?

Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books. For this reason, the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books" (, 53). The authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagint—over 300 times.


7. Didn’t Jerome and Augustine disagree about the deuterocanonical books?

Yes, as did other early Christians. Numerous Church Fathers quoted the deuterocanonical books as Scripture (see The Old Testament Canon ), while some did not.

Jerome appears to have rejected most of the deuterocanonical parts of Scripture. But he did accept portions and included all seven books in his Latin translation of Scripture, known as the Vulgate. Ultimately, he recognized that the Church alone had the authority to determine the canon.

Since there was disagreement between some Church Fathers, it became obvious that no individual could provide an infallible list of inspired books. The bottom line: "We have no other assurance that the books of Moses, the four Gospels, and the other books are the true word of God," wrote Augustine, "but by the canon of the Catholic Church."

Since it is unreasonable to expect every person to read all of the books of antiquity and judge for himself if they are inspired, the question boils down to whose authority is to be trusted in this matter. One must either trust a rabbinical school that rejected the New Testament 60 years after Christ established a Church, or one must trust the Church he established.

Which deserves our trust? Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John "We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."

source: LINK

Tu Es Petrus said:

Regarding the OP, here are seven answers to seven common false accusations:


source: LINK

Click to expand...

And I suppose that the catholic website from which you quote has no axe to grind? Nothing biased from their perspective at all

lenpettis74 said:

Only 66 books of the bible have God's fingerprints on them. These "fingerprints" of God include characteristics reflected in the answers to these questions:

1. Was it written by a prophet of God such as Moses or Paul (Ex 4:1-9, 1 Cor 9:1)?

2. Was it confirmed by acts of God (Heb 1:1, 2:3-4)?

3. Did the human author tell the truth of God known from other revelations and facts (Dt 18:20-22)?

4. Did it have the power of God to edify (2 Tim 3:16-17, Heb 4:12)?

5. Was it accepted and collected by people of God?

Click to expand...

Of course this is your fingerprint, not like Scriptures themselves give a list of requirements that books must meet in order to be deemed Scripture. You accept 27 books in the NT, not because Scriptures tells you so, but because the Church in the 4th Century, in several councils and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, proclaim that to be so. And every Christian since then abided by that proclamation and that is the reason why you have 27 books in your NT. For four centuries, Christians did not have a NT canon to go by.

lenpettis74 said:

1. Unlike the canonical books, the apocryphal books do not have either an explicit or implicit claim to be inspired by God. In fact, some even disclaim being prophetic (1 Mac 9:27, 14:41).

Click to expand...

So? Neither does Esther or Proverbs. In fact, Esther in the Hebrew version never mention God! It is strange that the Book of Esther, in the Hebrew Version, does not contain any references to "Thou Saith your Lord God". It doesn't claim to be inspired nor to be prophetic. We also do not know who wrote the book (like several OT books as well as the NT [The four Gospels for instance]). The same goes for Song of Solomon (a very controversial book among early Jews and Christians). By your standards, these book shouldn't even be in your Bible. You should have 64 books...no.... less, as I proved below. Since when must a book have a explicit or implicit claim to inspired by God? Only in your mind is this so. Since when a book must prophetic to be inspired? Only in your mind is this so.

lenpettis74 said:

2. They were written between 250 bc and the 1st century ad, but according to judaism, the Spirit of prophecy had departed from israel at around 400 bc.

Click to expand...

Yes, according to Judaism. Judaism is not Christianity. Second, the Book of Baruch was written in 596 BC and the Epistle of Jeremiah was written in 597 BC.

lenpettis74 said:

3. Josephus gave the names and numbers of the authentic Jewish OT, which correspond exactly with the 39 books of our OT (Against Apion 1.8).

Click to expand...

Yes, and he also rejected Christ and every NT book in his declaration (might as well burn your NT since you see him as a authoritative figure). Jews did not have a Bible canon until 90AD in the council of Jarmina. His statement nor this council was blinding on entire Jewish community, since the Ethiopian Jews decided to keep the deuterocanonical books in there canon, even to this day (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147). It is interesting Protestants main argument is that "Jews didn't accept them". First, not every Jews, ancient and modern, reject them. Second, we do not follow what some Christ-hated Jews said. There have no authority in the Church. The question to most Protestants is not "Why do you listen to Jews instead of Christ' Church for the Canon of Scriptures?" but "Why do you listen to some Jewish sects while ignoring other Jewish sects that did and still accept the deuterocanonical books?". The Jews was given the oracles of God, yet they could not decide what books were Scripture or not. Christ hated Jews, in a council, do not have the authority to declare what Scripture or not. Of course the Early Christians didn't think so because they accepted these books as Scriptures.

lenpettis74 said:

4. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles every cited any of the Apocrypha in the NT as inspired.

Click to expand...

So? They neither quoted or alluded to Esther, [SIZE=+1]Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum. Must we burn these books as well? And since when must a book be cited by Jesus and the Holy Apostles to be true (this is a "fingerprint" not mention in Scriptures themselves)? If citation equals inspiration, do you also [/SIZE]accept the book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (quoted by St. Jude), and the writings of the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander (quoted by St. Paul in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Titus)? It is a safe to say that direct quotation or reference in the New Testament to any book, or the lack thereof, does not prove or disprove canonicity.

