Apochrophya?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by travisbaptist12, Jan 19, 2005.

  1. travisbaptist12

    travisbaptist12
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was wondering why we don't use the apochrophya in our Bible? Why did Catholics keep it, and Protestants take it out?
     
  2. Brandon Tallman

    Brandon Tallman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apocrypha wasnt taking out of the Bible it was actually added in the Bible by the catholic church in 1546 at the Council of Trent.None of the the books of Apocrypha were written in Hebrew.Nore did any of the writers claim to be inspired by the person of the Holy Spirit.It also includes doctrine contrary to Chistianity,sucha as prayers for the dead sinless perfection,purgatory 2 Macabees12:43,45,salvation by works Eccliasticus3:30,Tobith 12:8,9,17.IT also teaches magic Tobith6:5-8 and Mary was born sinless,Wisdom 8:19&20.My wife grew up in the New Apostilic Church.They have Apocrypha in their Bible,and belive that no one can come to know God or be saved accept threw the laying of hands and babtism of one of their apostles(wich they beleive are the same apostles as the ones in scripture with the same powers,rights ,and authority!).The last time we went to a service there the preist there said:(The bible is good ,the stories and the parables,but the bible is history.Here in Gods house is where you receive Gods Word.)That was it !Me and my house will never so much as sit in a church that doesnt hold strictly and passionatley to every one of the fundamental essentials!Any chuch that holds to Apocrypha is 1,not protestant,2,is completley out of the pale of orthodxy.
     
  3. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    We're having a discussion on the Apocrypha elsewhere in this forum

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  4. travisbaptist12

    travisbaptist12
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds to me, like Catholics get a lot of their beliefs from the Apocrypha. I also heard that somewhere in the Apocrypha, it has God assiting someone in a lie. Is that true?
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    This is valid. Much false doctrine that is found no where in the 66 canonical books, is based in either Church Traditions, Church Fathers, or the Apochryphal writings.

    Evangelical Christians (born again by faith, not works) reject all three as spurious.
     
  6. ILUVLIGHT

    ILUVLIGHT
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Dr Bob;
    Do you feel this way about all the Psedepigrapha Even the book of Enoch. I find it puzzeling that someone took this book out of the Bible because it was there originally. Enoch's prophecies were even talked about in the New Testament Jude 1:14 There are two versions to this book and both seem apocalyptic. Enoch was inspired as much as anyother prophet. They also found a copy of it with the dead sea scrolls.

    I'm still not sure just who said it wasn't part of the Bible and took iot out, but they were wrong.
    May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
    Mike [​IMG]
     
  7. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you feel this way about all the Psedepigrapha Even the book of Enoch. I find it puzzeling that someone took this book out of the Bible because it was there originally. Enoch's prophecies were even talked about in the New Testament Jude 1:14 There are two versions to this book and both seem apocalyptic. Enoch was inspired as much as anyother prophet. They also found a copy of it with the dead sea scrolls.

    I'm still not sure just who said it wasn't part of the Bible and took iot out, but they were wrong.
    May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
    Mike [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]I know you're asking Dr. Bob and I hope he answers as he can give more info than I can, I'm sure.

    But I just had to say that the book of Enoch was not taken out of the Bible. Just because Jude makes a reference to it does not mean it was or should be in the Bible. God is validating Enoch's prophecy but not the book(s) of Enoch.
     
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    The writing attributed to Enoch were not, of course, genuine. They gain credibility in the gullible because Jude quotes Enoch, by inspiration.

    Paul also quotes a Cretan poet saying all Cretans are slow-bellies. Was that poet inspired? No.

    Doubt it? Do the math. When did Enoch live. Before the flood. Did his writings survive the deluge? Get a grip!!!

    When was the first book of the Bible written? By Moses in 1400 BCE. He pulled oral tradition (inspired by God) from events before the Flood. No message from Enoch.

    Then bingo, there is a false writing (that is what pseudo-pygrapha means) with his name.

    Right.
     
  9. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    The book of Enoch is typically dated to about 100-200 B.C. Many scholars (Charlesworth in particular) consider it to have been written in pieces by different people.

    The theology of Enoch is markedly different than that of later second temple Judaism. The work is often identified with the Essenes (not just the fringe guys at Qumran), a group who denied the validity of the whole "temple cult".

    The author of Jude undoubtedly was quite familiar with it as were many of the writers of the "New Testament apocrypha".

    It's actually a very interesting work.
     
  10. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks, Dr. Bob! [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  11. ILUVLIGHT

    ILUVLIGHT
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Doctor Bob;
    I was reading your answer and calculating it as you suggested. Your answer makes sense. Enoch was Cain's son. I'm not sure if they even had writting that far back.
    This makes a little eaiser to understand why it's not in the Bible. Thankyou
    May Christ Shine His Light on Us All;
    Mike [​IMG]
     
  12. ILUVLIGHT

    ILUVLIGHT
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Marcia;
    Sorry I didn't answer this in the order of which it was posted. After reading Doctor Bob's answer I also agree. It just didn't occur to me to recheck just when Enoch was around. Thankyou for your response.
    May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
    Mike
     
  13. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isn't there a difference between the apocrypha that originally appeared in the KJV and the one used by the Catholics? Unless I am mistaken were there not two, one accepted by SOME protestants and one accepted by the RCC?
     
