Religions

[Queller]

A bus stops and picks up 66 people.

As it's starting its journey, 14 people come running up and jump on.

In the course of the journey, it's clear that those 14 don't belong on the bus.

The bus stops and the 14 are kicked off.

Later, some people claim the 14 belonged on the bus in the first place.

They didn't.

You still can't get analogies right. For your analogy to work the first line should read;

"A bus stops and picks up 75 people."

because that is how many people started the journey.

Your next line is completely wrong.

Your third line should read;

"In the course of the journey, some people decide that 14 people don't belong on the bus."

Your fourth line should read;

The bus stops and the 14 are kicked off along with part of Daniel's belongings.

Your last two lines should read;

"Later, some people claim the 14 belonged on the bus in the first place.

Some claim they didn't."

Let me know if you need any more help fixing your broken analogies.

 

[Queller]

It most certainly can be.

There's a place and a time for that.

When and where would that be?

 

[Queller]

Perhaps that is why they are still around?

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Apocrypha can take a hike.

And yet it still remains in the 1611 KJV.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet it still remains in the 1611 KJV.

-CryptoLutheran

I believe it was kept in there to satisfy people like you, who find the KJVO movement not to their taste.

 

[MissRowy]

Not everyone likes the KJV version of the bible. I am not a fan of it but I won't make people such as AV who do read it feel bad. Which ever version is easier to understand is what people should read.
An example. The Greek Orthodox people don't read the bible because they can't read it because its in Ancient Greek and they don't understand it. There is an organisation who are going around Greece giving them copies of the New Testament in Modern Greek.

Getting off my soapbox now.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

And yet it still remains in the 1611 KJV.

-CryptoLutheran

Which books of the Apocrypha have you found most helpful in your walk with God?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think all Christians should read, if they can, all available scripture, if only to educate themselves as to what else might have been around in ancient times.
Being a Christian should not preclude having a healthy curiosity...

I wouldn't advise that. Some versions of scripture are really bad, both in accuracy of the translation and in putting it all together. The bible itself does tend to get iffy with these things no matter what, but no one should subject themselves to reading every common bible version when the more accurate ones won't differ from each other in any significant way, and the bad ones make for poor reading and misinformation.

Oh, and the scripture removed from the bible was removed for a reason. Jesus riding a dragon and, ugh, the book of Lilith don't exactly inspire belief, I can say that much.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Which books of the Apocrypha have you found most helpful in your walk with God?

I'm on the fence when it comes to the Deuterocanonicals. That is I don't have a hardline position on their canonical status.

There are some parts of Sirach that I really appreciate, such as Sirach's writing about the importance of physicians and medicine. 1 Maccabees is an absolutely indispensible text as far as history goes. It provides some very important historical context of the Second Temple Period and makes sense of what the Book of Daniel talks about concerning the king of the north and the abomination that causes desolation (when a pig was sacrificed in the Holy of Holies to Zeus), and as such provides context for the Olivet Discourse when Jesus refers to Daniel's "abomination that causes desolation" to refer to the destruction and desecration of the Temple in 70 AD.

But are they Scripture? That's open to debate. Luther's opinion is that they were inferior to Scripture but still vitally important for Christians to read. However in the Lutheran Confessions nothing is said one way or the other, and as such there isn't--technically speaking--a definitive Lutheran position. And as far as my personal opinion goes, I don't know. I find both Roman Catholic and Protestant arguments to usually be terribly lacking.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

IOh, and the scripture removed from the bible was removed for a reason. Jesus riding a dragon and, ugh, the book of Lilith don't exactly inspire belief, I can say that much.

There was never anything in the Bible about such things to be removed. There was a host of ancient literature that simply was never taken particularly seriously.

In some cases we have books produced by numerous Gnostic sects--though keeping in mind that Gnosticism is an umbrella term referring to a great many disparate groups whose beliefs and practices were often very divergent and the notion of them being "Gnostic" largely comes from a shared set of traits: Generally speaking a hyper-Platonic view that the material world was either evil or irrelevant, a belief in a complex cosmology of emanating spirits, and most central the belief in special secret knowledge which was available only for the special few.

In other cases we're largely dealing with material that was by and large considered dubious and untrustworthy, a number of "Acts" were written that often included an amalgam of traditions and legends about the Apostles and early Christian figures, such as Nicodemus. In some cases these works were regarded as pious fictions, in other cases they were just considered downright silly--an example might be the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the other Gospel of Thomas), in the Infancy Gospel we have stories of Jesus turning clay into live pigeons as a small child, Jesus moments after He was born turning to His mother and telling her He's the Son of God, or an adolescent Jesus fixing Joseph's carpentry mistake in his shop by pulling one length of a board longer.

It might be best to refer to those sorts of things as a kind of ancient fanfiction.

In some cases those texts contained or portrayed some things that have been taken seriously as Christian tradition. For example it's the Protoevangelium of James that mentions that Mary's parents were named Anna and Joachim. The Acts of Peter records in detail Peter being arrested and executed upside-down. Those things have been preserved within the Christian tradition without the texts themselves being taken entirely too seriously.

