You May Be Wrong About The Apocrypha (1/7)

[Lizard4410]

Every Judeo-Christian Bible compiled before Jeromes Latin Vulgate (405 CE) had the Apocrypha in it as canon. These ancient complete Bibles include the Septuagint, Peshitta, Dead Sea Scrolls and Ethiopian Orthodox Bible.

Hebrews 11:35 and Revelation 1:4 and 8:3-4 reference the Apocrypha.

[CERBERUS300ify]

4:41..."i didn't really have a gay plan..*

[xojmarixo]

@CERBERUS300ify lol.

[kiwichristian2009]

Judith falsely states that Nebuchadnezzar reigns over the Assyrians,whereas he ruled Babylon instead.Torbit could not have witnessed the division of Israel into the northern and southern kingdoms in 931BC(Tor1:4),and have been deported 200 years later in 734BC(Tor1:10).Ecc3:3 states that giving money forgives sins. This contradicts Christs' work on the cross. Jesus and the apostles quote 260 times from the 35 out of 39 OT books, yet they NEVER quoted the apocrypha.

[sr1215cl]

For 2000 years the Christians kept and included the Apocrypha but we don't have it now.

[kiwichristian2009]

...It appears they were ultimately accepted at Trent, because without doing so, the Catholic Church had no scripture upon which to base the doctrine of purgatory, invocation and intercession of the saints, the worship of angels, the redemption of souls after death, etc. In fact, if you'll look at the Catholic Encyclopedia, you'll find discussion of "problems" or "errors" with most of the apocryphal books.

[kiwichristian2009]

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Jerome was hesitant to include most of the apocryphal books in the canon, due to numerous errors. Even after he did concede to include them (in the fourth century), they were not decreed to be inspired scripture until April 8, 1546 at the Council of Trent. So for 1100 years, they were part of the canon, but not officially scripture. The reason for this is again, because of the numerous errors....

[kiwichristian2009]

Judith falsely states that Nebuchadnezzar reigns over the Assyrians,whereas he ruled Babylon instead.Torbit could not have witnessed the division of Israel into the northern and southern kingdoms in 931BC(Tor1:4),and have been deported 200 years later in 734BC(Tor1:10).Ecc3:3 states that giving money forgives sins. This contradicts Christs' work on the cross. Jesus and the apostles quote 260 times from the 35 out of 39 OT books, yet they NEVER quoted the apocrypha.

[Apocryphile1970]

@kiwichristian2009 Well you just read Ephesians 6 and Wisdom 5 and I can guarantee you that Paul was reading that book, because he gets the whole Armour of God Illustration from it. And how can Christians claim to be wearing the WHOLE Armour of God when they Hide this fact? They actually have to LIE about Paul's usage here, which means they only put on the "FALSE" armour of God.

[Apocryphile1970]

The OLD ARMOUR of Christian tradition served to UNDERMINE the truth, which also UNDERMINED our righteousness, for it is unrighteous in the extreme to LIE about God's Word for the sake of maintaining church Tradition OVER the Word of God. And since we have been given our orders, we need to study to show ourselves approved; that we may be PREPARED to preach this Gospel of Peace.

[Apocryphile1970]

@Apocryphile1970 Our Faithfulness to the Word of God provides us with a NEW Shield of a NEW faith, one which is grounded in the REALITY THAT PAUL REALLY DID USE THAT SOURCE, Christians systematically lie about places where apocryphal books are used in the Bible, such as the Book of Adam & Eve (2 Cor 11:14,) Jannes & Jambres (2 Tim 3:8-9,) 2 Maccabees (Heb 11:35, the Chapter of FAITH!), The Ascension of Isaiah (Heb 11:37b--AGAIN, the Chapter of FAITH!)

[Apocryphile1970]

@Apocryphile1970 Not only that, but in 1 Cor 1:21, right AFTER he gets through explaining just HOW God is going to destroy the "wisdom of the wise," he alludes to the Wisdom of Solomon Chapter 13 and VERY CLEVERLY gives us the NAME of the Source by a PLAY ON WORDS, "For after that in the WISDOM OF GOD the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."

