Has Anyone ever thought of this?

[Flynmonkie]

Ok I have been studying the various forms of faith. I am beginning to wonder a few things.

Up and until recently I had no idea about the Deuterocanon or the Apocrypha which ever you deem to call these books. Some feel they are not inspired. Which really concerned me if there might be more information the Bible is lacking. Especially because some of the great theologians that were involved in the decision to remove them from my KJV Bible were men and we all know we cannot be 100% right. I am still studying these books however- yet to make an opinion.

I have to say honestly it shook me. Not my faith in him, but that I might have been given more mis-information in my life. But I kept thinking about the verses that God says he will protect His word. (2 Timothy 3:15-17 & for the life of me I cannot find it, so if you do could you send it my way) I also think about the verses where God says he would not give us anything we could not understand. He is not the author of confusion.

That being said. I am wondering if
A.) The Bible possibly has been tampered with and he brings us to his word in his way, based on our knowledge or capability even through the Bible? (God overcoming this despite translation error which I have never believed to be true – everything I have read is that the bible is 98.5% accurate and there are no translation errors in any religious doctrine but this could be biased opinion. I can say anything I study comes full circle, no hidden understanding other than what God I feel deems appropriatly His and His alone to know)
B.) The Bible is accurate, however people are studying more of opinions of man than staying in prayer and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide them on His path to the answers we seek?

I have given everything I have to him, or better said, nothing I have is mine, it is His. When I hit a brick wall and I am totally confused, I pray…. he always leads me to where he wants me (even if I do not like it!)

What are your thoughts on this? Has this ever happend to you?

 

[Reformationist]

Especially because some of the great theologians that were involved in the decision to remove them from my KJV Bible were men and we all know we cannot be 100% right.

There is no basis for this statement. We most certainly can be 100% right. What we cannot be, as created beings, is infallible. Infallibility and inerrancy are similar but definitely distinct qualities. Look:

1 + 2 = 3

I am 100% correct in the above mathmatical statement. IOW, I was inerrant, or free from error. I was not, however, infallible. I could have mistyped or showed poor focus and made a mathmatical error. IOW, I was capable of error.

I have to say honestly it shook me. Not my faith in him, but that I might have been given more mis-information in my life.

I will tell you that I believe God preserved the church from error in the compilation of the Bible. As for whether you've been misinformed on the understanding of it, well, let's just say that we should all thank God that our salvation isn't dependant upon the accuracy of our views.

everything I have read is that the bible is 98.5% accurate and there are no translation errors in any religious doctrine but this could be biased opinion.

No Christian theologian that I know of believes that our translations are infallible. It is the original manuscripts, which we do not have access to at this time, which are infallible. That does not mean that we cannot reconstruct the content of the Gospel with remarkable accuracy. Dr. Sproul mentions an example of this in one of his books. There is a yardstick kept at the recognized center for standards and measurements. If that were lost we would still be able to reconstruct it with remarkable degree of accuracy. The Bible translations are considered in the same way. There are poor translations out there and there are good ones. Again, it is a good thing we are not saved based on our ability to completely and accurately apprehend the Gospel.

If possible, don't feel too anxious about missing out on doctrine. Have faith that God has preserved His Word in the 66 books of the Gospel.

God bless

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

I just want to know why Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the "Apocrypha" if its not really Scripture?

 

[Reformationist]

I just want to know why Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the "Apocrypha" if its not really Scripture?

They didn't. Additionally, there are other references in the Bible of books that have never been considered divinely inspired, by Catholics or Protestants. The unfortunate offshoot to this in my experience is that Mormons have used these references as validation that their book is divinely inspired.

God bless

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Sorry, I made a mistake.

I should have said that I want to know why the New Testament writers quoted from the Septanguit, the version of the Bible that included the Apocrypha, if those books were not part of the "real" Old Testament.

You are correct that there are not direct quotes from the Apocrypha per se, although there are many ideas that are drawn from it in the New Testament.

 

[Colabomb]

Sorry, I made a mistake.

I should have said that I want to know why the New Testament writers quoted from the Septanguit, the version of the Bible that included the Apocrypha, if those books were not part of the "real" Old Testament.

You are correct that there are not direct quotes from the Apocrypha per se, although there are many ideas that are drawn from it in the New Testament.

