The Apocrypha: Missing books or left out intentionally?

[SaintJoe69]

The Apocrypha is supposedly a collection of some of the missing books that were "missing" from the Bible. Since people have already become accustomed to the Bible, and it is known that there is to be nothing "added or removed", then we can not simply just stick these "missing" books back into print inside the Bible.

Why would these books be left out of the Bible, and who had the power to decide which books to include in the original collection of books, psalms, and such for the original printing of "The Bible"?
:scratch:

[ymeaga1n]

No one had the power to decide which books were include, except there were many different versions of the Bible going around til King James of England ordered that one be made because he wasn't happy with the arguments of what books should be included and what not. The most popular version today is King James' version, which includeds most of the omited books that were left out during the days.

[SaintJoe69]

Originally posted by Ymeaga1n
No one had the power to decide which books were include, except there were many different versions of the Bible going around til King James of England ordered that one be made because he wasn't happy with the arguments of what books should be included and what not. The most popular version today is King James' version, which includeds most of the omited books that were left out during the days.

You just contradicted yourself. You said no one had the power. Then you verified that there were many different versions going around. And finally, you said that King James ordered that one be made (a compilation of sort).

Thanks for backing up this thread, and continuing the discussion. Continue to ponder the thoughts. :D

[ymeaga1n]

No if you recall back in the day King James was a monarch none i was forced to read this version and no one still is i just said that it's the most popular nowadays :). And technically no one did have the power, because you could just go off and read the books separatly if you would ike :)

[cori4u]

hey joe who is backing up the Apocrypha books anyway?

[KrazyEuro]

i dont believe books were taken out and what not... where did you come up to that conclusion joe?

[yacko]

Ok, small history lesson:

During the first three centuries of Christianity, there was no New Testament. The Old Testament, however, has existed for long before Christ's birth. During this period of time, most churches had maybe a few copied letters from Paul, or the other apostles. Many of theese letters were even counterfeit, written by someone else with Paul's or other apostle's name on it. Therefore, the beliefs held by different churches differed enormously, mainly because there was no uniform text to guide even the bishops.

In 325 AD Constantine organized the first council of churches. Think of it as a convention. There were oven 300 bishops involved, from all over the known world. Their first job was to hammer out a list of beliefs, which all Christians sould agree on. This creed, know as the Apostle's Creed is a well known declaration of Christian beliefs: "We believe in one only God, Father Almighty, Creator of things visible and invisible; and in the Lord Jesus Christ, for he is the Word of God, ... etc."

Also the bishops set up a set of rules and regulations not unlike the rules that Paul set up for different positions of service in church: qualifications for pastors, deacons, rules of worship, prayer, etc.

The council that decided the structure of the Bible as we know it today, took place in 360 AD in Laodocia. The books (letters) included in the Bible had to satisfy the following criteria: The books had to be written by an apostle, or during the time of the apostles. Also, the books had to support the doctrine established in Nicea 35 years earlier. Also, these books had to already have a wide circulation, and therefore, be familiar to all the people deciding the makeup of the New Testament. The books that make up the modern New Testament are called the canonical writings. The books that were nominated, but did not make the final cut are the apocryphal writings.

The first collection of these writings appeared in 390 AD,written by a monk named Jerome. His language of choice was latin, since it was the universal academic and religious language of that time. His collection included the apocryphal writings as well, making it a New Testament comprised of 80 books.

The first English version of the Bible appeared in 1384, translated by a guy named John Wycliffe. This version of the Bible was handwritten. There are many versions that followed, and many people ended up being executed by the Catholic Church for translating the Bible.

The making of the King James' version employed 54 men who used all the widely accepted versions up to then including Bishop’s, Geneva, Matthews, Coverdale and Tyndale translation as well as looking at original manuscripts. All available copies of the original manuscripts were brought in. It was found that the Hebrew manuscripts were virtually identical while there was wide variations in the Greek manuscripts as they have been hand copied and handed down. The 54 men worked as teams checking each other’s work. It was printed originally with all 80 books including the Apochrypha again as a separate section

The Apochrypha were removed in 1885 from King James Versions when the English Revised Version was printed, and in 1901 when the American Standard Version was printed.

So the original KJV had the apocryphal writings in it!

[KrazyEuro]

wow, i never knew that, where can i get that bible from??

[Olgutza]

where did you get that info from? many people have never even heard of the apocrypha, much less the story you just gave. i didn't say it was a story because it was a lie, but because i wanted to know what your references are.

and besides, krazyeuro, you shouldn't read anything else more than the bible you currently do. your the reason it looks like this thread was started.
:baby:

[Olgutza]

you can read about the apocrypha online, or i am sure they have copies for sale, but you have to wonder how true they are according to their original manuscripts.
:baby:

[ymeaga1n]

that's a well known fact olgutza they even had a show about The Bible on the history channel and they went over basically all yacko said...it was a good program to watch.

[Olgutza]

wow. i didn't know that. i've seen saintjoe use it in the discussions before this thread was started. :baby:

[KrazyEuro]

Originally posted by Olgutza
and besides, krazyeuro, you shouldn't read anything else more than the bible you currently do. your the reason it looks like this thread was started.
:baby:

whats up olga? got issues? got something on your shoulders you wanna get off?? :scratch:

[SaintJoe69]

Originally posted by KrazyEuro
whats up olga? got issues? got something on your shoulders you wanna get off?? :scratch:

Ahhh... leave poor Olgutza alone. I never watched that episode of Trading Places, either. :D

[KrazyEuro]

Originally posted by SaintJoe69
Ahhh... leave poor Olgutza alone. I never watched that episode of Trading Places, either. :D


i donno you 2 are from atlanta, what did you tell her sainty?? hmmm interesting :scratch: hey if you 2 got a lil chip on your shoulder, and perhaps its me, lemme know :bfro:

[Olgutza]

chip? i thought chip was from california, and that he gots your back... so, don't go accusing atlanta of chips on our shoulders when you gots a chip who's got your back. hehehe
:baby:

[BiG O dAwG]

so i have another question, would the belief in the Book of Mormon be a sort of Apocrypha? I mean i know it came after the time when the Bible was put together in its entirety. But would someone use the same description when looking at it? or is it in a whole different ball-park? -b/c it says to not add to the Bible

[ymeaga1n]

Nah the book of mormon isn't part of the Apocrypha works its more of a whole different ball park.

