Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"Thus says the LORD" in the Apocrypha
#1
If the Apocrypha isnt inspired scripture and simply the works of man, why would somebody be so foolish as to plaigerize (sp) YHWH's words?

The other day I checked out the Jerusalem Bible, a Roman Catholic Bible, which I didnt even know to be. But the translation, although not the most literal, seemed very genuine-not covering up YHWH with the LORD, not hiding Azazel's identity with "scapegoat" in Leviticus, and other such things. It also had the Apocrypha, which before reading I thought were mere history books-but theres actual supposed quotations from the LORD God, and I remembered John's warning about taking away from the word of God resulting in one's dismissal of eternal life.

Why is it sometimes so hard to tell an authentic book from a fake one, and why are there so many fakes? Even the New Testament is loaded with books like "The Revelation of St. Paul" Gosepls of Judas,Thomas, and the Hebrews and other such things. "Because the early church fathers only had these books" explanation doesnt seem like the most neutral decision, as theres a lot of stuff the early church fathers were wrong about.

Anybody here who believes the 66 books are only endemic to us and our culture, and is putting a restriction on God's word?

I already spoke about Enoch, which, being rejected by most, I think makes a great case for a missing biblical book.
Reply
#2
Concerning the intertestamental apocrypha, the most simplest and strongest of arguments is that neither Jesus nor the NT writers ever quote from them (but from all other OT books). That they are not canon does not mean they do not contain truth. Whether or not they do is up for discussion. i think even in the OT there are false prophets abusing God's name, so i wouldn't use that as an indication.

if you want God's word beyond the 66 Books, i personally believe prayer is one of the best ways to go. But, of course, you may as well find anointed and inspired truth anywhere esle, even in modern books. i think the canon is more about the framework in which we can grow in truth rather than the full mesure of truth. Theproblem is, that humans usually grow wrong (even if just a little) in that framework, and end up with less than all truth.

Concerning NT apocrpha, it really pays to know the history of the texts. Some of them were written with very bad intentions, especially gnostic writings. Interesting:
http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml

Always remember adding to the word is just as bad as taking away from the word, and without a divine, universal and certain guidline, we have to consider that we have either (too much or too little).
Reply
#3
Andrej Wrote:Concerning NT apocrpha, it really pays to know the history of the texts. Some of them were written with very bad intentions, especially gnostic writings. Interesting:
http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml
Thanks for the link; it seems like it could be really helpful.

However, after reading the section it has on the Peshitta, I do have to question the site's credibility.
Reply
#4
rramlow Wrote:
Andrej Wrote:Concerning NT apocrpha, it really pays to know the history of the texts. Some of them were written with very bad intentions, especially gnostic writings. Interesting:
http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml
Thanks for the link; it seems like it could be really helpful.

However, after reading the section it has on the Peshitta, I do have to question the site's credibility.
well, you don't have to accept everything 100%. i had to find out the information about marcion is also not accurate. it is mostly traditional protestand positions. doesn't mean the rest is bad.
Reply
#5
Andrej Wrote:
rramlow Wrote:
Andrej Wrote:Concerning NT apocrpha, it really pays to know the history of the texts. Some of them were written with very bad intentions, especially gnostic writings. Interesting:
http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml
Thanks for the link; it seems like it could be really helpful.

However, after reading the section it has on the Peshitta, I do have to question the site's credibility.
well, you don't have to accept everything 100%. i had to find out the information about marcion is also not accurate. it is mostly traditional protestand positions. doesn't mean the rest is bad.
Thanks. I'm sure there's lots of good info there. I didn't mean to come across otherwise.

I haven't gotten into the page there about Marcion. If you care to sum up your findings, I'd be interested.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)