[Apocryphile1970]

@Apocryphile1970 Also, Jude give Enoch a rather impressive resume in verses 14 & 15:

And Enoch (The name of the SOURCE)

Also (That is, in addition to the "accepted" writings.)

The Seventh From Adam (The source is PRE-FLOOD in origin.)

Prophesied (He had the Spirit of Prophecy)

Of These (Infiltrators of Jude's day--all the way from Antediluvian times!)

[Apocryphile1970]

@Apocryphile1970 Saying, Behold the LORD COMETH with ten thousands of his saints.... (Meaning that this is one of the OLDEST and MOST SWEEPING of prophecies IN THE BIBLE, spanning all the way from before the flood all the way to Jude's day.)

[Apocryphile1970]

@Apocryphile1970 And even though the Jewish Leaders rejected it from their canon, apparently Jude did not observe their canon. Compare that with what OUR leaders believe:

And Enoch (Not the REAL Enoch, of course)

Also (Not included in Jewish canon, it is therefore to be excluded....)

The Seventh From Adam (NOT the seventh from Adam, more like 300 B.C.)

[Apocryphile1970]

@Apocryphile1970

Prophesied (Though he was NOT among the Prophets!)

Of These (The Gnostics or Heretics, certainly not the Orthodoxy!)

[jfeltes]

You need to move the microphone CLOSER!!!!

[Mrpl778]

We should not be debating whether these books should be in our bible , rather we should be up in arms, about the changes of the NIV, the NWT, over the Authorized KIng James Bible. I recommend a Book by Henry Gruver called which Bible should we Believe.

[Apocryphile1970]

I don't see how the one precludes the other.

[Mrpl778]

You seem to know your stuff, so i am sure you are all ready aware of the damage that was done by the NIV, and the later versions. As to the other i do not believe in cannonizing any more books, but i believe the others are excellent reads to understanding, and won should always let the Holy Spirit be the teacher. I for one have never found any discrepancy between the Bible and the Apochrapha. But if they push anti biblical doctrines than that book should be read with caution.

[KaOssis]

Ever heard of a Black Book that was sent on a journey, they called it The Black Rose Called Mohammed, and the code's in the Bible are Welsh-Gaelic, such as 'Babylon' mean's "Edinbourgh" from the word 'Smoke', and funnily enough, Edinbourgh is the home of the tobacco giant's Rothschilds, which is "the children of wrath" in the Bible text!

[Apocryphile1970]

To say this absolutely, however, is going too far, since we are told by Jesus himself that Abraham 'saw his day,' and at the transfiguration Moses and Elijah were both present. We are NOT told whether Moses and Elijah were transported from their OWN times or not. If Moses and Elijah were taken to Jesus' 'DAY,' as he implies of Abraham, then they would have known VERY SPECIFIC THINGS ABOUT HIM IN ADVANCE, thus returning to their OWN 'DAY' with this specific information. This holds true for EZRA.

[wezand2]

There are no extant copies of the apocrypha written before Christ which were allegedly quoted by Christ or his apostles because there were never any. Alexandrian scribes were the principle culprits in the scheme of indoctrination into the ancient mystery religions and writing apocryphal material was only one of the several vehicles employed to accomplish the task. Those apocryphal writings that allegedly "agree" with saying found in the New Testament were not originally written in the language

[AltarEgo180]

I wonder, do you think that Jude was involved in this 'scheme?' Vss 9, 14, & 15 are all references to pseudepigraphal books that were extant at the time. The dead sea scrolls bear this out. I know that the section of Enoch that Jude quot5es was also found among the DSS, as were portions of Tobit and Ben Sira, which were both found in Hebrew--and they were in substantial agreement. The Hebrew Enoch was closer to the Jude quote than the Ethiopic, so I think he could have read it in Hebrew.

