Jasher - Cain and Abel

[DeeR.]

The issue is not that it is not in the Bible so why are you reading it... We are not readers of the bible alone whether we read a math book a book by another christian or a book from another source. The Spirit is with us, as is The Living Word and the Scriptures. An issue God addresses in the beginning with Cain & Abel is an acceptable sacrifice or one we have chosen. If God did not allow meat to be eaten at that time and he really did eat it, it was a sin. What is shown in Cane and Able is a disobedient person and an obedient pleasing one. Whether Cain had yet another disobedient act or not is irrelevant. He was disobedient and filled with self jealousy and hate. Able, however, was not.

We do not need another example to back up a teaching God may be teaching us. If anyone is wondering why Cain murdered his brother and was cursed, the scripture tells us it was because his heart was not inclined to God. Whatever the sin committed they are all born of self and disobedience.

 

[DeeR.]

We do not need another example to back up a teaching God may be teaching us. If anyone is wondering why Cain murdered his brother and was cursed, the scripture tells us it was because his heart was not inclined to God. Whatever the sin committed they are all born of self and disobedience.

Hebrews 11:3-5 By faith we understand that the universe was formed by God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. 4By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous when God gave approval to his gifts. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead. 5By faith Enoch was taken up so that he did not see death. He could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.…

 

[Tolworth John]

The issue is not that it is not in the Bible so why are you reading it.

We are free to read all sorts of booksetc, we are not free to read that which is harmfull to us.

To learn about God we have the bible and a host of books written by acknowledged Christians and christians who assert the authority of the bible.

So why read a book that is not acknowledges by the OT schoolars who confirmed the authority of the OT or by the early church leader who recorded and confirmed the acceptance of the books of the NT but never gave scriptrual authority to many other books that they recognised as helpfull.

Interestingly this book is not among them.
Experts assess it as a late 16c forgery.

When you have good holsome spiritual food why go and get an unhealthy, unhygenic takeaway.

 

[DeeR.]

We are free to read all sorts of booksetc, we are not free to read that which is harmfull to us.

To learn about God we have the bible and a host of books written by acknowledged Christians and christians who assert the authority of the bible.

So why read a book that is not acknowledges by the OT schoolars who confirmed the authority of the OT or by the early church leader who recorded and confirmed the acceptance of the books of the NT but never gave scriptrual authority to many other books that they recognised as helpfull.

Interestingly this book is not among them.
Experts assess it as a late 16c forgery.

When you have good holsome spiritual food why go and get an unhealthy, unhygenic takeaway.

I understand your meaning, yet we are allowed and free to read whatever we choose. It is not the act of reading a book that is forbidden to us or that will corrupt us any more than speaking to a non believer and listening to them is forbidden and will corrupt us. It is with the heart one believes and with the heart one sins.
I was lead by the Spirit many years ago to read a book by an author called The Dark Side of Christianity by Helen Ellerbe. As I read it God was showing me how the Church looked through the eyes of outsiders and i must say she (as did Voltaire) had a lot of things to say that were very true indeed and that Christians would do well to pay attention to. Refusing to read someone's book and being legalistic & dogmatic is the same as refusing to listen to someone speaking to you and asking you questions. She asked questions and pointed out many true issues of corruption done under the name of Christ, and I agree with much of what she was grieved about and had questions on. I do not look to the books as Doctrine but I am not forbidden from them or sinning if I read them either.
Also consider that the scriptures that are written about were the Hebrew scriptures of which even Maccabees was included. Did you know that the bible we have today was voted on by many Catholics to become Canon or not?will you also refuse the Canon of scripture or other books from history simply because you don't believe in Catholicism? We have many tools given to us to discern error from truth and we must use them all to be led and learn without restricting one another. We do not need to forbid or deny others from history or other sources since God himself does not, any more than He forbids us from interacting with other people. We are not to be joined to them, but we must certainly listen to and interact with the world around us.

 

[Tolworth John]

Did you know that the bible we have today was voted on by many Catholics to become Canon or not

No the bible was not aproved by any council etc. All they did was confirm what was already accepted by the church at large was the bible.

My point in this thread is that we do not learn about God by reading books that are against Christianity.

 

[DeeR.]

No the bible was not aproved by any council etc. All they did was confirm what was already accepted by the church at large was the bible.

My point in this thread is that we do not learn about God by reading books that are against Christianity.

We learn about God in everything in existence if we are led by the Spirit. He teaches us about Himself because he speaks to us.
Books in the Bible were decided though, not that I do not believe they are the written word of God. Take Maccabees for example, from the Old testament.

 

[DeeR.]

No the bible was not aproved by any council etc. All they did was confirm what was already accepted by the church at large was the bible.

My point in this thread is that we do not learn about God by reading books that are against Christianity.

It was not until the Synod of Rome under Pope Damasus in A.D. 382, followed by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, that the Catholic Church defined, albeit non-infallibly, which books made it into the New Testament and which didn't. Probably the council fathers studied the (complete) Muratorian Fragment and other documents, including, of course, the books in question themselves, but it was not until these councils that the Church officially settled the issue.

The plain fact of the matter is that the canon of the Bible was not settled in the first years of the Church. It was settled only after repeated (and perhaps heated) discussions, and the final listing was determined by the pope and Catholic bishops. This is an inescapable fact, no matter how many people wish to escape from it.

 

[DeeR.]