Regardless, I may be incorrect, but did Jesus or the Apostles quote from Ruth?

If the allegation is true, that if it is not quoted in the New Testament it isn't Scripture,

than Ruth must not be Scripture.

 

[Reformationist]

I should have said that I want to know why the New Testament writers quoted from the Septanguit, the version of the Bible that included the Apocrypha, if those books were not part of the "real" Old Testament.

I am not familiar with the origin of the Septuagint but, as I implied in my previous post, Apostolic reference to a text does not necessarily indicate divine expiration. If it was a widely recognized translation then references to it would have been appropriate, regardless of the legitimacy of the view of it's divine origin. The Apostles' and other teachers' referencing of it don't establish it as a divine text.

You are correct that there are not direct quotes from the Apocrypha per se, although there are many ideas that are drawn from it in the New Testament.

No. You only assume that they're drawn from it. If I were to submit that certain passages in the NT are drawn from pre-Christian, non-Jewish, pagan writings just because they share similar sentiments would that be a justifiable belief?

God bless

 

[Flynmonkie]

I would like to stay away from the discussion of the actual interpertation of these books and the inclusion or disclusion. As that not only have we this to consider but the different variations of the Bible, (versions) interpertations by studied men etc....
There are several other threads on the topic of theses missing/included books to have a discussion surrounding.


I am simply speaking of Gods word, and how we each receive it - in general.
I should have been clearer! Thanks!

 

[Flynmonkie]

Infallibility and inerrancy are similar but definitely distinct qualities.


I will tell you that I believe God preserved the church from error in the compilation of the Bible. As for whether you've been misinformed on the understanding of it, well, let's just say that we should all thank God that our salvation isn't dependant upon the accuracy of our views.



No Christian theologian that I know of believes that our translations are infallible. It is the original manuscripts, which we do not have access to at this time, which are infallible. That does not mean that we cannot reconstruct the content of the Gospel with remarkable accuracy. Dr. Sproul mentions an example of this in one of his books. There is a yardstick kept at the recognized center for standards and measurements. If that were lost we would still be able to reconstruct it with remarkable degree of accuracy. The Bible translations are considered in the same way. There are poor translations out there and there are good ones. Again, it is a good thing we are not saved based on our ability to completely and accurately apprehend the Gospel.

If possible, don't feel too anxious about missing out on doctrine. Have faith that God has preserved His Word in the 66 books of the Gospel.

God bless

You know, I agree I really think God is greater than this and he is working His plan in perfection! I do have faith! I wonder, I have met so many people that seem to have the basic message of salvation right, but other little things they feel are important in our walk. Sometimes, it seems people think others do not have a sufficent fear of God, while others do not feel that people have a sufficent grasp on Gods love. And some people are happy with not worrying about either finding a balance in the two. I believe this is how He is working his plan...


I think you are right that we are all capable of being right but not without error.....however I have to say that is a confusing concept my brain is working on right now!

 

[JVAC]

Sorry, I made a mistake.

I should have said that I want to know why the New Testament writers quoted from the Septanguit, the version of the Bible that included the Apocrypha, if those books were not part of the "real" Old Testament.

You are correct that there are not direct quotes from the Apocrypha per se, although there are many ideas that are drawn from it in the New Testament.

St. Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch, which isn't in the Deuterocanon, in his Epistle, (1:14-15). By your logic, this should be cannonical, no?

-James

 

[Immanuel]

Yeah you have discovered the in between books of the bible. (Deuterocanon or the Apocrypha ). I call them that cause it's in between the Old and New Testament. I think the Cathlolics use it (they have a different doctrine than we do). I'm not sure if any other religion or sects use it, but I know none of the Christian churches that I've encountered used them.

But I guess if you haven't. Look into why their sects are using it. Are there any Christian churches using the in between books? I mean I know that you've said that you did study in other faiths, so I guess take a look at What faiths are using the the in between books and see how they walk out their faith.

I mean I don't know what else to tell you. I mean the old and new Testament had one central character and that was God. Do those books have any relationship to Jesus?

 

[JVAC]

I mean I don't know what else to tell you. I mean the old and new Testament had one central character and that was God. Do those books have any relationship to Jesus?

