The Catholic Bible has this group of books in it, but others don't. I read the first KJB had the Apocrypha, but I'm not sure if it was considered Gods Word. It is very confusing if we should read these books as scripture or not. I lean more to the uninspired side. Some people say it is very evil, etc. But there are lots of self-proclaimed Christian books that don't have everything right. When reading the Bible I let all my skepticism go and believe anything I read in it, for I know it is Gods Word. But while reading books on Christianity by human authors, I keep my skeptical guard up and read it as any other worldly book. Surely it would be safe to read the Apocrypha like this?
Should we read the Apocrypha?
- Thread starter Mikey
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
History lesson hereBefore the reformation all the bibles had the apocrypha. The problem was that even though the rcc called them inspired, there were no manuscripts of the apocrypha dicovered which were made before the new testament. So when Martin Luther made the protestant bible he found no reason for them to be in there for there was no evidence suggesting that they were made in OT times and therefore no reason for them to be inspired.Then in the 1900s the dead sea scrolls were found, and in the dead sea scrolls books of the apocrypha were found.Made in OT times, and therefore historically they can be counted as inspired.
Yes, they are profitable. No, they are not inspired, nor have they ever been treated as such. They were never laid up in the temple (Josephus), and were not considered inspired or canonical (Athanasius, Festal Letter #39). There are many, many, more arguments, but this should suffice.
Before the reformation all the bibles had the apocrypha. The problem was that even though the rcc called them inspired, there were no manuscripts of the apocrypha dicovered which were made before the new testament. So when Martin Luther made the protestant bible he found no reason for them to be in there for there was no evidence suggesting that they were made in OT times and therefore no reason for them to be inspired.
The English-language King James Version of 1611 followed the lead of the Luther Bible in using an inter-testamental section labelled "Books called Apocrypha".All King James Bibles published before 1640 included the Apocrypha. In 1826, the British and Foreign Bible Society decided to only distribute Bibles containing the Apocrypha in special cases. Since then most modern editions of the Bible and re-printings of the King James Bible omit the Apocrypha section. -wikipediaApparently Luther did included many books which are not in our modern Bibles. Obviously I have no proof of this...
The English-language King James Version of 1611 followed the lead of the Luther Bible in using an inter-testamental section labelled "Books called Apocrypha".All King James Bibles published before 1640 included the Apocrypha. In 1826, the British and Foreign Bible Society decided to only distribute Bibles containing the Apocrypha in special cases. Since then most modern editions of the Bible and re-printings of the King James Bible omit the Apocrypha section. -wikipediaApparently Luther did included many books which are not in our modern Bibles. Obviously I have no proof of this...
The apocrypha books though interesting to some. were never canonized by God or recognized by Bible scholars as inspiredLuther in his own translation of the bible for the german people , Luther did included it , but not as part of the bible.A person can read the apocrypha if they want . bUt the most worth while book in the world to read will always be Gods word the bible.No matter how many times a person reads it.
forgivenWretch
New Member
IMHO, if these so-called books of the Bible were of any importance, God would still put them there. From what little I have seen, and do not care to see anymore...they do not glorify God, but only lend to those who care to place them self and their beliefs above others. They are not God inspired nor do they lend to our walk with God but only to following of man. IMHO!
bUt the most worth while book in the world to read will always be Gods word the bible.No matter how many times a person reads it.
True dat.
True dat.
These books do not have the message of Salvation lined through them; the authors do claim generally or at all "thus saith the Lord;" you don't find much or any quickening...life for your heart...you know, I've heard via college study there have been geographical errors and/or date errors...and I agree...they were not included in the Canon when it was closed...what I've read myself gives me a dead feeling. I believe pergatory is backed up in these books also...I think if god had wanted them included they would be..the end of the book of Revelation sums it up Amen. siskim
Luther was wrong on many accounts. I'm Reformed, and I love many Luther works, but he rejected the books of James and Ecclesiastes. P.S. Luther's works aren't inspired either
It depends on what you mean by apocrypha. I presume you mean the books of the OT that the reformers removed from the accepted Canon of Scripture. These are not apocrypha to Catholics (or Othrtodox). However assumeing you do mean those:- (Mikey;36249)
The Catholic Bible has this group of books in it, but others don't.