[Olgutza]

the book of mormons is a person's interpretation of the bible... it is as though someone translated the bible in a poor way.
:baby:

[Nygel]

Olgutza, no that is not what Mormons say if you ask THEM.


BiG O dAwG-- the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with the Bible or the Apocrypha.

[Olgutza]

what would they say if you asked them? :baby: it sounds as though you have, before.

[yacko]

For people inquiring about the information I posted earlier, here are some books you might want to check out:

"Lost Scriptures: Books that did not make it into the New Testament", by Bart D. Ehrman

"The Bible for Dummies" by Jeffrey C. Geoghegan

"In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How it Changed a Nation, a Language and a Culture" by Alister McGrath

If you need more sources, try a web search.

[:::PAPARAZZI:::]

i just took some theology courses on this not too long ago....

the apocryphas are not "missing" books of the bible, they are the ones considered by the counsel not to be authentic in the sense that they were controdictory(sp), and ones that dont mention God. these books were OMITTED, they were never lost.

the one controversial book in the bible is the book of esther sinse the author (mordecai or nehimaia(sp)) does not mention God once. the counsel found it ok to be in the bible because of the meaning of the book...that God didn't let his people be demolished. i'm gonna do some research on this cuz i still dont know much aout it, not that you can know too much.
lol sorry, i'm tired tonight and cant spell ;P God bless!

rob

[:::PAPARAZZI:::]

ok ok me agian, i got SOME info....

the books not accepted in the bible are called "apochryphas" and the books accepted (the ones we have in our bilbe) is called the "canon."

they set some criteria for the canonical books:

1. To be written by the Lord's Apostles/or their associates (luke, mark)

2. To be written in the first century

3. To contain Apostolic doctrine/not controdicting one another

4. To be accepted by the majority of the church

[st3lliano]

Hmmmm. Would it not be interesting to know what these books say. What if they clear up certain issues that different christian denominations are facing. It would be scary to find out, that I was believing the wrong thing, all because some guys at a convention decided to exclude information.

[SaintJoe69]

I read some of what was supposed to be some of the missing chapters after Adam and Eve were evicted from the Garden of Eden. It was really odd. It talked about how Adam tried to repent and did some things to show God of their repentence, but Eve was tricked again. It makes you wonder if she was a blonde or not. hehehe
:laf:

[Frate777]

they are not biblical; for example Thomas one of the books ommited was about Jesus' teachings where he said that he is not the son of man and other things that are not biblical. These books would either decieve us since they could be a false light. But only God nows. If God really wanted us to read those books then they would of been in the bible through his will on earth as it is in heaven.

[SaintJoe69]

they are not biblical; for example Thomas one of the books ommited was about Jesus' teachings where he said that he is not the son of man and other things that are not biblical. These books would either decieve us since they could be a false light. But only God nows. If God really wanted us to read those books then they would of been in the bible through his will on earth as it is in heaven.
are you aware of how the books that are currently in the Bible as we know it were chosen? some single person did not just pick random manuscripts and put together the Bible. i believe, and someone can correct me, that there was a special council that decided which books would be included in the compilation that we call the Bible.

[adidasboy4jc]

Most of the books in the Apocrypha were excluded not only because of false docterine, but because of irrelivance.. some of the books were like fairy tale stories and just wierd stuff like that.. where as others made Jesus look like a scam.. i think it was the book of Thomas that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers and Jesus used to kiss her and make his disciples jealous... there's a bunch of unsavory stuff in here...

Hmmmm. Would it not be interesting to know what these books say. What if they clear up certain issues that different christian denominations are facing. It would be scary to find out, that I was believing the wrong thing, all because some guys at a convention decided to exclude information.

Trust, my friend, it has been read and studied and there are so many different references on it out there.. u can go read it for urself.. they don't hide it... if anything, it provides more grounds for controversy... u have to understand that, like today, there were many people back then who wrote to make money.. these people could be compared to newspaper editors who twist and bend the reality of a situation just to make for an interesting story... There were like 90 something seperate accounts written on the life of Jesus.. and only 4 were chosen (matthew, make, luke, and john)... these guys were all "disciples" but for instance, luke was not one of the 12... he was a doctor.. Jesus had more people than just the 12 following him.. but he chose the 12 for a close fellowship.. The four of these stories match up perfectly, why? because they were in all the action.. not bystanders, but part of the experience.. hope this helps

[oooPOLOooo]

ugh i'm confused! this is all very interesting stuff but i want to know more! i don't understand how the Bible came into being and who had the authority and who knew what was valid...and although i'm on the "the apocryphas are bad and unGodly" side i want to know HOW and who and what determined authenticity....

"Most of the books in the Apocrypha were excluded not only because of false docterine, but because of irrelivance.. some of the books were like fairy tale stories and just wierd stuff like that.. where as others made Jesus look like a scam.. i think it was the book of Thomas that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers and Jesus used to kiss her and make his disciples jealous... there's a bunch of unsavory stuff in here..." -adidasboy

i want to believe all this but you aren't backing this up...i hear very often how you can't just pick and choose certain parts of the Bible to obey and ignore the other parts because they're too hard to follow or you just plain don't want to...how do we know that none of this happened? who decided what was truth and what was fairytales? and HOW?

i want to learn....