  14. ILUVLIGHT

    ILUVLIGHT
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Charles;
    I've read it, but I can't say that I understood all of it. It seems to have a familiar ring to it. Alot like Revelations only not exactly. Most of it I felt had to be prophetic although after waking up to the fact of when it had to be written. I'm not so sure. If Enoch was born according to the dates configured in my KJV estamtes it at about 4004 BC So your right about the approximent time it was writen. I'm courious to compare what we already have to what was found with the dead sea scrolls. Will it be more complete in it's information, or less so.
    Thankyou for your information.
    May Christ Shine His Light on Us All;
    Mike [​IMG]
     
  15. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    102
    The KJV 1611 Apocrypha comprised:

    1 Esdras
    2 Esdras
    Tobit
    Judith
    Additions to Esther
    Wisdom of Solomon
    Ecclesiasticus
    Baruch
    Epistle of Jeremiah
    Song of the Three Children
    Story of Susanna
    Bel and the Dragon
    Prayer of Manasseh
    1 Maccabees
    2 Maccabees

    The Council of Trent placed these apocryphal books in the OT canon:

    Tobit
    Judith
    Additions to Esther
    Wisdom of Solomon
    Ecclesiasticus
    Baruch
    Epistle of Jeremiah
    Song of the Three Children
    Story of Susanna
    Bel and the Dragon
    1 Maccabees
    2 Maccabees

    It omits three books from the KJV Apocrypha: I and II Esdras and Prayer of Manasseh. Song of the Three Children, Story of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon are part of the Book of Daniel in the RC canon.

    There is opinion that Esdras and Manasseh were omitted inadvertently, because the Council went on to specify that books in the Vulgate were considered to be canonical.

    The Douia OT, as an example, included I & II Esdras as part of the OT, while the New American Bible (a modern Catholic translation) does not.
     
  16. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mike,

    "I've read it, but I can't say that I understood all of it. It seems to have a familiar ring to it. Alot like Revelations only not exactly. Most of it I felt had to be prophetic although after waking up to the fact of when it had to be written. I'm not so sure. If Enoch was born according to the dates configured in my KJV estamtes it at about 4004 BC So your right about the approximent time it was writen. I'm courious to compare what we already have to what was found with the dead sea scrolls. Will it be more complete in it's information, or less so.
    Thankyou for your information.
    May Christ Shine His Light on Us All"

    The only complete manuscripts of 1 Enoch are in Ethiopic. There have been Greek fragments found; and several Aramaic fragments were found at Qumran as well.

    The theology is interesting. The book speaks of how the angels came down to earth and had relations with human women (sound familiar from Genesis?). It is important to note that the Enochic concept of good/evil was highly dualistic. 1 Enoch seems to blame the fallen angels for evil - thus sin was not man's fault. There is also a rejection of the temple authority. The Enochic Jews believed that only when the Messiah came would things be reconciled - they did not think that the temple and the Zadokite priesthood could mediate for men anymore than men could mediate for themselves.

    Thus its outlook is quite different than most of the OT writings! And while it is NOT the word of God it IS a nice bit of insight into the mind of Jews in the intertestamental period. Indeed it was a very popular book!
     
  17. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Perhaps you are the one who needs to get a grip! Noah managed to Fed-Ex polar bears and penguins right to the door of the Ark that he built and managed to squeeze inside 6,000,000+ (a very conservative estimate) animals, cages, food, etc. Therefore, I believe that he was more than able to afford the postage to have a copy of the Book of Enoch mailed to him and that he managed to find room for it on the Ark. God, in His word, calls it the Book of Enoch and therefore to say that Enoch did not write it is to call God a liar. Get a grip and get a copy of the King James Bible—a real one that includes the Book of Enoch and all the other pseuderocanonical apocryphal books. [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  18. rjprince

    rjprince
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    CBTS,

    I KNOW OF NO 6 Dayer who believes that Noah had to put one of each variety in the ark! Talk about straw men! Nor do literal 6 dayers hold that there are no microevolutionary changes that could account for the great varieties we see today! 6,000,000+, CBTS, get a grip. He did not need a poodle and a greyhound and a saint bernard, or a polar and a grizzly and a black -- Noah just needed two dogs and two bears, just so long as he got a pink one and a blue of each.
     
  19. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    I do not wish to derail this thread, but I do need to clarify what I already posted and the facts involved. Zoologists, Christians and non-Christians alike, agree that there are well over two million genetically discrete populations of animals that are alive today that must have been preserved on the Ark if the entire earth was covered for 180 by water. Additionally, very many additional genetically discrete populations of animals have become extinct since the time of the flood, and at least one pair (more than one pair of all the clean animals) from each population was necessarily aboard the Ark. All dogs belong to only ONE genetically discrete population and only one pair (dogs are unclean animals) of dogs would have been required. However, that is not at all true of bears—they make up many genetically discrete populations and one pair (bears are also unclean animals) of each of them would have been required. If only one genetically discrete population of bears was preserved on the Ark, and the account of Noah’s Ark is a literal historical account, then we have absolute proof that macroevolution has taken place and that the flood occurred several hundred thousand years ago.

    My point, however, was not that Genesis 1 – 11 is an epic narrative rather than a literal, historical narrative, but that Dr. Bob’s argument that the Book of Enoch would not have survived the flood if it was indeed penned by Enoch is without merit.

    P.S. A genetically discrete population of animals is a population of animals that when any two of them are crossed, the progeny are fertile, but when any one of them is crossed with an animal of a different population, non-fertile progeny are produced. For example, horses and donkeys make up two genetically discrete populations of animals. When you cross a horse with a donkey, and non-fertile mule is the result.

    [​IMG]

    [ January 28, 2005, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Craigbythesea ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...