[wezand2]

Moreover, the collective writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls were not unlike those of a modern-day Mormon library whose books include such things as the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, etc. No true Christian believes that a Mormon library is representative of true Christianity. Do your own research folks: don't take the words of a few "wise and prudent" bible scholars' opinions!

[wezand2]

The Dead Sea Scrolls - most surviving only as tiny scraps -- date from about 250 BC to 100 AD, and represent several divergent text types. Those allegedly quoted by Jude and other New Testament writers were written after the fact - to agree with the New Testament not visa-versa. The text of I Enoch, for instance, is attested by a single 4th century AD manuscript.

[Apocryphile1970]

Are you suggesting that by AD 100 the community at Qumran had been Christianized, and that the book of Enoch was forged after the Jude quote? The window of opportunity simply was not there. The earliest I've ever seen Jude dated was maybe 60 AD. Jerusalem fell in AD 70. I don't think that such a fraud could be carried out in Jude's lifetime. Even supposing for the sake of argument it was 'added' to the Ethiopic text, I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to explain how it appears at Qumran....

[Antisyncretism]

..the 'Enoch' book was added to continuously and..that very verse (1:9) is not known in BC and it has been alleged that its presence in ethiopic is that the popular book was then changed in reaction to Jude (at least before 222ad) and this changed could have been noticed by those who thought it to be in Jude because of its immense popularity.

[Apocryphile1970]

Also, I believe that there is clear evidence that most of the apocryphal books that exist in the septuagint have been alluded to or referenced in extrabiblical writings before Christian times, so it seems implausible at best to think that they didn't exist. Whatever the case, I think the thing that really kills the argument is why aren't they MORE amenable to the New Testament teaching than they are. I mean, the Maccabees doesn't even use the term "God," much less Jesus or whatever.

[Apocryphile1970]

I will concede that The Wisdom of Solomon may have been post-Christian, and 2Esdras definitely has Christianized sections. None of this, however, is the basis for my line of reasoning. What I am basically arguing here is that the MEANING of these books is what is important. For example, take the book of 2Esdras. Here it is believed that a Christian has most likely either built upon a Jewish apocalypse or forged it outright.

[Apocryphile1970]

If Ezra saw his 'DAY,' like Abraham and Moses and Elijah did, then we should not be surprised at the level of specificity we find in 2Esdras. Maybe we are to infer that this is possible, and not to see such things as added later by some other author. It may take a little faith to accept what other people say is foolish, but I can't see where your proof on this is. It seems to me that you have more of a problem with this than the early Christians.

[Apocryphile1970]

Clement goes on at length about the trustworthiness of the Scriptures, bringing up Judith for instance, and then saying, "You will not find anything counterfeit in them," meaning the Scriptures--and that was VERY early. Also, Barnabas, though never canonical, does quote Enoch, and then says, "And if a prophet speaks something, it WILL happen." Clearly, then, these people though differently of these Scriptures than you do. Maybe they were never canonized, but Jude was. What was he quoting?

[Apocryphile1970]

If everything you said was somehow true, I am completely at a loss about what to do with Jude. At the very least you have to say that he was talking about stuff that doesn't exist in our Bible. Whatever the source, he is using these allusions in DEFENSE of the faith. I mean that's what his whole letter is about. Why use extrabiblical sources at all? He calls him a patriarch, he says he prophesied?

[Apocryphile1970]

But whatever the provenance, once you understand the codes that these people speak in, which I touch on in other sections, you begin to see that they ALL SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE. ALL OF THEM DECODE IN THE SAME WAY, which means they were ENCODED by people who knew the language of parables. Provenance has little or nothing to do with it. It's really more about WHAT they knew, rather than WHEN they knew it.