Not true. The Orthodox have the complete set of OT scripture as well. For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Bible as we know it today. Christians had the Old Testament Septuagint, what we regard as the NT today and dozens of other books from which to choose. The Church realized early on that she had to decide which of these books were inspired and which ones weren't. Theologians, Bishops, and Church Fathers debated for several centuries as to which books were inspired and which ones weren't. Being prompted by the Holy Spirit, Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, "The Decree of Damasus", in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books. St. Jerome was the foremost Biblical scholar of his time, being tri-lingual in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. This translation became known as the Latin Vulgate and was used by the Western part of the Church, the Easter using the original Greek. The Latin Vulgate (vulgate = common tongue) was published in 405. Some (local) Church Councils confirmed this list - Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 and 419. This was the Bible that Martin Luther inherited and used until his break with the ChurchLuther not only decided to remove several books of the OT, called them apocrypha, but tried to down grade some NT books, to the point of almost removing them. He put them in an section at the end of his translation, separated by blank pages, and did not list them in the index. Later reformers thought he had gone too far and re-inserted them. He called the Letter of James and “epistle of straw” – presumably because it contradicted his new doctrine of “faith alone”.
The Catholic Bible has this group of books in it, but others don't.
Not true. The Orthodox have the complete set of OT scripture as well. For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Bible as we know it today. Christians had the Old Testament Septuagint, what we regard as the NT today and dozens of other books from which to choose. The Church realized early on that she had to decide which of these books were inspired and which ones weren't. Theologians, Bishops, and Church Fathers debated for several centuries as to which books were inspired and which ones weren't. Being prompted by the Holy Spirit, Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, "The Decree of Damasus", in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books. St. Jerome was the foremost Biblical scholar of his time, being tri-lingual in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. This translation became known as the Latin Vulgate and was used by the Western part of the Church, the Easter using the original Greek. The Latin Vulgate (vulgate = common tongue) was published in 405. Some (local) Church Councils confirmed this list - Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 and 419. This was the Bible that Martin Luther inherited and used until his break with the ChurchLuther not only decided to remove several books of the OT, called them apocrypha, but tried to down grade some NT books, to the point of almost removing them. He put them in an section at the end of his translation, separated by blank pages, and did not list them in the index. Later reformers thought he had gone too far and re-inserted them. He called the Letter of James and “epistle of straw” – presumably because it contradicted his new doctrine of “faith alone”.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
(Mikey;36249)
The Catholic Bible has this group of books in it, but others don't. I read the first KJB had the Apocrypha, but I'm not sure if it was considered Gods Word. It is very confusing if we should read these books as scripture or not. I lean more to the uninspired side. Some people say it is very evil, etc. But there are lots of self-proclaimed Christian books that don't have everything right. When reading the Bible I let all my skepticism go and believe anything I read in it, for I know it is Gods Word. But while reading books on Christianity by human authors, I keep my skeptical guard up and read it as any other worldly book. Surely it would be safe to read the Apocrypha like this?
I like the apocrypha. That being said, I do not find anything in it that has new doctrine and indeed, its teachings are dependent on the 39 books of the OT. However, I do quote from it on occasion (I am not catholic BTW).Instead of going out an buying an apocrypha, you can have it here for free. I have a bible download with the apocrypha (in HTML format) right here on my signature below.
The Catholic Bible has this group of books in it, but others don't. I read the first KJB had the Apocrypha, but I'm not sure if it was considered Gods Word. It is very confusing if we should read these books as scripture or not. I lean more to the uninspired side. Some people say it is very evil, etc. But there are lots of self-proclaimed Christian books that don't have everything right. When reading the Bible I let all my skepticism go and believe anything I read in it, for I know it is Gods Word. But while reading books on Christianity by human authors, I keep my skeptical guard up and read it as any other worldly book. Surely it would be safe to read the Apocrypha like this?
I like the apocrypha. That being said, I do not find anything in it that has new doctrine and indeed, its teachings are dependent on the 39 books of the OT. However, I do quote from it on occasion (I am not catholic BTW).Instead of going out an buying an apocrypha, you can have it here for free. I have a bible download with the apocrypha (in HTML format) right here on my signature below.
Similar threads