I understand your meaning, yet we are allowed and free to read whatever we choose. It is not the act of reading a book that is forbidden to us or that will corrupt us any more than speaking to a non believer and listening to them is forbidden and will corrupt us. It is with the heart one believes and with the heart one sins.
I was lead by the Spirit many years ago to read a book by an author called The Dark Side of Christianity by Helen Ellerbe. As I read it God was showing me how the Church looked through the eyes of outsiders and i must say she (as did Voltaire) had a lot of things to say that were very true indeed and that Christians would do well to pay attention to. Refusing to read someone's book and being legalistic & dogmatic is the same as refusing to listen to someone speaking to you and asking you questions. She asked questions and pointed out many true issues of corruption done under the name of Christ, and I agree with much of what she was grieved about and had questions on. I do not look to the books as Doctrine but I am not forbidden from them or sinning if I read them either.
Also consider that the scriptures that are written about were the Hebrew scriptures of which even Maccabees was included. Did you know that the bible we have today was voted on by many Catholics to become Canon or not?will you also refuse the Canon of scripture or other books from history simply because you don't believe in Catholicism? We have many tools given to us to discern error from truth and we must use them all to be led and learn without restricting one another. We do not need to forbid or deny others from history or other sources since God himself does not, any more than He forbids us from interacting with other people. We are not to be joined to them, but we must certainly listen to and interact with the world around us.

No the bible was not aproved by any council etc. All they did was confirm what was already accepted by the church at large was the bible.

My point in this thread is that we do not learn about God by reading books that are against Christianity.

No the bible was not aproved by any council etc. All they did was confirm what was already accepted by the church at large was the bible.

My point in this thread is that we do not learn about God by reading books that are against Christianity.

Early Development
c. 1400–400 B.C. Books of the Hebrew Old Testament written

c. 250–200 B.C. The Septuagint, a popular Greek translation of the Old Testament, produced

A.D. 45–85? Books of the Greek New Testament written

90 and 118 Councils of Jamnia give final affirmation to the Old Testament canon (39 books)

140-150 Marcion’s heretical “New Testament” incites orthodox Christians to establish a NT canon

303-306 Diocletian’s persecution includes confiscating and destroying New Testament Scriptures

c. 305-310 Lucian of Antioch’s Greek New Testament text; becomes a foundation for later Bibles

367 Athanasius’s Festal Letter lists complete New Testament canon (27 books) for the first time

397 Council of Carthage establishes orthodox New Testament canon (27 books)

 

[DeeR.]

No the bible was not aproved by any council etc. All they did was confirm what was already accepted by the church at large was the bible.

My point in this thread is that we do not learn about God by reading books that are against Christianity.

Early Christian History / The Reality of the Biblical Canon

 

[Erik Nelson]

https://weekly.israelbiblecenter.com/meaning-abels-name/

 

[ViaCrucis]

If this book is not authentic, and I've not finished reading it to yet discern that for myself, where is the authentic Book of Jasher?

It's lost. Perhaps there is a copy somewhere, tucked in a cave in a desert. But so far nobody has found it, and I wouldn't suggest holding one's breath. Good chance that it's just straight up gone forever.

There are two "Books of Jasher" that one can find on the internet. The first is a work of late medieval Jewish midrash, the Sefer haYashar. It's midrash and doesn't claim to be the ancient and now lost Book of Jasher, though some ignorant or less-than-scrupulous people have made that claim. The second is a modern forgery from the 18th century, written the forger Jacob Ilve; it's been a known forgery since it was first published. This work is also sometimes claimed to be the authentic Book of Jasher either by their ignorance or by being unscrupulous.

The work you quoted in the OP is from the 18th century forgery.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Lazarus Short]

I read Jasher a couple of times, and realized that on the surface it seems to enhance certain Bible stories. However, I also realized that it contains things that conflict with the teachings of the Bible. I decided that it was midrash at best, a forgery at worst, and the pseudo-KJV language is as telling as it is in the BoM. I once defended the BoJ, but no longer.

 

[Jonaitis]

I am not comfortable with people trying to look for the "lost books" of the bible. There is so much to learn and gain from what we know is divinely inspired, why not drive that effort in learning what we do have? Jasher, whether forgery or not, can wait, let's divide the word properly and apply it to our lives. It is preferable to avoid these books anyways since they are fake.

 

[SuperCow]

A lot of what I've read here misses the point of the book of Jasher. Despite the two scriptures is it mentioned in, it should not be treated as inspired scripture even if it is authentic. The books chosen in the Bible are spiritual books that happen to contain history. Jasher is a history book that happens to contain stories of spiritual characters.

We generally trust the bulk of the historical content of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, but would never dream of calling it inspired. Furthermore, we would expect it to contain potential inaccuracies and biases. It can be demonstrated that the current book of the Upright (Jasher) contains content or descriptions that could only come from a Medieval author. (probably in 1225 AD, but possibly also in the 1540 AD edition. Neither have survived, but there are references to their existence.) It can also be demonstrated that it contains content that no Medieval author would conceive of and must be much older. The Bible itself has gone through several alterations, trimmed down from over 300 books to the current 66. The King James version itself has been altered by Martin Luther who dropped several books from the original 17th century printing. Why is this generation special so that we have the correct canon, but Christians from the 17th and 18th century had to be confused by books we now consider Apocryphal.

I'm currently working on an analysis of the book. My point of view is that this book is not "The Book of Jasher", but that it is based on much older sources of Jewish writings and that the author plagiarized them and added his own additions. I think it is quite likely that significant portions of this book came from an old copy of the original book.