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!

Whats wrong with this statement?

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Ps104_33, Dec 12, 2004.

  1. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here are some staements frome the prefaces of some Protestant Bibles and other decrees:

    Statements on the Apocrypha from Reformation Days
    Luther Bible (1534). Title to Apocrypha: "APOCRYPHA, that is, Books which are not to be esteemed like the Holy Scriptures, and yet which are useful and good to read."

    Coverdale Bible (1535). Title to Apocrypha: "APOCRYPHA: The books and treatises which among the Fathers of old are not reckoned to be of like authority with the other books of the Bible, neither are they found in the Canon of Hebrew."

    Geneva Bible (1560). Preface: "The books that follow in order after the Prophets unto the New Testament, are called Apocrypha, that is, books which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion save in so much as they had the consent of the other scriptures called canonical to confirm the same, or rather whereon they were grounded: but as books proceeding from godly men they were received to be read for the advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of history and for the instruction of godly manners: which books declare that at all times God had an especial care of His Church, and left them not utterly destitute of teachers and means to confirm them in the hope of the promised Messiah, and also witness that those calamities that God sent to his Church were according to his providence, who had both so threatened by his prophets, and so brought it to pass, for the destruction of their enemies and for the trial of his children."

    Decree of the Council of Trent (1546). "The holy ecumenical and general Council of Trent . . . following the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates all the books of the Old and New Testament . . . and also the traditions pertaining to faith and conduct . . . with an equal sense of devotion and reverence . . . If, however, any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have by custom been read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be accursed."

    Articles of Religion of the Church of England (1563). Sixth Article: "In the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. . . And the other books (as Jerome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine."

    Westminster Confession (1647). Chapter 1 § 3: "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings."
     
  2. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Statements such as the above post-Luther are self-referencing. What I'm after is a statement pre-Luther that casts doubt on the canonicity of the Apocrypha

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  3. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought I stated this in an above post. For go back and read it. Jerome for example didnt accept the deuterocanonical books and only reluctantly put them in his latin Bible.

    It seems like you are only going to believe what you want to believe.

    "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    HEHEH!!! Have earplugs, will worship.

    I will gladly worship, at my church or theirs, with anyone who has embraced the Lord as Savor, for that person is my brother in the Lord.
     
  5. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    The Apocrypha are not "Christian" add-ons. They are inter-testamental, and, if anything, were intended to be part of the Old Testament. For example Daniel is extended from its original 12 chapters to 14 to accomodate part of the Apocrypha. They are "supposedly" Old Testament books.
    Basically it is not a question, then, of whether Christians accept them or not. Do the Jew accept them as part of their canon. And the answer is a resounding NO! The Jews have never accepted these heretical books as their books. To be part of the Old Testament, every book had to be written before 400 B.C. The Apocrypha fails miserably in this area, some of them being written even after Christ was born, and some after he died! They were fraudulent books. Some of them had good history in them like the books of Macabbees. But some of them were written like complete fairy tales, and had no sense of the reverence of God or Scripture at all.
    The additions to Daniel are an example of this.
    The Jews have never accepted them as Scripture, and to this day do not accept them as Scripture. Why should we?
    DHK
     
  6. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    The Jews did until 81AD and it was only to distance themselves form the Early Church which was using the apocrypha that they rejected those books.

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  7. grace56

    grace56 Guest

    Matt, I can tell you are a student of history! Way to go! Most of these people will never except the truth because their eyes have not been opened.


    grace56
     
  8. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Including the apocrypha into the Bible isnt necessarily accepting them as inspired as was stated before. They were included in the AV1611 for reference purposes. Matt if you want to accept these books as inspirational and read them for your own benefit I guess that is your business. Maybe you can tell us how youve been blessed by reading those particular books.
     
  9. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    The only Bible I have with the Apocrypha in it is my mother's Catholic Douai Bible, which is an English translation of the Vulgate; I rarely read it. I do not currently regard the Apocrypha as inspired but am concerned at the lack of authority for so doing. That is the essence of the question I am asking: on whose authority did Luther - and all Protestants since - reject the Apocrypha? Unless I get a satifactory answer to it, I may have to reconsider my stance on the Apocrypha in all conscience which means perhaps the Douai Bible will get a bit more use...so far, no good.

    I await enlightenment from you all...

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
Loading...