Rebeca

[SaintJoe69]

ugh i'm confused! this is all very interesting stuff but i want to know more! i don't understand how the Bible came into being and who had the authority and who knew what was valid...and although i'm on the "the apocryphas are bad and unGodly" side i want to know HOW and who and what determined authenticity....

"Most of the books in the Apocrypha were excluded not only because of false docterine, but because of irrelivance.. some of the books were like fairy tale stories and just wierd stuff like that.. where as others made Jesus look like a scam.. i think it was the book of Thomas that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers and Jesus used to kiss her and make his disciples jealous... there's a bunch of unsavory stuff in here..." -adidasboy

i want to believe all this but you aren't backing this up...i hear very often how you can't just pick and choose certain parts of the Bible to obey and ignore the other parts because they're too hard to follow or you just plain don't want to...how do we know that none of this happened? who decided what was truth and what was fairytales? and HOW?

i want to learn....

Rebeca
There was a special committee back during those times that decided what books would be included in what we consider today's Bible. How do we know none of this happened? Well, how exactly do you know any of it happened? I would have to say that most of your religion is probably based upon your faith. I'll try to find more details for you, but there is a lot of info online.

[oooPOLOooo]

the thing is, we as Christians...or at least me and all the teachers/pastors i've had are very persistent about how the Bible is the Word of God and how if it's in the Bible, then it's true. i believe that.

We base our beliefs and every aspect of our faith on the Bible...believing that every word in it is inspired by God. Now, hearing about the apocryphas and the way the Bible came to being ("special committee?!" can you GET any more vague?...that means NOTHING to me...i'm special too! i can make a committee....)....

Honestly, i believe that God knows what He's doing and i'm very sure i'm not the first person to wonder this, but i'd like to have it clarified. I'm not out to create controversy, i'm out to learn. You can never know too much...plus, the more you know, the better made your points are, especially when trying to witness to people or even just having theological conversations with non-believers.

[Sorin-Andrei]

of the books of the Apocrypha, i have only read the book of Macabees. Interesting, but not unlike any of the other books of prophets in the Bible..

The book of Thomas is said to be a product by the "Gnostics" which were a bunch of wacko weirdo dudes around during early Christianity. It's always been regarded as abit of a Heresy and was excluded from the canonical Bible..

[oooPOLOooo]

how many books are there in the apocryphas?

[adidasboy4jc]

ugh i'm confused! this is all very interesting stuff but i want to know more! i don't understand how the Bible came into being and who had the authority and who knew what was valid...and although i'm on the "the apocryphas are bad and unGodly" side i want to know HOW and who and what determined authenticity....

"Most of the books in the Apocrypha were excluded not only because of false docterine, but because of irrelivance.. some of the books were like fairy tale stories and just wierd stuff like that.. where as others made Jesus look like a scam.. i think it was the book of Thomas that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers and Jesus used to kiss her and make his disciples jealous... there's a bunch of unsavory stuff in here..." -adidasboy

i want to believe all this but you aren't backing this up...i hear very often how you can't just pick and choose certain parts of the Bible to obey and ignore the other parts because they're too hard to follow or you just plain don't want to...how do we know that none of this happened? who decided what was truth and what was fairytales? and HOW?

i want to learn....

Rebeca

during the rule of constantine, he decided to make Christianity the official religion of Rome.. he had a bunch of experts in the Scriptures congragate and decide on an official compilation of scriptures... whichever scriptures were authentic, whichever ones had the more relevent teachings... bottom line is, it's kinda like going to safeway.. you see all these bogus magazinesl like the inquirer... u know its a load of u know what.. well, people back in those days wrote stuff lke that too to cause drama.. always taking things and bending the truth and making things up... a lot of books in the apocrypha were like this.. a lot were written just for the author to be able to sell stuff.. i mean.. i've read a LITTLE bit out of it and parts of it aren't too bad but much of it is either meaningless, already covered in other books, untrue, unsupported, or fairytale-like... i guess the best way to figure it out for urself is to read it for urself..

[SaintJoe69]

the thing is, we as Christians...or at least me and all the teachers/pastors i've had are very persistent about how the Bible is the Word of God and how if it's in the Bible, then it's true. i believe that.

We base our beliefs and every aspect of our faith on the Bible...believing that every word in it is inspired by God. Now, hearing about the apocryphas and the way the Bible came to being ("special committee?!" can you GET any more vague?...that means NOTHING to me...i'm special too! i can make a committee....)....

Honestly, i believe that God knows what He's doing and i'm very sure i'm not the first person to wonder this, but i'd like to have it clarified. I'm not out to create controversy, i'm out to learn. You can never know too much...plus, the more you know, the better made your points are, especially when trying to witness to people or even just having theological conversations with non-believers.
Hmmm... you can make a "special committee" by yourself, eh? As I said earlier, there is a lot of info online, if you really are interested in learning. Do not take everything that is online for granted, though. I am glad that you base your beliefs on the Bible. That should be a standard for all Christians.

Why don't you do some research, and then post it here, and then others can discuss it. I think it would be a waste of my time to do research for you, and that you would learn much more if you did the research on your own. :D

[Pull and Twist]

Like everyone has stated before, there is alot of info on this online. The Apocrypha is quite interesting, alot of the original manuscripts were found in the dead sea scrolls and they carbon date back to the period the authors where alive according to the bible timeframe. Many of the books where left out because they had no relevance to Gods plan for us or our path to salvation. Some of them just didn't fit in, for example; the book of Adam and Eve was one they actually wanted in the Canon, but they decided to go with Genisis first (because of the name and content.) If they were too put the book of Adam and Eve second it would have screwed up the proggresion because at the end of Gen. we are way past that event.

