1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Confused, did the early christians accept the non-canonized books?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by xdisciplex, Sep 14, 2006.

  1. orthodox

    orthodox New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thankyou for finally documenting your source so that I can refer to it and see what's going on. The Bagster editions are of Brenton's text, and now we can see that your error is that you don't understand Roman numerals and you are refering to Isaiah 62:4 instead of Isaiah 42:4. You need to look for XLII not LXII.

    Still no answer to the question. Maybe if I repeat it a third time I'll get lucky. "Have you read the apocrypha whilst looking up and cross referencing the well known allusions to the NT?"

    <sigh> The language of the Hebrew people during the 1st century was NOT biblical Hebrew. Yes, it is a "Hebrew language" in the sense that it is a language of the Hebrew people, but it is not the Hebrew of the old testament. Everybody knows that, it is why the Passion of the Christ movie was made in Aramaic.

    I quote Bruce Metzger "The New Testament, Its Background Growth and Content, P32: "Greek was widely understood in Palestine, particularly in the north which was commonly called the Galillee of the Gentiles. Bilingualism was an economic necessity. Bilingualism had its roots in the 2nd century before Christ when the Seleucid rulers promoted the deliberate poicy of Grecizing the Jewish population of Palestine. The other language in common in Palestine was Aramaic, the mother tongue of the Jews. Though the rabbis and learned scribes still had a fluent command of the classical Hebrew of the OT for the ordinary Jewish populace biblical Hebrew was approaching the status of a dead language".


    Now where is your documentation for your unheard of fabrications?
     
    #81 orthodox, Sep 19, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 19, 2006
  2. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    ORTH: Have you read the Apocrypha?

    DHK: Yes I have read the Apocrypha. I have read the NT. There is nothing in the NT that quotes the Apocrypha, no reference whatsoeve.

    Orth: Have you read the apocrypha whilst looking up and cross referencing the well known allusions to the NT.

    Conclusion--If there are well known allusions to the NT is the Apocrypha then the only conclusion one can come to is that the apocrypha is a complete forgery written well after the NT was written perhaps in the first or second centuries (100's or 200's). But it is claimed to be Old Testament Scripture. How do you get NT allusions or references in Old Testament books? Is this what you are asking. I quoted you (or at least paraphrased what was supposed to be in the last two chapters added on to Daniel. How is this an allusion to the NT? You tell me. Isn't it odd how you never commented on the fairy tale type story I quoted you out of the apocrypha--so typical of it.
    Isn't it odd how you never commented on the prologue of Sirach who basicially denies inspiration of the apocrypha, even though his is one of the books of the apocrypha?

    Your question is moot. It needs no answering. It is like asking: "Did you find all the quotes of Jesus in the Book of Deuteronomy? :rolleyes:
    DHK
     
  3. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sort of on topic - is it because of the use of the LXX by the early church that the English names of the book of the Old Testment are what they are now? E.g. "Genesis" (the Greek name, same as the LXX) instead of "Bereshit" (the Hebrew name), "Exodus" vs. "Shemot", "Leviticus" vs. "Vayikra", etc.?
     
  4. orthodox

    orthodox New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Come on, you need to do bunch of backpeddling now that you were busted confusing Is 62:4 and 42:4, now you have to admit Mt was quoting the LXX.


    You're just being difficult playing off an ambiguity in what I said. Let me make it less ambiguous by rearrranging the phrases:

    Have you read the apocrypha whilst looking up and cross referencing to the NT the well known allusions?

    The allusions go from the apocrypha to the NT in case you're still being difficult, and to refresh your very short memory, I already pointed out the apocrypha is found in the pre-Christian dead sea scrolls.

    It seems to me you don't want to know the truth, you just want have an argument.
     
  5. orthodox

    orthodox New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good point, tis so.
     
  6. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    149
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    That is DHK's general MO. I don't bother arguing with him and simply show facts to correct his clear mistatements and ignore his unfounded refutations.
     
  7. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    The are over 100 books from the NT Apocrypha and the OT Pseudepigrapha which are not in the Catholic Bible. How did the Catholics decide that most of those books should not be in their Bible?
     
