Featured Martin Luther and “ “Here I Stand”!

the Holy Spirit led the reformers to reject all of those heresies held by Rome!

 

The Holy Bible as directly Inspired by God the Holy Spirit, ONLY consists of 66 Books, as found in the so-called Protestant Canon. ANY other "books" are uninspired and NOT part of the Original Inspired Bible. The additional "books" that are in the Roman Catholic, and "Orthodox" bibles, are hertical, and not Inspired by God the Holy Spirit, and not to be used by any person who desires to know what God says to the human race.

 

ONLY 27 (22 or 24 in the Jewish count) Books in the Jewish Old Testament. NO additional books in the RCC and "Orthodox" bible was part of the Original Autographs

Philo of Alexandria (c 20 BC-AD 50) Jewish Scholar

“More to the point is the evidence of Philo, the quintessential representative of Alexandrian Jewry. His numerous quotations from the scriptures provide important evidence about the history of the Greek text of the Old Testament and also about Alexandrian hermeneutical method. Although he does not expressly frame a clear definition of the limits of the Canon, it is evident that for him the Law is the supreme documentary authority... At all events it does not appear that Philo quotes any apocryphal book as holy scripture. (P Ackroyd and C Evans; The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, p.148)

Josephus (A.D.37-100) Jewish Historian

“When Josephus speaks of twenty-two books, he probably refers to exactly the same documents as the twenty-four of the traditional Jewish reckoning, Ruth being counted as an appendix to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah. His three divisions might be called the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. His first division comprises the same five books as the first division in the traditional arrangement. But his second division has thirteen books, not eight, the additional five being perhaps Job, Esther, Daniel, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. The four books of the third division would then be Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs. It is impossible to be sure, because he does not specify the books of the three division one by one.” (F F Bruce; The Canon of Scripture, p. 33)

The Fifth Book of Maccabees (Late 1st Century A.D.) - Historical

“There was a man of Macedon named Ptolemy, endued with knowledge and understanding; whom, as he dwelt in Egypt, the Egyptians made king over the country of Egypt. Wherefore he, being possessed with a desire of seeking out various knowledge, collected all the books of wise men from every quarter. And being anxious to obtain the Twenty-four Books, he wrote to the high priest in Jerusalem, to send him seventy elders from among those who were most skilled in those books ; and he sent to the priest a letter, with a present… So the secretaries took down from every one of them the translation of the Twenty-four Books. And when the translations were finished, Eleazar brought them to the king; and compared them together in his presence : on which comparison, they were found to agree. Upon which the king was exceeding glad, and ordered a large sum of money to be divided amongst the party. But Eleazar himself he rewarded with a munificent recompense.” (Henry Cotton; The Five Books of Maccabees; Book V, Ch.II, 1-3, 8-10)

Syriac Peshitta VERSION (1st/2nd century)

“Thirdly, the earlier form [original] of the Peshitta, a daughter version of the Septuagint, seems to have omitted the additional books [apocrypha] and Chronicles. If it was of Christian origin, this would be a pointer to the restriction of the canonical list within the Church.” (P R Ackroyd and C F Evans; The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, pp.158-159)


“The Peshitta version originally omitted the books of the Apocrypha, which were added from the Greek” (Frederic Kenyon; Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, p.135)


The Babylonian Talmud (70-200 A.D.) Jewish

“Our Rabbis taught: The order of the Prophets is, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve Minor Prophets. Let us examine this. Hosea came first, as it is written, God spake first to Hosea.11 But did God speak first to Hosea? Were there not many prophets between Moses and Hosea? R. Johanan, however, has explained that [what It means is that] he was the first of the four prophets who prophesied at that period, namely, Hosea, Isaiah, Amos and Micah. Should not then Hosea come first? - Since his prophecy is written along with those of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, and Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi came at the end of the prophets, he is reckoned with them. But why should he not be written separately and placed first? - Since his book is so small, it might be lost [if copied separately]. Let us see again. Isaiah was prior to Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Then why should not Isaiah be placed first? - Because the Book of Kings ends with a record of destruction and Jeremiah speaks throughout of destruction and Ezekiel commences with destruction and ends with consolation and Isaiah is full of consolation; therefore we put destruction next to destruction and consolation next to consolation. The order of the Hagiographa is Ruth, the Book of Psalms, Job, Prophets, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel and the Scroll of Esther, Ezra and Chronicles.” (Tractate Bava Batra 14b-15a)


Origen (184-253) Heretic

“When expounding the first Psalm he gives a catalogue of the Sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament as follows: "It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two, corresponding with the number of their letters." Farther on he says: "The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Breshith, which means 'in the beginning'; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, 'these are the names'; Leviticus, Wikra, 'and he called'; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim 'these are the words'; Joshua the son of Nun, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the first and second of Kings, among them one, Samoel, that is, 'the called of God'; the third and fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, 'the kingdom of David'; of the Chronicles, the first and second in one, Dabreiamein, that is, 'records of days'; Esdras, first and second in one, Ezra, that is, 'an assistant'; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the Epistle in one, Jeremia; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther; And outside of these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.". (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, vi. 25)

 

are you not able to defend what you believe?

 

I have argued against the Apostasy of the RCC for almost 40 yrs and for several years on this board.

 

Yeah but why complain about this thread? What the RCs post on here can easily be refuted

 

Ok thanks

 

No they were not!

They were inserted between the Old and New Testaments only for reference

 

Not as part of the Bible

It clearly says that they are Apocrypha books

Please check your facts before you post false information

 

What you wrote in #28 implies that the 1611 KJV has the Apocrypha

FWIW - The Apocrypha Books were part of the 1611 edition of the King James Bible

You failed to say that it was between the Testaments and there ONLY for the purpose of research

 

That is just nit picking but then again you do love to pick at nits by times. Were the Apocrypha to be found between the covers of the 1611, YES were they therefore a part of the 1611 bible, YES.
Those that were part of the RC church could use the bible those that were not could use the bible. Remember the religious climate that we had at the time and the cost of producing a bible. All these thinks would have been taken into consideration.

 

Another load of RUBBISH

 

You seem to have a real problem with people that disagree with you. What is wrong with what I posted. You need to stop spitting into the wind.

 

Read again what you wrote

 

again I will says this. At NO TIME were the APOCRYPHA books of the Old Testament, PART of the Old Testament. They were IN the Old Testement SECTION, but cleary MARKED for what they are UNINSPIRED. It is like Bible's that have a concordance or dictionay at the back, which are IN the BINDING of the Bible, but NOT PART of the Bible. There is an important distinction here, and not "nit picking"!

 

As I have said the apocryphal books were IN the binding of 1611 KJV, but never PART of the KJV Books