My favorite if the book of Enoch (Noah's father, the first person to be wisked away by God before dying) where he details the story of the fallen angels (they've only got about 2 verses in the canon about them and only about 1 verse about Enoch.) They're interesting to read, they also give you an insight in the way people thought and wrote back then.

[oooPOLOooo]

and another question....if the apocryphas were once part of the bible....how and why did that happen? how did people go about that...how did the religion persist....if certain values were changed? how did God allow that? why were they once allowed? what happened to the people...did they believe every single word of the bible when the apocryphas were included the way we should believe every word of the bible now..? how did THAT work?

[Pull and Twist]

and another question....if the apocryphas were once part of the bible....how and why did that happen?

The thing is that there was not always a Bible as we know it today. Our canon was written over a long span of time by many authors. You can think of them as journals almost (God compelled them to keep track of what they saw and experienced.) Originally people would study them as they became available (everything was written by hand then.)

how did people go about that...how did the religion persist....if certain values were changed?

By faith. The same way many Christian denominations persist today. But in the end we're saved by grace and not our actions.

What many people don't realize is that these books were left out because they didn't theach us any certain values. They were just history accounts, many of which are not important.

how did God allow that? why were they once allowed?

Why do we question God? He knows better then us what his plan is.

God told us that we have freedom of choice, the will to think for ourselves. While many of the authors were compelled to keep journals, or save their letters, by God. Some authors decided to just do because they felt like it or saw the apostles or other authors doing it. Much the same way we keep journals and blogs, etc.

what happened to the people...did they believe every single word of the bible when the apocryphas were included the way we should believe every word of the bible now..? how did THAT work?

Well why do we believe the Bible today?

Because it is the word of God.

Many of the books in the apocryphas were praising of God and only reinforced peoples believes. God can do whatever he may please, maybe during that time he thought people would benefit from the extra writings, then he knew that during our time we would benefit from the canon we have now. The thing is that God works in mysterious ways, we can't limit him with our logic. God has a plan, he is fulfilling that plan, how he does it should not concern us. We know our task, we know our purpose, that's what he intended us to worry about. We can't question why God does things because we can't comprehend his logic, his reasons. They just are.

[adidasboy4jc]

and another question....if the apocryphas were once part of the bible....how and why did that happen? how did people go about that...how did the religion persist....if certain values were changed? how did God allow that? why were they once allowed? what happened to the people...did they believe every single word of the bible when the apocryphas were included the way we should believe every word of the bible now..? how did THAT work?

no no no.. hehe.. you see.. the bible is a compilation of written manuscripts.. the Bible is and always has been the 66 books we know... the apocrypha is just a name for a compilation of the rest of the dead sea scrolls and other excluded manuscripts... its not like they're hidden or something.. u can pick up a copy at ur local barnes and noble.. there was never a "Bible" that contained everything.. the Bible as we know it is a bunch of books/manuscripts put together.. i hope this is making sense.. it's not as if someone wrote genesis and handed the scrolls over to someone else so they could write exodus and so on.. they're all seperate.. but put together as one... you understand?

[oooPOLOooo]

adidasboy-
The Apochrypha were removed in 1885 from King James Versions when the English Revised Version was printed, and in 1901 when the American Standard Version was printed.

So the original KJV had the apocryphal writings in it!

from a previous post....

is that true? that's what i was basing my last post on.....

pull and twist-
<speechless>. i'm in awe of those words. amin amin....

[Michelle9]

There are no lost books of the Bible or books that were taken out of the Bible. There are many legends and rumors of “lost books” but there is no truth whatsoever to these stories. Every book that God intended and inspired to be in the Bible is in the Bible. There are literally hundreds of religious books that are similar to the Bible. Some of these books contain true accounts of things that genuinely occurred. Some of them contain good spiritual teaching. However, these books are not inspired by God. If we read them, the Apocrypha for example, we have to treat them as fallible historical books, not as the inspired, inerrant Word of God (2Timothy 3:16-17).

The Gospel of Thomas, for example, was a book written in the 3rd or 4th century A.D. as a forgery, claiming to have been written by the Apostle Thomas. It was not written by Thomas. It contains many false and heretical things that Jesus supposedly said and did. None of it (or at best very little of it) is true. The Epistle of Barnabas was not written by the Biblical Barnabas, but by an imposter.


What we have today is what God has always wanted man to have, the objective, complete Word of God.

[adidasboy4jc]

adidasboy-
The Apochrypha were removed in 1885 from King James Versions when the English Revised Version was printed, and in 1901 when the American Standard Version was printed.

So the original KJV had the apocryphal writings in it!

from a previous post....

is that true? that's what i was basing my last post on.....

pull and twist-
<speechless>. i'm in awe of those words. amin amin....

"The 1611 King James Version contained the "Apocrypha" books placed between the new and old Testament. The above image is from the Table of Contents of the King James Version printed by Robert Barker at London, England in 1614."

I googled some of those keywords and got this from http://www.catholicapologetics.net/apockjv.htm

apparently for some reason the king or someone who apparently had authority wanted to include the apocrypha in the english version.. if you will notice, the above passage says it was removed from the KJV.. the KJV is obviously not the original version.. it's a translated version.. officially, the apocrypha was never part of the canon...

"The Apocrypha was officially removed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1885 leaving only 66 books."

[adidasboy4jc]

There are no lost books of the Bible or books that were taken out of the Bible. There are many legends and rumors of “lost books” but there is no truth whatsoever to these stories. Every book that God intended and inspired to be in the Bible is in the Bible. There are literally hundreds of religious books that are similar to the Bible. Some of these books contain true accounts of things that genuinely occurred. Some of them contain good spiritual teaching. However, these books are not inspired by God. If we read them, the Apocrypha for example, we have to treat them as fallible historical books, not as the inspired, inerrant Word of God (2Timothy 3:16-17).