  8. Inquiring Mind

    Inquiring Mind New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    0
    The same way they weeded out 27 books from the 100 or so post Ressurection wrtings that cropped up over the time until the ECF determined what was canon by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
     
  9. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    I admit my mistake in references. It makes no difference. There is still a translational between Hebrew and Greek no matter which way you look at it, and there still is no proof that it is a quotation from the LXX. Isn't it odd that you should choose one of the shortest verses as your "proof text?"
    OK, I'll play your game. I'll go back to where some of these texts are posted and randomly choose some and check them out and then post the results. I don't have time to an exhaustive study so it will just be the first few that I happen to choose.

    Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

    --You have got to be kidding. Are you really seriious--that Paul was referring to the Book of Maccabbees here.

    No, he wasn't. Rest assured. Here is what the verse says:


    1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
    --He is referring to a common pagan practice, current at that time, and using it for an illustrative purpose. It has nothing to do with any apocryphal book. How ludicrous!


    1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.
    And just where is there even a remote similarity here. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gives a glorious description of God Almighty. You give a reference to "Judas...who did cast down Jericho"--as if that is accuate??
    And then a quote about the King, presumably God, moving Antioch agaisnt some wrate or wickedness. How do we know that this was true--was it God that moved Antioch? Perhaps it was Satan. Don't insult Paul and the Holy Spirit by tying in this passage with Paul's writings. Both Paul and God are more educated than that.


    Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

    To lay your treasure up in heaven is a common expression.
    To accuse Jesus of quoting from Sirach is blasphemous. The people recognized Christ's words
    as authoritative and coming right from God himself, not from Sirach.

    Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd. Matthew 9:36 But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.

    Context:
    Jdt 11:1
    Then said Holofernes unto her, Woman, be of good comfort,
    fear not in thine heart: for I never hurt any that was willing
    to serve Nabuchodonosor, the king of all the earth.
    --Are you saying that this woman Judith is Jesus? What blasphemy!!

    How you get a common phrase like "sheep without a shepherd" from this verse, and then blaspheme Christ by accusing him of quoting from Judith is beyond me.
    DHK
     
    #89 DHK, Sep 20, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 20, 2006
  10. Inquiring Mind

    Inquiring Mind New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is it now? Prove it.

    let's change that quote up a bit:

    To accuse Jesus of quoting from Psalms is blasphemous. The people recognized Christ's words as authoritative and coming right from God himself, not from Psalms.
     
  11. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    As a paraphrase it is common.
    All you have is three of four words.
    "Lay up your treasure."
    That is all. How can you even consider that a quote from the Apocrypha. It is ludicrous to take four words from the Apocrypha and claim that it is a quote. That is really stretching it.

    Everyone--Jew and Gentile--was familiar with the Psalms, as inspired Scripture. Jesus quoted from that which was inspired Scripture. He never quoted from the Apocypha, and neither did any other writer of the NT. You have yet to prove that they did. The above so-called quoted don't prove anything. When Peter quotes from Joel in Acts 2 he states that he is quoting from Joel. Matthew states that he quotes from Isaiah in Mat. 12, and so does Paul in 1Cor.14:21. They were not ashamed to state where they were quoting from, and their quotes were accurate. No where do we see: Thus saith Sirach, Baruch, etc. No quotes or allusions are in the NT from the apocrypha. There is no proof of it whatsoever.
    DHK
     
  12. Inquiring Mind

    Inquiring Mind New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

    Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

    Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

    Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

    Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

    Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

    Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

    Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

    Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

    Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

    Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

    Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

    Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

    Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

    Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.

    Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

    Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

    Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

    Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.

    Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

    John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

    John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

    John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.

    John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

    John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

    John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

    John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

    John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

    Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

    Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

    Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

    Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.

    Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.

    Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.

    Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.

    Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

    Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

    Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

    1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul's question, "who has known the mind of the Lord?" references Wisdom 9:13.

    1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.

    1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many "gods" but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.

    1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul's description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.

    1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

    1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

    Eph. 1:17 - Paul's prayer for a "spirit of wisdom" follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.

    Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.

    Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

    1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

    2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul's description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.

    Heb. 4:12 - Paul's description of God's word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.

    Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

    Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

    Heb. 12:12 - the description "drooping hands" and "weak knees" comes from Sirach 25:23.

    James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

    James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

    James 3:13 - James' instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.

    James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.

    James 5:6 - condemning and killing the "righteous man" follows Wisdom 2:10-20.

    1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.

    1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

    2 Peter 2:7 - God's rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.

    Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.

    Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

    Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God's Word in Wisdom 18:16.

    Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.

    Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

    Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.

    Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.

    Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

    Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

    Rev. 19:1 - the cry "Hallelujah" at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.

    Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

    Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

    Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.

    Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.

    1 Sam. 28:7-20 – the intercessory mediation of deceased Samuel for Saul follows Sirach 46:20.

    2 Kings 2:1-13 – Elijah being taken up into heaven follows Sirach 48:9.
     
  13. Inquiring Mind

    Inquiring Mind New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did a search on lay and treasure.
    It only shows up once in the NT

    Mat 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

    So it is not common.

    As for what was inspired at the time of Christ was walking the earth. The missing books that are not in your bible were considered inspired. They were part of the LXX when Jesus walked the earth.

    And it's not blaphemous to say that Jesus quoted from them. It's only blaphemous in your mind.

    Whether something is blaphemous or not is in the eye of the beholder.
     
  14. Inquiring Mind

    Inquiring Mind New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    0
    And for your information.

    The missing books were in the KJV for over 200 years before the American Bible Society offered to make low cost Bibles prvoided they could leave out the deuterocanicals.

    They now have put them back in. Catholic dollars sit well in the bank just as Protestant dollars do.
     
  15. orthodox

    orthodox New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    I gave you reference to a web page that does an exhaustive list of quotations, listing those that both agree with the LXX in opposition to the Hebrew Masoretic text and those that agree with the Masoretic text in opposition to the LXX. The former exceed the latter on a ratio of about 30:6. The only reason I picked that one is that it is the FIRST one in the NT.

    http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm

    You say it doesn't prove Mt quoted the Greek. Well if he didn't quote the Greek we have the extraordinary situation that he quoted a Hebrew text which differs substantially from the Masoretic text, and he did it with amazing luck to exactly match the LXX. Multiply that amazing 1000:1 shot by 30 instances and you have a 2^100 : 1 impossible scenario.

    As for your quick look at a few apocrypha verses, sorry there is no short cuts here. If you want to know the truth about this for your own sake, as opposed to just scoring a few points here, you will have to do some personal research on all the suggested allusions and go through them all one by one to build up on overall picture. I'm not going to sit here and go through them one by one, you're going to have to decide as a matter of personal integrity whether you care about the truth. Then you're going to have to decide whether you are so proud that you decide for yourself the canon you want to follow, or whether you will submit to authority as the bible says, and follow the canon that the Church of the apostles formalised.
     
  16. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Did you search in the Hebrew language?
    Did you search in the Greek language? How about the Aramaic?
    Did you search the works of Homer, Greek poets, and others. Are you sure that your search was thorough? Why would you do a simple KJV search for a phrase commonly used in both Greek and Hebrew. That doesn't make sense to me. :confused:

    I find your "If the KJV is good enough for Paul" approach to Scripture quite humorous. You really believe in that philosophy don't you, just like a KJVO--the type that believes that the KJV is more inspired and even corrects the Greek and the Hebrew. This is your philosophy and what you are demonstrating on this board. How?
    All the Jews knew and accepted that the Hebrew MT was the inspired OT. It and it only was the Word of God or at least a copy of the preserved Word of God. Inspiration in and of itself extends only to the original manuscripts. "Holy men of old spoke as they were moved of the Holy Spirit."
    Those holy men of old were not the translators of the Septuagint, nor were they the translators of the KJV or Jerome or Luther or of any other translator. They were Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, etc. and by extension the Apostles. Those holy men specifically refer to the authors of the 39 books of the Old Testament, who wrote them all in Hebrew.
    That canon was completed between 450 and 400 B.C. The Jews would not accept any book written after that date as inspired. All the books of the Apocrypha werer written after 150 B.C. (150 B.C. -30 A.D.)
    They never accepted any book that was written in any other language except for Hebrew. The apocryphal books were all written in Greek.

    It is impossible to have any such thing as an apocryphal book in the Old Testament, given the above facts--an absolute impossibility. Again, let me remind you--when speaking of the Bible both we today, and the Jews of yester years (as well as Jesus) considered only the original manuscripts inspired. Inspiration only extends to the original manuscripts.

