Are These The Truth, Deuterocanonical Books ?

[musicworld]

Hi to all ChristiansAt present I'm studying Christian Theology and have recently come across the terms Deuterocanonical books the Septuagint Old Testament and the word Apocrypha, I have prior given this much research but am still perplexed. eg, is not the Old Testament just the Old Testament? the holy word of GOD... so what exactly are these 7 Deuterocanonical books classed as the Septuagint Old Testament? I understand there has been historical controversy over these books meaning are they canonical or none-canonical. Regardless of my research at the end of the day I would like to think I am putting my faith in to reading the word of God and not the word of man. Please could anyone shed some light as to what is the true nature of these Deuterocanonical books? are they the word of GOD or the word of traditional man? Maybe Christina could shed some light on this?

 

[Christina]

Hi Musicworld If you want a fairly good tecnical explanation you can find it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeuterocanonicalThough I do not normally recommend this site for much this happens to be fairly accurate Now as far as how we should use these writtings ... IMHOWe can use nothing as absoulute...But the Holy Bible as it comes down to us ..It is the Word of God.and tells us all we need to know ... However thats not to say these other books can not be educational on some level or serve as second wittnessWhat does that mean.. A thing must be wriiten in Scipture first..(all things are to be weighed againts the Word)then if another writting gives us more detail and confirms the scriptures ..it's a second wittness..if it contradicts scripture ..It can not be taken as a second wittness or fact.Many of these books were rejected by the counsil for various reasons ... such as forgery, incomplete manuscripts ect.Not all were rejected because they were false doctrines but because they may have had other minor problems.. So discernment is your key here ...if you can not verify something in scripture disreguard it ...Hope this helps

 

[gumby]

I agree with christina, if you must read other religios books than the bible than please read it with decerment and compare it to the bible.

 

[musicworld]

This is my Thesis on the matter.Ok! But the mission of these 72 scholars / translators back in 300-BC was to solely render / translate the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) in to Greek under the word of the Jewish high priest of the time, which was requested and commissioned by the Hellenistic emperor Ptolemy II. And this was only to serve the needs of Greek-speaking Jews outside of Palestine who were no longer able to read their Scriptures in original Hebrew text. But the confusion is that in addition to The translation of the Hebrew Bible now in Greek, came these additional books and parts of books now called (the Apocrypha) ) which now makes this a very complicated history of Biblical canon scripture. Because the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew text, now became the Bible of the early church. It was this Septuagint with the Old Testament together that was falsely regarded as the main book of the Old Testament after translation took place in which early Christian Churches believed to be all of the Old Testament. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches I believe have traditionally included all the books of the Septuagint in their Old Testaments, sadly alluded that the books are of Holy Scripture canonical. Whereas most jaws and Protestants have excluded these writings and some have omitted them from the Old Testament completely. These books published in an edition to the Bible called the apocrypha are not god breathed they are simply abstracts taken from the old Hebrew bible and conjured together with the words of traditional man, they should hold no position of canonicity whatsoever. It is for this reason they are typically printed in a third section of the Bible apart from the Old and New Testaments. I’ve read that common opinion is that these scholars from 300-BC bungled the translation from the Hebrew Bible along with the Septuagint which became more corrupt in time. This is not what god intended for his bible. These ancient scholars where simply trying to steel gods work and take credit for it in order to gain a position of admiration and leave their mark in history which they obviously achieved but not without scowl. I would perceive that as evil, hence these so called deuterocanonical books titled the Septuagint are nothing but the work of the devil.Revelations 22: 18-19I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book:If anyone adds anything to them god will add to him the plagues described in this book.And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, god will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city which are described in this book.Amen.

 

[Christina]

Well that a little simplified IMHO the first five books of the old Testament were set long before the Septuagint was comlpleted Then there were thousands of writtings the Apocrypha are part of these writtings some may have some credabilty others not ... No one can apply a blanket statement none of these are true and all are of Satan ... Look at all the writtings and commentaries we have today ..can we say none are true or crediable? No. all we can say is they are not part of the scripture ..are they a right interptation or a wrong interptation ? Only discernment and comparing with the scripture will tell us... So it was in those days thousands of writtings some credidable some not ... the story goes that these 72 Hebrews were in differnt parts of the country and all worked alone and when they were done and brought together their interptations all agreed ...true or not I do not know ...I just believe if God created all the World and tells us he foretold us all things that he could surley handle making a book as he intented and the Bible is as he intended... So all things must be proven against the Word as we have it ......... That doesnt mean their is no value to some of these writtings and things of history ..but they are not to be taken as Gods Word ..but those that agree can be a second wittness to his word.P.S. I do agree that these books should not be added to the Bible as they can not be calledThe Word of God ...

 

[Vickie]

I can say this, that may help. I've studied the Apocrypha and the Septuagint. The Apocrypha is should not be held as the books of the bible. They neither carry warnings from God as all of the books of the bible do, there is much to enjoy in these books but they are not a part of the bible in any way, nor can were they meant to be. Reading the bible, every book carries warnings, and exhortations, and many stories, and these books have none of this in them from God. Making them non biblical scripts. Vickie

 

[musicworld]

Christina: P.S. I do agree that these books should not be added to the Bible as they can not be called The Word of God ...

Vickie: The Apocrypha should not be held as the books of the biblethere is much to enjoy in these books but they are not a part of the bible in any way.

I concur with both of you, i just get incensed and find it disappointing to think that some denominational sects use the Septuagint as part of the bible, and further more have the vulnerability to accept it as canon scripture. I don’t know where GOD finds his patience.