The Gospel of Thomas, for example, was a book written in the 3rd or 4th century A.D. as a forgery, claiming to have been written by the Apostle Thomas. It was not written by Thomas. It contains many false and heretical things that Jesus supposedly said and did. None of it (or at best very little of it) is true. The Epistle of Barnabas was not written by the Biblical Barnabas, but by an imposter.


What we have today is what God has always wanted man to have, the objective, complete Word of God.

i wouldn't go as far as to say that some of those books weren't inspired by God.. but the relevence factor and the practicality of adding them to the cannon was not that great.. the existing cannon has no contradictions and is a very stable compilation of Scripture...

I believe the only book of the Bible without a known author is the Book of Hebrews.. many think it was paul, but i did some reading on the matter.. experts tend to agree that the written Greek was far too advanced for Paul... In comparison to all of Paul's letters, the book of Hebrews was written by someone who seemed much more educated when it comes to language... The audience, from what i remember, was intended to be a group of Greeks living in Isreal*... Well anyways.. the commentary i was reading said the writing style matches more closely to Dr. Luke.

many ask, "why then, was this book not left out as well if there is no known author?"

its kept in the cannon because its very harmonious with the rest of the scripture.. once again, it contains no contradictions and has some very insightful teachings..

*note: this may not be entirely accurate but that's from what i remember...

[Michelle9]

Regarding the book of Hebrew:
This matter has been speculated on and debated by Bible scholars for centuries. The most widely held belief is that the book was written by the Apostle Paul, in approximately A.D. 61-62. Although it does not include Paul's typical greeting, the book's subject matter and tone strongly support this view.

It is possible that Timothy transcribed the letter from Paul and took it to the congregation at Jerusalem (see Heb. 13:23). Also, it is possible that it was translated from Hebrew to Greek by the Apostle Luke.

Regarding lost books of the bible:

If the Bible is, at most, thirty-five percent complete, then the Christian faith can be no more complete than that. That's all i have to say to that.

[adidasboy4jc]

Regarding the book of Hebrew:
This matter has been speculated on and debated by Bible scholars for centuries. The most widely held belief is that the book was written by the Apostle Paul, in approximately A.D. 61-62. Although it does not include Paul's typical greeting, the book's subject matter and tone strongly support this view.

It is possible that Timothy transcribed the letter from Paul and took it to the congregation at Jerusalem (see Heb. 13:23). Also, it is possible that it was translated from Hebrew to Greek by the Apostle Luke.

Regarding lost books of the bible:

If the Bible is, at most, thirty-five percent complete, then the Christian faith can be no more complete than that. That's all i have to say to that.

yeah many people do believe it was written by paul... but they cannot say for certain.. i generally have a pretty stable style of writing and you can usually differentiate between what i write and what others write.. because of our styles.. most theologians agree this seems to be gramatically above paul's writing style.. anyhow.. this is of no importance anyway...

what do u mean about the bible being at most 35% complete? what are u referring to?

[Pull and Twist]

Regarding lost books of the bible:

If the Bible is, at most, thirty-five percent complete, then the Christian faith can be no more complete than that. That's all i have to say to that.

First of all a book cannot be lost if you know where it is. But that is not of importance.

The Bible is not 35% complete, it's 100% complete. Every book/manuscript that was intended to be in the Bible is there.

What you don't understand is that the Bible was not always in existance. God gave us the Word, and the Word was God. Before the Bible existed there was no need for it, the Word of God came through Jesus Christ. God compelled man to record his word, but man has always and will always be fallible. We make mistakes, we make assumptions, it's in our nature. Many recorded false events, others based their writings on rumors while some even fabricated them from thin air. That would explain why contradictions exist in the Bible today.

Yet, my faith lies in Jesus Christ, in God. Our very existance is testimony to his existance. We shouldn't need a Bible to tell us God exists, yet we are blessed with one anyways. Everything around us declares Gods existance, yet we are blind to it.

I believe God knew what he was doing, he compelled his servants to record his message because he knew that we are blind to the obvious. He compelled the council of Laodocia to put together the cannon we have today. God knows what we pay attention to, he knows what we have to do, he knows the path we should take to be saved.

The Bible is not partially complete, it is completely complete. There are no lost books, we know where they are, God knows what they say. Some are true and some are false, but what is clear is that none of them were good enough to be in the final draft, the Bible. None of them would have made our path any clearer then it was, none of them would have made God more understandable, none of them would have brought us any benefit in the eyes of God.

[adidasboy4jc]

Regarding lost books of the bible:

If the Bible is, at most, thirty-five percent complete, then the Christian faith can be no more complete than that. That's all i have to say to that.

First of all a book cannot be lost if you know where it is. But that is not of importance.

The Bible is not 35% complete, it's 100% complete. Every book/manuscript that was intended to be in the Bible is there.

What you don't understand is that the Bible was not always in existance. God gave us the Word, and the Word was God. Before the Bible existed there was no need for it, the Word of God came through Jesus Christ. God compelled man to record his word, but man has always and will always be fallible. We make mistakes, we make assumptions, it's in our nature. Many recorded false events, others based their writings on rumors while some even fabricated them from thin air. That would explain why contradictions exist in the Bible today.

Yet, my faith lies in Jesus Christ, in God. Our very existance is testimony to his existance. We shouldn't need a Bible to tell us God exists, yet we are blessed with one anyways. Everything around us declares Gods existance, yet we are blind to it.

I believe God knew what he was doing, he compelled his servants to record his message because he knew that we are blind to the obvious. He compelled the council of Laodocia to put together the cannon we have today. God knows what we pay attention to, he knows what we have to do, he knows the path we should take to be saved.