    So 150 years or more, the Septuagint comes, a translation made by about 70 men who translate the Hebrew MT into Greek. Perhaps it takes some time and may be completed in about 100 years (150 B.C.) During that period of time and the time leading up to Christ other copies of the LXX are made. Even after Christ copies continue to be made. In the later editions of the LXX, after the birth of Christ especially, apocryphal books are found to be inserted that was never found in the original Septuagint. The Jews would never have the apocrypha in their OT. They weren't even in existence when the work of the LXX started, nor when it finished. How could the original LXX possibly could have contained the apocrypha. It didn't.

    Secondly, when Jesus and the apostles (if they did) quoted from the Septuagint, they would have been perfectly aware that they were not quoting inspired Scripture. They would have been quoting from a translation, just as I quote from the KJV, or perhaps a French translation, or any other translation. None of them are inspired. The LXX is only a translation. It is not inspired. The only parts of it that are inspired are those that became inspired when they were written down as Scripture in the NT. It didn't mean that the whole book was inspired.

    Examples:
    Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch, but that doesn't mean that the entire book is inspired, only the verse that Jude quotes.
    Paul quotes in Titus, a Cretian philosophers. Are all the philosophers of Crete inspired? I don't think so.
    In the book of Acts Paul quotes a Grecian pagan poet. Is he also inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, and all of his works as well?
    Only those things that made their way, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, into the pages of Scripture are inspired. The LXX is a translation, not inspired.

    Concerning the Apocrypha, when they did make their way into certain editions of the Septuagint often it was not because they were inspired but because of their value in reference material. The same is true today. Heretics like Origen tried to keep them within the canon itself, but then he was a heretic even by Catholic standards.

    There were some editions of the KJV with the Apocrypha. But those 14 books were grouped together and inserted between the two testaments. They were not interspersed throughout the Old Testament like the Catholics do. There were no extra chapters added to Daniel for example. They were put there because the KJV translators knew that they were not the Word of God, and that they were for reference only.

    I have a study Bible. Within its pages I have a Bible dictionary, a concordance, maps, and other information. If I had wanted a Bible with the apocrypha in it I could have ordered one with it as well, but I didn't want it. The fact is that the dictionary and the concordance are not part of the Bible, and neither is the apocrypha. They are all extras, helps, reference material--the apocrypha included. The people of King James time understood this; can you?
    The apocrypha is not, never was part of the canon of Scripture. There has been no evidence given that it ever was.
    Even the full quotation from Josephus states that any addition to the MT was wrong. He didn't accept the apocryphal books.
    DHK
     
  17. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    It doesn't.
    I'll give you a short cut with one quick glance at your phony site.
    It didn't take much looking.

    From the MT, the KJV was translated and accurately translated Isaiah 7:14 as "a virgin shall conceive, not a young woman shall conceive. Even your own informatioin which is posted in your link is suspect. Why should I believe it?
    DHK
     
    #97 DHK, Sep 20, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 20, 2006
  18. orthodox

    orthodox New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Assuming what you have yet to prove.
    Assuming what you have yet to prove.
    Firstly, assuming what you have yet to prove.

    Secondly, the LXX was translated from a different Hebrew text to the MT, which is often right where the MT is wrong. That's why even modern bibles that have been substantially been translated from the MT still have footnotes saying "From the Septuagint".

    Pure fabrication, there is no mention of 39 books.

    Assuming what you have yet to prove.
    Assuming what you have yet to prove.
    Firstly, assuming what you have yet to prove.

    Secondly, not all the apocrypha is written in Greek. I thought you claimed to know a lot about this subject?

    No facts presented, just assuming what you have yet to prove.
    Assuming what you have yet to prove.
    Assuming what you have yet to prove.
    Assuming what you have yet to prove.
    Assuming what you have yet to prove.
    Assuming what you have yet to prove.
    Became inspired? How can a text not be inspired, and then suddenly become inspired with no changes?
     
  19. orthodox

    orthodox New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0


    The KJV translates it that way because Matthew translates it that way, and he translates it that way because the LXX does!

    But that's not the best example, there's 29 others for you to consider that are much clearer. But I'll bet there is no response because you don't want to find the truth, only to argue facts that aren't disputed even by protestant scholars.
     
  20. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    This tiresome and oft repeated rant of yours only shows your ignorance of Bibliology and Bible history. You need an education in the history of the Bible, and its canonicity.
    DHK
     
Loading...