"The Bible" rather specifically refers to a specific collection of texts which the above simply have never been part of.

Additionally, which text has Jesus riding a dragon? Also, I'm not aware of any "Book of Lilith", the idea of Lilith is based not on a text--that I'm aware--but instead medieval rabbinical attempts to reconcile the discrepancies between Genesis 1 and 2--Genesis 1 mentions the creation of male and female, Genesis 2 mentions the creation of Adam and later Eve from Adam's rib. A rabbinical theory was put forward that Adam had had two wives, the first named Lilith (a succubus-like creature of ancient near eastern mythology) who refused to obey Adam and so was cursed, and became the demon succubus thing of legend. But as far as I know, no ancient text mentions the Lilith legend as it's a product of the middle ages.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I believe it was kept in there to satisfy people like you, who find the KJVO movement not to their taste.

Since there was no KJVO movement during the time of King James I, then that's clearly not true.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TheBarrd]

I submit that if one's faith is strong and true, reading from other scriptures can't harm it. Nothing is going to pop off of the page and grab you, I promise.

Besides, I rather like the story of the child Jesus and His clay pigeons...

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Well you've certainly got my attention and piqued my interest with this comment. Thanks.

I'm on the fence when it comes to the Deuterocanonicals. That is I don't have a hardline position on their canonical status.

There are some parts of Sirach that I really appreciate, such as Sirach's writing about the importance of physicians and medicine. 1 Maccabees is an absolutely indispensible text as far as history goes. It provides some very important historical context of the Second Temple Period and makes sense of what the Book of Daniel talks about concerning the king of the north and the abomination that causes desolation (when a pig was sacrificed in the Holy of Holies to Zeus), and as such provides context for the Olivet Discourse when Jesus refers to Daniel's "abomination that causes desolation" to refer to the destruction and desecration of the Temple in 70 AD.

But are they Scripture? That's open to debate. Luther's opinion is that they were inferior to Scripture but still vitally important for Christians to read. However in the Lutheran Confessions nothing is said one way or the other, and as such there isn't--technically speaking--a definitive Lutheran position. And as far as my personal opinion goes, I don't know. I find both Roman Catholic and Protestant arguments to usually be terribly lacking.

-CryptoLutheran

Any thoughts about the Shepherd of Hermes?

 

[AV1611VET]

Since there was no KJVO movement during the time of King James I, then that's clearly not true.

Again, let me point out that the KJVO movement first targeted the ESV.

It was not created to preserve the books of the Apocrypha.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Again, let me point out that the KJVO movement first targeted the ESV.

The ESV was first published in 2001. KJV-onlyism has been around longer.

It was not created to preserve the books of the Apocrypha.

No one said it was. The point remains, however, that if you want an unaltered 1611 KJV then you shouldn't be using a mid 18th century revision with the Deuterocanonicals taken out. Which also begs the question, which mid 18th century revision do you use, the Cambridge or the Oxford?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

The ESV was first published in 2001. KJV-onlyism has been around longer.

My bad.

I should have said the ERV, not the ESV.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Any thoughts about the Shepherd of Hermes?

I think I may have glanced at the Shepherd once. As far as the Antilegomena goes I am far more familiar with the Didache. I've also read parts of 1 Clement and skimmed through Barnabas once. Barnabas is stylistically similar to Hebrews, which is about all I can recall.

I believe 2 Clement is also part of the Antilegomena, though 2 Clement is virtually universally regarded as spurious, whereas 1 Clement is usually considered an authentic letter from St. Clement of Rome near the end of the 1st century.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Once again, you comment is very helpful. Thanks.

I think I may have glanced at the Shepherd once. As far as the Antilegomena goes I am far more familiar with the Didache. I've also read parts of 1 Clement and skimmed through Barnabas once. Barnabas is stylistically similar to Hebrews, which is about all I can recall.

I believe 2 Clement is also part of the Antilegomena, though 2 Clement is virtually universally regarded as spurious, whereas 1 Clement is usually considered an authentic letter from St. Clement of Rome near the end of the 1st century.

-CryptoLutheran

Sidebar:

KJV-onlyism ....

was soundly debunked some 35 years ago by Dr. Donald A. Carson -- in a great little book entitled: The King James Version Debate - A Plea for Realism.

 

[florida2]

You're asking a KJVO this?

Sure looks like it.

I'm just interested why you believe your group of people who claim God told them one thing, over another group who will just a passionately claim God told them another? I'm just interested in the thought process.

I don't sign up to any particular denomination or section of Christianity - I try to keep an open mind. I'm interested how you can become so fixated with just one version of the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm interested how you can become so fixated with just one version of the Bible.

That "fixation" keeps a lot of riff-raff out of the Bible.

Without it, tongue-speakers would walk all over us, and all these "newer translations" would be considered just as credible, if not more credible, than the Bible Itself.