The Bible is not partially complete, it is completely complete. There are no lost books, we know where they are, God knows what they say. Some are true and some are false, but what is clear is that none of them were good enough to be in the final draft, the Bible. None of them would have made our path any clearer then it was, none of them would have made God more understandable, none of them would have brought us any benefit in the eyes of God.

right... it is not in the Bible that we find God.. God is omnipresent, God is all around... Man has a developed mind so that he may think beyond all that he sees... The Bible not only confirms our assumption of a God, or some higher being, but also encourages us... the Bible is a blessing and a tool which God has left so that we may be encouraged, edified and further instructed... Obviously you don't need the Bible to be saved.. History tells us that most people back in the day coudln't even read.. yet it isn't about reading, it's about believing.. we have the written word so readily available to us yet so many times we fail to pursue its teachings (i'm speaking personally and i'm sure many, if not all of you, can relate)...

[Michelle9]

“What do u mean about the bible being at most 35% complete? What are u referring to?”

When I added this sentence I just threw in a number.... It was mostly meant for those of you who think that the bible is not 100% complete. My whole point was that if you think the bible is 90% complete (lets forget about the 35%) than the Christian faith can be no more complete than that.....

Just to iron out any misunderstanding I do believe that the bible is 100% complete.

[Canadian, eh?]

According to History, The very first time the Bible was compiled, the Apocrypha was not added. Why? It's teachings are not wholly atuned to that of our Bible. There are different doctrines in there. King James did not add the Apocrypha in his translation of the Bible because he said he was "not a Papist"(Catholic). Rememebr King James was a Protestant. Catholics on the other hand adopted the Apocrypha as part of the Bible. We as protestants should not. For example one teaching in the Apocrypha is this: To be forgiven of sins, you must pay alms(money.) This is contrary to the rest of the Bible where it says that only through the grace of God are we forgiven. This is why Catholics believe in doing penance (paying money to the church) to be forgiven of sins.

GB,
Dan

[adidasboy4jc]

“What do u mean about the bible being at most 35% complete? What are u referring to?”

When I added this sentence I just threw in a number.... It was mostly meant for those of you who think that the bible is not 100% complete. My whole point was that if you think the bible is 90% complete (lets forget about the 35%) than the Christian faith can be no more complete than that.....

Just to iron out any misunderstanding I do believe that the bible is 100% complete.

no offense but i beg to differ... the Christian faith is not based on how complete a compilation of scriptures is.. the Christian faith is based on believing in Jesus Christ as your personal savior and aknowledging that he died for your sins.. there is no other criteria for being saved...

Romans 10:8-13 (NIV)
But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

[SaintJoe69]

According to History, The very first time the Bible was compiled, the Apocrypha was not added. Why? It's teachings are not wholly atuned to that of our Bible. There are different doctrines in there. King James did not add the Apocrypha in his translation of the Bible because he said he was "not a Papist"(Catholic). Rememebr King James was a Protestant. Catholics on the other hand adopted the Apocrypha as part of the Bible. We as protestants should not. For example one teaching in the Apocrypha is this: To be forgiven of sins, you must pay alms(money.) This is contrary to the rest of the Bible where it says that only through the grace of God are we forgiven. This is why Catholics believe in doing penance (paying money to the church) to be forgiven of sins.

GB,
Dan
Well, they may have added a bit to the verses in it's meaning, but we still have verses in our current Bible which say that we should tithe, and give our 10%. This does not mean that we will be forgiven if we do, but it's still paying the church. :D

[SaintJoe69]

no offense but i beg to differ... the Christian faith is not based on how complete a compilation of scriptures is.. the Christian faith is based on believing in Jesus Christ as your personal savior and aknowledging that he died for your sins.. there is no other criteria for being saved...

Romans 10:8-13 (NIV)
But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
I agree. This goes hand in hand with our discussions in the other threads in regards to those that have never heard of God or the gospel. They do not have a Bible, whether it's 35% or 100%, but they still have the knowlegde of a higher power out there, and they are still accountable for their actions/sins, and will still be judged accordingly, with or without the Bible. :D

[Pull and Twist]

no offense but i beg to differ... the Christian faith is not based on how complete a compilation of scriptures is.. the Christian faith is based on believing in Jesus Christ as your personal savior and aknowledging that he died for your sins.. there is no other criteria for being saved...

Romans 10:8-13 (NIV)
But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

:clap1: I could not have said that better myself.

[Pull and Twist]

I agree. This goes hand in hand with our discussions in the other threads in regards to those that have never heard of God or the gospel. They do not have a Bible, whether it's 35% or 100%, but they still have the knowlegde of a higher power out there, and they are still accountable for their actions/sins, and will still be judged accordingly, with or without the Bible.

Exactly, that's how it worked before Jesus Christ came to Earth and the Bible was written aswell.

[Canadian, eh?]

adidasboy-
The Apochrypha were removed in 1885 from King James Versions when the English Revised Version was printed, and in 1901 when the American Standard Version was printed.

So the original KJV had the apocryphal writings in it!

from a previous post....

is that true? that's what i was basing my last post on.....

pull and twist-
<speechless>. i'm in awe of those words. amin amin....

The Original Bible never had the Apocrypha. The Bible King James translated never included it. It was part of the Catholic bible at the time but he didn't want it because it had Catholic teachings in it.