[wezand2]

of the Jews, God's custodians of the scriptures, but in Greek, Syriac, Latin, et al. Some of these were translated into Hebrew from other languages. Not true Christian in 1611 or in the days of the apostles believed that apocryphal writings were inspired. Early Bibles, including the KJV, placed numerous non-Biblical items within the binding of the Bible for practical reasons. They included things like calendars, genealogies, maps, gazetteers, metrical Psalms for singing, and the Apocrypha (which

[wezand2]

shed light on just exactly what "superstitions" and "traditions" were being followed by the Jews). Even today Bibles include concordances, dictionaries, notes, histories, commentaries, and cross references. No one mistakes these for being equal to the scriptures. In 1611 and before, few people had a collection of books; most owned only one book, the Bible. Binding other materials within it served a practical need.

[wezand2]

of the Jews, God's custodians of the scriptures, but in Greek, Syriac, Latin, et al. Some of these were translated into Hebrew from other languages. Not true Christian in 1611 or in the days of the apostles believed that apocryphal writings were inspired. Early Bibles, including the KJV, placed numerous non-Biblical items within the binding of the Bible for practical reasons. They included things like calendars, genealogies, maps, gazetteers, metrical Psalms for singing, and the Apocrypha (which

[wezand2]

In 1646 many KJV Bibles began to leave out the Apocrypha because some people were starting to confuse the Apocrypha with the Scriptures (see Westminster Confession of Faith 1646, Article III). I have an authentic KJV Bible that was printed in 1646 with no Apocrypha

Copy and paste this

THE APOCRYPHA angelfire/la2

in the yahoo search engine, should be the first link that comes up.

see also

KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE FACTS

THE MYTH OF EARLY REVISIONS

near bottom of APOCRYPHA page.

[Apocryphile1970]

What do you mean 'confuse?' People essentially have to be told NOT to believe it. And why? Virtually every argument people use against it can be used against the canonical writings as well. I think this is by design. Every time someone in the New Testament alludes to things in the apocrypha, 'scholars' somehow manage to downplay it as if it were some accident. What if the New Testament writers were RIGHT and the 'scholars' WRONG. All that we have been taught would burn up before us!

[hapi2bee]

@Apocryphile1970 I Agree that some are inspired' these are the Books that were referred in those days, Even Jesus quote much of the book of Enoch though as well as the Old and the New Testament. Jasher , Maccabees etc.... I feel that man should not have tampered with the Apocrypha. My Opinion as it says in Rev 22:18-19

[Apocryphile1970]

@hapi2bee Fair enough.... But it is in the mouths of two OR three witnesses that all things will be established. If you are of the two (NT & OT,) then it will still be established as true, and the same is true if you hold to the third witness as well. If you believe it, you believe it to the Lord, and if you do not believe it, you do not believe it unto the Lord. Have faith, but the Day will reveal it, but don't be surprised if it happens sometime soon.

[jatamode]

I have the 1611 with the Apocrypha.

[roudy1689]

i like your message but you need to do something about the volume and the voice tone. i'm only trying to help, i'm not trying to be a jerk

[MissStarlustre]

You need to edit this so the volume is louder and speed it up as well.

[enly10me]

And I have -- reviewed all 7. Not sure if the 22 tracts are sharing more info on the apocrypha as well. ??? Guess I'll have to check that out too!

[Apocryphile1970]

Yeah, they are too, as are 'Good Things Come in Threes' (i.e. OT, NT, & The Apocryphal Testament,) and 'Putting Together a Gospel,' which I have done, seamlessly mixing the canonical gospels with 100+ other sources, including all the major apocryphal gospels, fragments, Patristic citations, variants, Logia and Agrapha.... The tracts, which I did in '2000, are not nearly as focused and polished as the other ones, but there are many things in those that are interesting as well.

[enly10me]

Very intriguing! I grew up in a cult-like environment religiously. I have abandoned a lot of their teachings and doctrine. However, one instruction that I have kept close to my heart has been the introduction of the Apocrypha. We were taught that it was fundemental to understanding the realm of life and God's purpose for each one of us. My spirit recognizes this as sound doctrine. So your awareness and enlightenment was eye-opening to say the least...

[Apocryphile1970]

Well, I'm glad that there are others out there. I hope you get a chance to view them all, because there are many very interesting aspects to this understanding.... Thanks for the feedback!