I am inclined to agree with you except, the Book of Esther doesn't really talk about God, actually he barely is even mentioned, apart from "...and your God will be my God". I heard something similar about another, (I think it is Sons of Solomon, but I can't remember).

So, unless you can reconcile Esther, I can't fully agree.

-James

 

[Oblio]

I'm not sure if any other religion or sects use it, but I know none of the Christian churches that I've encountered used them.

Are there any Christian churches using the in between books?

The two* oldest Churches and the ones that determined the canon of the Bible, both the Orthodox and Catholic Church use them.

* - Technically one Church prior to 1054

 

[JOYfulbeliever]

Some other verses for you about God preserving his word, Flyn, is Psalm 12:6-7 and Matt. 5:18

Also, keep in mind that God is not the author of confusion! Don't let satan try to attack your faith in this area! (I know you said your faith hasn't faltered, I just wanted to throw out God's reminder in 1 Cor. 14:33!)

 

[Immanuel]

The two* oldest Churches and the ones that determined the canon of the Bible, both the Orthodox and Catholic Church use them.

* - Technically one Church prior to 1054

Thanks a bunch. I appreciate it. Is there anything else that I should know?

 

[BBAS 64]

Thanks a bunch. I appreciate it. Is there anything else that I should know?

Immanuel,

I think the post covered it, their church decided their own cannon for them selfs. By taking the historic "Jewish cannon" and then adding a few others, I say more power to them.

Our analysis has shown that the vast weight of historical evidence falls on the side of excluding the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. It is interesting to note that the only two Fathers of the early Church who are considered to be true biblical scholars, Jerome and Origen (and who both spent time in the area of Palestine and were therefore familiar with the Hebrew canon), rejected the Apocrypha. And the near unanimous opinion of the Church followed this view. And coupled with this historical evidence is the fact that these writings have serious internal difficulties in that they are characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture.

New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390.

Peace to u,

BBAS

 

[Oblio]

By taking the historic "Jewish cannon" and then adding a few others, I say more power to them.

The 'Jewish' canon (of Jamnia) {one n only please ) was determined after the start of Christianity in response to and against the Christians. IOW, Catholic and Orthodox follow the Christian canon and not that of a heretical Jewish sect.

 

[Lotar]

Yeah you have discovered the in between books of the bible. (Deuterocanon or the Apocrypha ). I call them that cause it's in between the Old and New Testament. I think the Cathlolics use it (they have a different doctrine than we do). I'm not sure if any other religion or sects use it, but I know none of the Christian churches that I've encountered used them.

But I guess if you haven't. Look into why their sects are using it. Are there any Christian churches using the in between books? I mean I know that you've said that you did study in other faiths, so I guess take a look at What faiths are using the the in between books and see how they walk out their faith.

There are a lot of Christian churches that use the Apocrypha. Basically everybody has different OT canons. Some Church fathers, like Augustine, thought that the Apocrypha was scripture, while others, like Jerome, insisted that they were not. That, plus their absence from the Hebrew text, makes their authority questionable.

The apocryphal books are not without merit, it is just important to not put them on the same level as the rest of scripture.

I mean I don't know what else to tell you. I mean the old and new Testament had one central character and that was God. Do those books have any relationship to Jesus?

A couple contain clear prophesies of Christ's crucifiction.

Whether the central character is God is a poor indicator of canon. The gnostic books have God as the main character, while some of our OT books do not.

 

[Oblio]

It is interesting to note that the only two Fathers of the early Church who are considered to be true biblical scholars, Jerome and Origen (and who both spent time in the area of Palestine and were therefore familiar with the Hebrew canon), rejected the Apocrypha.

What you may not realize it that individuals do not determine the canon or doctrine of the Church. Furthermore, though Origen does have some orthodox views, many of his writings are condemned as heretical. While an Early Christian, he is not a Father of the Church, nor are his opinions binding or authoritative.

 

[Oblio]

I think the post covered it, their church decided their own cannon for them selfs.

Of course the Church would decide the canon for herself. The canon reflects the belief of the Church. This is why the Gospel of Thomas et. al. were thrown out, and the Epistle of James et. al were kept. Likewise Maccabees et. al were kept along with the 66 books that the Protestants would later claim as the entire Bible.

What Protestant denomination used a different canon than the Church did from 367 - 1600 ??