That being said, there are references to the deuterocanionical books in the NT, few are undeniable, cf. Heb 11:35-37 referenced 2 Macc. 7:1-42;2 Macc. 5:27. Even my Protestant Study Bible [The MacArthur Study Bible] admit this is a reference to 2 Macc 7:1-42;2 Macc 5:27 even though the author reject the deuterocanonical books (as do my other Protestant Bible: King James Version Study Bible). Protestant Preacher John MacArthur and those who participated in making the "KJV Study Bible" were not biased. Why? Because although they rejected these books, that didn't prevent them from recognizing a connection between the two books. Heb 11:35-37 can not be found anywhere in the OT but this place. But then again, there is no reason for you to say that there exist no references to these books in the NT. That doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Also, Jesus was a Jew, and as Jews he would have celebrated the Feast of Dedication (or the Feast of Lights, an eight-day holiday commemorating the rededication of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem at the time of the Maccabees Revoult of the 2nd Century BCE). It is mention in the Book of Maccabees (This winter-time feast is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible) (John 10:22).

lenpettis74 said:

5. Most of the early church fathers in the first 4 centuries did not accept these books as inspired.

Click to expand...

This shows that you are ignorant of the Holy Fathers of the Church. You neither have read there writings nor study them. Let see what those WHO HAVE study them say: Read J.N.D Kelly "Early Christian Doctrines" (pg. 53), Brenton (The Septuagint with Apocrypha, pg 1), Thomas C. Oden (Ancient Christian Commentary). All these are Protestant Scholars and Historians who say that all the Early Christians accepted these books as inspired. Renowned Protestant Scholar J.N.D Kelly, who spent years studying them, gave quotes from every Church Father in the first 4 centuries to prove they held them as Scriptures. A careful reading of there writings, which you fail to do, shows this. Don't mention the Early Church Fathers as proof if you have little or no knowledge of them.

lenpettis74 said:

6. 5th century Roman Catholic scholar Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate Bible, emphatically rejected the apocrypha.

Click to expand...

He may have doubt about them at first, yet he accepted them and obey the Church.

"I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS." Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159.

There are many other writings of St. Jerome which he quoted these books as Scriptures. I myself have a library of his writings. And let say St.Jerome did reject them. He is only one man. He does not represent the whole Church.

lenpettis74 said:

7. The acceptance of these books in 1546 by the RC church is unjustified since (a) they were the wrong people to make that decision (Christians, not Jews), (b) done at the wrong time (16th century), (c) done for the wrong reasons (to support prayer for the dead 2 Mac 12:45, in response to the reformation and biblical teaching to the contrary Heb 9:27).

Click to expand...

Who cares? The Eastern Apostolic Churches has always accepted them. All the Ancient Apostolic Churches accept Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sairch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees, and additions to Esther, Daniel as Scriptures. All the Ancient Apostolic Churches of the East accept 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabess, Prayer of Manesseh, Psalms 151 as Canonical Scriptures as well. Who cares about the Council of Trent? Second, earlier councils (not Roman Catholic councils) confess these to be Scriptures, as they, once and for all, declare the NT books (Council of Rome, Hippo, etc). Before the Great Schism, both West and East accepted these books. The Roman Catholic Church (the names given to the Western Church after the Great Schism) didn't add these books, only declare them to inspired once and for all. And please refrain from posting any Anti-Catholic remarks (such as "The Early Councils were Roman Catholic" or by labeling St. Jerome a "Roman Catholic"). We have enough of that in this site.

lenpettis74 said:

8. They contain many heresies and doctrinal errors

Click to expand...

Yes, I heard that before, yet upon examining these so called heresies and doctrinal errors, I found that those who say such a thing never took a time to actually investigate these errors. If they did, they will find out that such errors does not exist.

lenpettis74 said:

9. Some claim to contain childhood miracles of Jesus, but John said He did not perform any miracles until adulthood (jn 2:11).

Click to expand...

You have the wrong books in the mind. Many of the Apocrypha writings of the NT does contain childhood miracles of Jesus. Not so with the OT "Apocrypha" (using Protestant terminology here).

lenpettis74 said:

10. They are rejected by every section of official Christendom.

Click to expand...

For real? What's every section of official Christendom to you? Protestants? They are in minority my friend, and not every Protestant reject them 100%. The Anglican Church used them in there liturgy and some of them believe they are inspired (although one can argue that the Anglican Church has a high view of these books, it seems that these books in the Anglican Church has a special use for doctrine, not like that of much of the Old Testament). The Majority of Christians today accept them as Scriptures (Catholics [Latin/East), Eastern/Western Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians). They are rejected by a small group of Christendom!

lenpettis74 said:

In summation, only the 66 books of the common canon claim to be and prove to be the divine, inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God; written by prophets of God, collected by people of God, and preserved by the providence of God for the spiritual edification of the people of God (2 tim 3:16-17)

Click to expand...

In summation: You have not prove they are uninspired. Your proofs are more fantasies than facts. All your claims I have seen in many Protestants sites online. You have 66 books in your Bible only because some reformers in the 16th Century said so not because that was the canon of the Early Church. Never in history have the Church proclaim the Bible to be only 66 books. The NT books was collected by people of God, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to be canonical and Scriptures. Yet these same people of God accepted the deuterocanonical books

All your so called reasons are nothing more than popular Protestant fallacy propaganda.

lenpettis74 said:

And I suppose that the catholic website from which you quote has no axe to grind? Nothing biased from their perspective at all

Click to expand...

And I suppose you don't have any biases whatsoever?

You told Tu Es Petrus "Clearly your inability to refute any of my points on a factual basis means it may have been better for you not to respond and seem foolish rather than respond and prove it. Revisionist history is the foundation of sand on which your faith is built."

Yet, you was unable to refute the claims he posted! Bias or not, you clearly show inability to refute the author claims. Perhaps you should listen to your own advice: "Be careful to remove the plank from your eye before pointing out another's sliver..." Perhaps it will be best to refrain from giving advice since you do not practice what you preach.

In IC.XC,
Ramon

P.S, Reject these books if you want, but the above reasons you gave are not valid arguments against the exclusion of these books from the Bible.

ironic cause the book of enoch IS quoted in the NT

and I posted that