Sola scriptura?

[coffee4u]

you recognize (from my link) that Jesus himself quoted widely from the Apocrypha?

Scripture always interprets scripture.
If a verse from the apocrypha is also in the KJV then that would be scripture. If something from the apocrypha cannot be found in the KJV then no, I don't view it as scripture.

 

[Tigger45]

Scripture always interprets scripture.
If a verse from the apocrypha is also in the KJV then that would be scripture. If something from the apocrypha cannot be found in the KJV then no, I don't view it as scripture.

You do realize that the KJV originally contained the apocryphal books?

 

[coffee4u]

You do realize that the KJV originally contained the apocryphal books?

And removed later in 1885. I would not use the KJV alone either mostly due to the old language, which is why I like to have a couple of other versions on hand.

 

[BobRyan]

Scripture always interprets scripture.
If a verse from the apocrypha is also in the KJV then that would be scripture. If something from the apocrypha cannot be found in the KJV then no, I don't view it as scripture.

Jerome who translated the Greek into the Latin Vulgate -- and who was forced to add the apocrypha was very explicit that the apocrypha is not part of the canon of scripture

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Sacred Traditions ARE man-made traditions. The only reason we call them "Sacred" or "Holy" is because men, i.e. church leaders, have chosen to call the doctrines that they themselves defined by a term that they themselves coined.

A better term from our POV might be "Pious Tradition".

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

And removed later in 1885. I would not use the KJV alone either mostly due to the old language, which is why I like to have a couple of other versions on hand.

It was not removed on the basis of theology; rather, to avoid a costly tax on paper and printed material and paper imposed by the British Empire. St. Jerome wanted to put it between the old and new Testament, but was directed by his superiors to do otherwise; Martin Luther put these books in Jeromes preferred location in his translation; the KJV, depending on the edition either did the same, or put it in an "appendix" at the end of the Bible.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

And removed later in 1885. I would not use the KJV alone either mostly due to the old language, which is why I like to have a couple of other versions on hand.

Here is a reprint of the the original; one of many available; the KJV with Apocrypha: https://www.amazon.com/Bible-James-...+with+apocrypha&qid=1579001896&s=books&sr=1-8
Looks like you can read it now.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Here is a reprint of the the original; one of many available; the KJV with Apocrypha: https://www.amazon.com/Bible-James-...+with+apocrypha&qid=1579001896&s=books&sr=1-8

Jerome who translated the Greek into the Latin Vulgate -- and who was forced to add the apocrypha was very explicit that the apocrypha is not part of the canon of scripture

Incorrect Bob; Jerome wanted to put them in the middle; not exclude them.

 

[coffee4u]

Here is a reprint of the the original; one of many available; the KJV with Apocrypha: https://www.amazon.com/Bible-James-...+with+apocrypha&qid=1579001896&s=books&sr=1-8
Looks like you can read it now.

No thank you, if it was meant to be scripture God would have made sure it stayed in the Bible.

 

[quintessentialramble]

It’s a lovely sentiment in some ways. But the doctrine is rife with the probability of error.

For example, doctrines formulated exclusively from Sacred Scripture are vulnerable to misunderstanding based on whichever translation of scripture is used for study. Given the self-evident fact that scripture was originally written in languages which are dead in modern times, most people are unable to read the original language. They are therefore dependent upon translations of those languages. And there is plenty of room for a healthy scholarly debate as to how a word, verse, chapter or even an entire book is to be translated. There are many possible ways of translating a given passage but, in theory, only one of them can be correct.

The entire process places a completely unrealistic and highly inappropriate burden of knowledge, intellect and scholarship upon the layman. While some can bear up to it, the vast majority cannot.

This is not a problem for me as a Catholic. I have a living authority in the Church who can guide my spiritual life and exercise proper authority in matters of faith and morals.

Catholicism is not without error either---in fact I recently read a quote from the Pope that said that God changed his mind about sin in the N.T. for thinking He made a mistake--that is complete heresy...God does not make mistakes. God cannot sin.

 

[LoveofTruth]

It really took you all those words to convey that you still don't have an exception to the rule of conscience? You could have saved yourself a lot of typing.