[ghita_r]

Like mentioned many times earlier by other people, the original Old Testament version of the bible that was recognized by the Jewish San Hedrin, or their religious leaders did not include the apocrypha books. The old testament apocrypha consist of 14 books which when Ezra came back from the captivity in Babylon would not consider as "inspired by God" books. For those who don't know, Ezra was the leader of the Jewish scholars who helped to select and canonize the Old Testament. This occured around 410BC and the council was formed of 120 members. The original OT (old testament, i'll use OT just to shorten it out) books were kept in the temple but after the temple was destroyed most of the originals went with it too but there remained copies of the originals which the Masorites (expert scribes) wrote. They counted every line and amount of characters on each line and if it didn't match the original they would throw it out, that's how strict they were about having it exactly as that of the original books. The council of 120 that gathered with Ezra recognized only the 39 books we have in our OT today, the apocrypha (14) were not considered "inspired" books. They were never "missing" books of the bible, its just that they were NEVER part of the Bible!
Now, later in 285BC Ptolemeu Philadephus, ruller of Egypt at that time called on 70 Jews, experts in linguistics of both hebrew and greek language to translate the Torah or "Scriptures" from Hebrew to Greek. This translation is called the Septuaginta (standing for the 70 scholars who translated it). For some reason, not really known by theologians, the apocrypha books were included in it too. Later on in the 2nd century AD the bible was translated into Latin (the old latin) from the Septuaginta and it also included the apocrypha. In the 4th century AD Ieronim translated the bible again from the old Latin to the daily used latin back then. His translation is known as the Vulgata, which also included the apocrypha. This is the translation the Catholic church uses. When Luther came about with the Protastant Reformation he brought back the Protastant church to only recognize those books of the old testament which God's choosen people (the Jews) recognized. Thus we as protastants don't recognize the apocrypha since the Jews don't either. But to give protastants a sort of "low-blow" the Catholic church ordered another Council, The Council of Trent (1546AD) which declared that the apocrypha are part of the canon of the OT and that they are "inspired" books. Thus the hatred between Catholics and Protastants (because we took out books from the bible, so they say).
The apocrypha were supposedly written between the 3rd and 1st Century BC, during the 400 "silent" years before Christ's birth. There were 14 books like i previously said, and then in the new testament there are about 50 of these books. The way that the NT (new testament) was canonized was again by the early church fathers in the latter part of the 4th century AD. All 27 books were frequently read in early churches and recognized by the big leaders of that time such as Iustin, Tertulian, Origen, Eusebius, etc....They would frequently quote, what they called the "christian scriptures" and placed them along-side the profets of the OT.
Hopefully this was of some help to you guys. I just finished my first year at a bible college and all we did was study the old and new testament, so its all pretty fresh in my memory. If any of you have the chance to attend such a school do it!!! Believe me it helps out A LOTTT!!! :-)))) GOD BLESS!

[SaintJoe69]

Like mentioned many times earlier by other people, the original Old Testament version of the bible that was recognized by the Jewish San Hedrin, or their religious leaders did not include the apocrypha books. The old testament apocrypha consist of 14 books which when Ezra came back from the captivity in Babylon would not consider as "inspired by God" books. For those who don't know, Ezra was the leader of the Jewish scholars who helped to select and canonize the Old Testament. This occured around 410BC and the council was formed of 120 members. The original OT (old testament, i'll use OT just to shorten it out) books were kept in the temple but after the temple was destroyed most of the originals went with it too but there remained copies of the originals which the Masorites (expert scribes) wrote. They counted every line and amount of characters on each line and if it didn't match the original they would throw it out, that's how strict they were about having it exactly as that of the original books. The council of 120 that gathered with Ezra recognized only the 39 books we have in our OT today, the apocrypha (14) were not considered "inspired" books. They were never "missing" books of the bible, its just that they were NEVER part of the Bible!
Now, later in 285BC Ptolemeu Philadephus, ruller of Egypt at that time called on 70 Jews, experts in linguistics of both hebrew and greek language to translate the Torah or "Scriptures" from Hebrew to Greek. This translation is called the Septuaginta (standing for the 70 scholars who translated it). For some reason, not really known by theologians, the apocrypha books were included in it too. Later on in the 2nd century AD the bible was translated into Latin (the old latin) from the Septuaginta and it also included the apocrypha. In the 4th century AD Ieronim translated the bible again from the old Latin to the daily used latin back then. His translation is known as the Vulgata, which also included the apocrypha. This is the translation the Catholic church uses. When Luther came about with the Protastant Reformation he brought back the Protastant church to only recognize those books of the old testament which God's choosen people (the Jews) recognized. Thus we as protastants don't recognize the apocrypha since the Jews don't either. But to give protastants a sort of "low-blow" the Catholic church ordered another Council, The Council of Trent (1546AD) which declared that the apocrypha are part of the canon of the OT and that they are "inspired" books. Thus the hatred between Catholics and Protastants (because we took out books from the bible, so they say).
The apocrypha were supposedly written between the 3rd and 1st Century BC, during the 400 "silent" years before Christ's birth. There were 14 books like i previously said, and then in the new testament there are about 50 of these books. The way that the NT (new testament) was canonized was again by the early church fathers in the latter part of the 4th century AD. All 27 books were frequently read in early churches and recognized by the big leaders of that time such as Iustin, Tertulian, Origen, Eusebius, etc....They would frequently quote, what they called the "christian scriptures" and placed them along-side the profets of the OT.
Hopefully this was of some help to you guys. I just finished my first year at a bible college and all we did was study the old and new testament, so its all pretty fresh in my memory. If any of you have the chance to attend such a school do it!!! Believe me it helps out A LOTTT!!! :-)))) GOD BLESS!
Hmmm... interesting. Question, if you ever get back to reading this... If the council of 120 never included the Apocrypha back in 410 BC because they were not considered "inspired" books from God, and then later included when the 70 expert Jews met in 285 BC to translate this...

1. Who kept up with the Apocrypha?
2. Where did they get it from, if it already had been "discarded" by the earlier council?