Read what I wrote again carefully and you will see that what I am referring to is the true Light that lighteth EVERY man that comets into the world. This is a great mystery of Christ in you the hope of glory. The day star arising in our hearts the light of the glorious gospel of Christ shining through faith

 

[LoveofTruth]

Most cannot see nor hear what you're stating, for their eye is not good nor simple. But, how long it took you to understand these things? I'm quite joyful to see someone understand. Because while these things are plain to see, they usually remain hidden... I know that as well.

Yes, when I look back to my first in kings of consciousness of the Light of Christ shining in me it was since the day I first was saved. The Lord led me along as the light shone more and more into the perfect day. I remember the Lord directing me into the understanding of the seed sown in the heart and in the heart of all thoughts not having taken root in all until the ground is broken up the ground f a broken spirit and humble and contrite heart. I saw the new birth where Christ dwells in me as so wonderful. Sadly there are many who sisal of Christ and religion but do not know this inner witness.

but praise God many are aware of this.
Glad you know of These things.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Catholicism is not without error either---in fact I recently read a quote from the Pope that said that God changed his mind about sin in the N.T. for thinking He made a mistake--that is complete heresy...God does not make mistakes. God cannot sin.

Link?

 

[quintessentialramble]

Link?

it was not a website...it was from a tract from a Catholic...I'll have to see if I can either find the tract or a link to the tract.

 

[Fidelibus]

And removed later in 1885. I would not use the KJV alone either mostly due to the old language, which is why I like to have a couple of other versions on hand.

By who's or what authority was it decided to be removed?

 

[BBAS 64]

Jerome who translated the Greek into the Latin Vulgate -- and who was forced to add the apocrypha was very explicit that the apocrypha is not part of the canon of scripture

Good day, Bob

Jerome was forced to translate Judith yes, but he cut away all the trash he found lacking:

THE PREFACE OF JEROME ON THE BOOK OF JUDITH
Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; its warrant for affirming those [apocryphal texts] which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean language, it is counted among the historical books. But since the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was forcibly restrained, I have given a single night's work , translating according to sense rather than verbatim. I have hacked away at the excessively error-ridden panoply of the many codices; I conveyed in Latin only what I could find expressed coherently in the Chaldean words. Receive the widow Judith, example of chastity, and with triumphant praise acclaim her with eternal public celebration. For not only for women, but even for men, she has been given as a model by the one who rewards her chastity, who has ascribed to her such virtue that she conquered the unconquered among humanity, and surmounted the insurmountable.

Now as it relates to the Apocrypha generally Jerome gives as very direct insight of how the Church viewed these types of book Historically..

Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon

As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

No purely has history they are most useful and should be read for knowledge and edification of God's people, not authoritative but useful.

You see this historically also in Athanasius:

I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine...There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews...there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit" (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39:2-4, 39:7)


In Him,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

By who's or what authority was it decided to be removed?

Good Day,Fidelibus

How would you presume authority is required?

Athanasius makes no appeal to any authority for his OT list.

I guess that would be primarily on the basis that authority was required to include them out side of some name it claim it fallacy of the Roman church.

In Him,

Bill

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

No thank you, if it was meant to be scripture God would have made sure it stayed in the Bible.

Actually, it still is, and has been. It has only been a few short centuries since a minority of Christians decided to exclude it because it suited their agenda.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

By who's or what authority was it decided to be removed?

Puritans in North America; a minority sect of radical reformers.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Good Day,Fidelibus

How would you presume authority is required?

I guess that would be primarily on the basis that authority was required to include them out side of some name it claim it fallacy of the Roman church.

In Him,

Bill

The same way you might demand authority for their inclusion. A fallacy of the Roman Church; except the Roman Church of which you speak did not exist until after the Great Schism; it was on the authority of the Church universal before the Great Schism that these were included with the other books of the Bible; that would have been with the guidance of Apostolic tradition and teaching.

I get that most evangelicals and ND types act, speak and teach like the one true Church was absent until some time after the Lutheran Reformation, with their favorite radical reformer; but only their favorite one. How sad that emotion and personal interpretation usurps the teaching and traditions of the Apostles. If the Apocrypha is good enough for Apostles and Prophets to quote, it is good enough for us to do the same.