It just seems odd to me that Ptolemeu Philadephus would have a copy, or that the 70 expert Jews would have a copy and would have motive for adding it to the translations. :scratch:

Somehow, somebody secretly kept up with the Apocrypha and added it into the translations. You didn't state whether or not Luther took the Apocryha out of the translations when he started his Protestant reformation, or whether he just decided not to acknowledge them.

3. How exactly did Luther know which books were part of the Apocrypha if it had been included in each translation throughout the previous years?

King James, obviously either a protestant or influenced by Luther, decided not to include the Apocrypha when the scriptures were again translated in 1885. It still seems rather odd that the Apocrypha was indeed part of the Bible for many years, since it continued it's existence throughout the translations over the years, and then finally removed by King James. :eek:

I hope you know these answers, if not, then it will be a good follow up study for you. :D

[adidasboy4jc]

I agree. This goes hand in hand with our discussions in the other threads in regards to those that have never heard of God or the gospel. They do not have a Bible, whether it's 35% or 100%, but they still have the knowlegde of a higher power out there, and they are still accountable for their actions/sins, and will still be judged accordingly, with or without the Bible. :D
yep... very true.

[Tupi]

At the Council of Trent (1546) the Roman Catholic religion pronounced the following apocryphal books sacred. They asserted that the apocryphal books together with unwritten tradition are of God and are to be received and venerated as the Word of God. So now you have the Bible, the Apocrypha and Catholic Tradition as co-equal sources of truth for the Catholic. In reality, the Bible is the last source of truth for Catholics. Catholic doctrine comes primarily from tradition stuck together with a few Bible names. In my reading of Catholic materials, I find notes like this: "You have to keep the Bible in perspective." Catholics do not believe that the Bible is God's complete revelation for man.


The Roman Catholic Apocrypha
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
First and Second Maccabees
Additions to Esther and Daniel

Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion:

First and Second Esdras
Prayer of Manasses
Susanna*


*A reader says: "Susanna is in the Roman Catholic canon. It is Daniel 13."


Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.

Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).
The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:

Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:

2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

Salvation by works:

Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.

Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

Magic:

Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.

Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):

Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.

[SaintJoe69]

At the Council of Trent (1546) the Roman Catholic religion pronounced the following apocryphal books sacred. They asserted that the apocryphal books together with unwritten tradition are of God and are to be received and venerated as the Word of God. So now you have the Bible, the Apocrypha and Catholic Tradition as co-equal sources of truth for the Catholic. In reality, the Bible is the last source of truth for Catholics. Catholic doctrine comes primarily from tradition stuck together with a few Bible names. In my reading of Catholic materials, I find notes like this: "You have to keep the Bible in perspective." Catholics do not believe that the Bible is God's complete revelation for man.


The Roman Catholic Apocrypha
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
First and Second Maccabees
Additions to Esther and Daniel

Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion:

First and Second Esdras
Prayer of Manasses
Susanna*


*A reader says: "Susanna is in the Roman Catholic canon. It is Daniel 13."


Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.

Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).
The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:

Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:

2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
Salvation by works:

Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.
Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

Magic:

Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.
Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):

Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.
Sounds like the views of some Romanians online here. :D

I'll get back to this, but I'm not sure why you decided to make everything small, and force me to squint this early in the morning. :tom:

[Canadian, eh?]

At the Council of Trent (1546) the Roman Catholic religion pronounced the following apocryphal books sacred. They asserted that the apocryphal books together with unwritten tradition are of God and are to be received and venerated as the Word of God. So now you have the Bible, the Apocrypha and Catholic Tradition as co-equal sources of truth for the Catholic. In reality, the Bible is the last source of truth for Catholics. Catholic doctrine comes primarily from tradition stuck together with a few Bible names. In my reading of Catholic materials, I find notes like this: "You have to keep the Bible in perspective." Catholics do not believe that the Bible is God's complete revelation for man.


The Roman Catholic Apocrypha
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
First and Second Maccabees
Additions to Esther and Daniel

Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion:

First and Second Esdras
Prayer of Manasses
Susanna*


*A reader says: "Susanna is in the Roman Catholic canon. It is Daniel 13."


Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.

Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).
The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:

Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:

2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

Salvation by works:

Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.

Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

Magic:

Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.

Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):

Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.

I agree with what you wrote here. The Apocrypha forms the basis of the Catholic faith which is opposite to what we recieved from the Apostles.

GB,
Dan

[Ceci]

For the answers to your questions SaintJOE,

For the first two questions I would have no clue about this, and probably there isn’t much textual evidence from archeology to support any kind of thesis as to who wrote each of the apocrypha books or how they were passed down. All I could say about the whole King James Version is that they went to the original Hebrew and asked themselves which books do the Jews choose as of divine inspiration.

AS for other thins i think that Tupi included some valuable info....

God bless

[ghita_r]

sorry joe...but i wrote under my sis's sn cuz she forgot to sign off...i thought i was in under mine...anyway...take care...God bless

[RoxyCM]

wow Ive been reading this from the beginnning and its all very interesting.

My short view on it is that the books that God wanted in the bible are there, he controls everything and I'm sure wouldn't let us believe in a bible that was not right.

[SaintJoe69]

For the answers to your questions SaintJOE,

For the first two questions I would have no clue about this, and probably there isn’t much textual evidence from archeology to support any kind of thesis as to who wrote each of the apocrypha books or how they were passed down. All I could say about the whole King James Version is that they went to the original Hebrew and asked themselves which books do the Jews choose as of divine inspiration.

AS for other thins i think that Tupi included some valuable info....

God bless
Hmmm... interesting. I'll get back with this later, when I'm back on my own computer. I'm currently using my sister's laptop, and I don't particularly like laptop keyboards.

Maybe you can ask your professor about the first two questions, if you don't personally know them. How is it that we seem to know certain details of history so clearly, but yet all other details are left out? Were the previous details written and passed down as history, or is most of this theory? :scratch: