The Book Of Esdras

[Christina]

The book of Esdras was included in the 1611 KJV of the Bible it was removed by the church at a latter date because it went against some of their teachings.2 Esdrashttp://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/2esdras.htmlDo you think Should it be included? does the church have a right to remove a book they dont like ? Should it be considered in our studies?

 

[gumby]

My feelings are this, if it was written by the same people who wrote the bible and if it doesnt contradict the bible in any way than its ok to read. Although i always stress when reading the bible or any other christian text read it with discernment and compare to the bible when you have questions.

 

[HammerStone]

I've actually never sat down and read Esdras until now, and I must say that two chapters in, it seems to bode well for being included. I cannot help but notice the number of times that the books refers to books commonly included in what is now known as the Old Testament.

 

[Christina]

My feelings are this, if it was written by the same people who wrote the bible and if it doesnt contradict the bible in any way than its ok to read. Although i always stress when reading the bible or any other christian text read it with discernment and compare to the bible when you have questions.

I agree Gumby with your overall statement My understanding is that the book contradicts nothing in scripture thats one reason it was a part of the original KJV ...It contradicted mens religios teachings of the time... so therefore probably still does so today which is why they do not often speak about it .....

 

[HammerStone]

Christina, I'm curious on this one question. What specifically did you find the Church not to like about the book? Would it be the story about the three guards (particularly between the discussion both of kings and a women being powerful)?

 

[Christina]

I do not know all the reasons Swampfox but Im sure the one you have mentioned was certainly one of them There are also others that church most likely would have found objectionable ...for Exampletaken from a comentary) Uriel says that the end days are coming (but he doesn’t know when), that people will be ‘taken in great number’, the sun will shine in the night, the moon will be seen three times in one day, blood will come from wood, the sea will ‘cast out fish’, and that ‘menstrous women will bring forth monsters’. 7. Uriel appears again and makes a series of statements regarding narrow paths leading to wide paths, which could mean that the Israelites have to experience bad things so that when the good things arrive they will appreciate them, but this is unclear. Uriel says that God made the world for the Israelites (just one favored race?), and asks Esdras to consider what is to come, not what is present. Now you and I know this is in line with scripture as we understand the fallen Angels are returning and it will be as it was in the Days of Noah...... We also understand that true Israel is Jew and Christian joined together to make the bride the church Whole house of Israel.... As Eze. says However the church never taught these truths. The last thing they would have wanted was a book that says God made the World for Israel ... People today dont even know who they are ... Im sure there are more things the church didnt like.You know Swampfox its kind of interesting that many of things we argue on this very site today are answered or given more weight in the Book of Esdras..... Makes one think we might not be in such confusion/disagreement with each other if man hadnt decided to remove a book from the original Bible,to maintain their traditions .... Perhaps we are reaping the results of the warning we were given not to add or take from his book .... ?????????But alas if we choose to teach/quote it we would be the ones accused of going outside scripture...Reminds me of a an old saying " Oh what a web they weave when they practiced to decieve"

 

[tim_from_pa]

In my early days of Lost Tribes study (about 25 years ago), I was impressed at how II Esdras 13 clearly talks about the "ten tribes" returning again who dwelt in another place called "Arzareth" until the end times. This was II Esdras' version of the two sticks being rejoined.Many evangels that I grew up listening to their sermons and bible studies doubted the existence of lost tribes because when the Jews returned from captivity, they offered offerings for "all Israel" i.e. the 12 tribes and I was told that "proves" that all the 12 tribes returned and believing in lost tribes is a cult. I would just point to the passage in Ezra 10:9 where all the exiles gathered together but only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin were mentioned. So, it was "even" so-to-speak. I'd throw that verse at them and they'd throw back the "all Israel" phrase.Then, when I read II Esdras, a book that was supposedly written by Ezra, clearly mentioned the lost tribes, and this is one of the many examples where apocryphal books shed more light on the scripture so as one can take one side or another. With just Ezra, one can side with either doctrine because BOTH seem to be supported, but then Esdras was the clincher that stated there are indeed lost tribes. Even if the book wasn't written by Ezra, whoever penned his name must have had reason to believe that this was Ezra's stance, otherwise where would they get the idea? Nobody just goes to bed one night and dreams this stuff up, but to dismiss the book as "uninspired" is really an indirect way of basically sweeping the issue under the rug and avoiding it because if it is true, then the critics of lost tribe teaching haven't a leg to stand on.However, I do not believe that the apocrypha is what I call God's formal Word. God had other books written to explain to the wise the deeper things as it also states in that book. Sometimes I believe that God deliberately made some doctrines a little unclear so that people would misinterpret His Word. The reason (in the case of the lost tribes) is because if the bible clearly stated who they were, then they'd no longer be lost like the bible predicted and as such would contradict itself and make prophecy false. This is something that goes way over the heads of the critics because they believe that everything in the bible is open and nothing is sealed (c.f. Daniel 12:9). However, there is enough scripture to heavily implicate certain people, and God expects those who truly want to learn enough insight to see the deeper things while the more shallow ones basically poke fun and do not believe the truth anyway.

 

[Christina]

A perfect example Tim light is shed on many topics in 2 Esdras and sense it was in the original KJV and removed by the church how much valued information we do lose without getting the stanadard accusation "thats not sciprture" reply....

 

[Vickie]

The book of Esdras was included in the 1611 KJV of the Bible it was removed by the church at a latter date because it went against some of their teachings.2 Esdrashttp://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/2esdras.htmlDo you think Should it be included? does the church have a right to remove a book they dont like ? Should it be considered in our studies?

Christina, good morning sister. The writing of Esdras, is not written as the manner the true books of the bible are. I have read some of the books of the Apocrypha, like Judith and a couple of others, and I surfaced over Esdras and for me I can not accept them as inspired by God. The way they are written is different from the books of the bible. Some may not feel this way, as we each have our own thoughts on this and this is mine. I had a book of the 1611 KJV and Esdras was not in it from my recollection. For me, I personally feel they are miss leading in the truth of God, though they have some very good stories they portray about themselves and God dealing with them and the nation of Israel. I personally can not accept them as books of the bible after reading them.It seems like they have taken main stories out of the books of the bible and have created themselves into a similar setting with God dealing with them. I find this very disturbing and to be counterfeit. Because they all have such similar events taken place with them, varying with a slight difference, these books will lead many astray where they are not speaking accurately concerning the word of God, which will cause God's word to be diluted in some form if accepted as God's inspired words. Thanks

 

[Christina]

Christina, good morning sister. The writing of Esdras, is not written as the manner the true books of the bible are. I have read some of the books of the Apocrypha, like Judith and a couple of others, and I surfaced over Esdras and for me I can not accept them as inspired by God. The way they are written is different from the books of the bible. Some may not feel this way, as we each have our own thoughts on this and this is mine. I had a book of the 1611 KJV and Esdras was not in it from my recollection. For me, I personally feel they are miss leading in the truth of God, though they have some very good stories they portray about themselves and God dealing with them and the nation of Israel. I personally can not accept them as books of the bible after reading them.It seems like they have taken main stories out of the books of the bible and have created themselves into a similar setting with God dealing with them. I find this very disturbing and to be counterfeit. Because they all have such similar events taken place with them, varying with a slight difference, these books will lead many astray where they are not speaking accurately concerning the word of God, which will cause God's word to be diluted in some form if accepted as God's inspired words. Thanks

Hi sis While I will not argue with any one's decision not to accept this as scripture there are some points I would like to addressin your post. The fact this book repeats draws from other books .. Is very typical of God he often tells the same stories in other books One need only look to Mathew, Mark and Luke to see that they often told the same story from slightly different perspectives. This is not a sound reason to reject the book but in fact very familiar way in which God works.Esdras is also translated as Ezra. The book is still a part of certain Bibles ..It was often quoted by other prophets. And was a part of the 1611 King James Bible ... So even as late as 1611 it was widely accepted as scripture ... unlike many other Apocryphal Books that never were in the Bible... I think this book holds unique place ... The fact that it clarifies and confirms much that is already written just gives it more weight IMHO....Further Explanation of the BookIt is similar to the Book of Ezra, but under a different arrangement and with 99 additional verses, which include a polished conclusion that the much shorter Ezra lacks. Modern texts begin with the last two short chapters of the preceding Biblical work — II Chronicles (Paralipomenon) — and the work properly begins in Chapter 2.Josephus and the Church Fathers quoted 1 Esdras extensively; it was considered part of the Canon of the Old Testament,[citation needed] and indeed it is found in Origen's Hexapla.In the Slavonic editions of the Bible this book is called 2 Esdras; in the Vulgate it is called 3 Esdras, and in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible it is called Ezra Kali which means 2 Ezra. For information about the book called 1 Esdras in the Vulgate and Slavonic editions, see the article on Book of Ezra.The book now called 1 Esdras presents various problems of naming it. In most editions of the Septuagint, the book is titled in Greek: Εσδρας Α′ and is placed before the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which are together titled in Greek: Εσδρας Β′.However, the Vulgate titled the books of Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, giving the current book the title 3 Esdras.Since most modern translations use the more Hebraic transliteration of "Ezra" for the Hebrew book, the Vulgate's 3 Esdras is styled 1 Esdras in most English Bibles. The Vulgate's 4 Esdras becomes 2 Esdras.The Russian Orthodox Church, considers this book canonical but has Latin Ezra in an Appendix to the Slavonic Bible. It calls the Hebrew book of Ezra "1 Esdras", with Nehemiah listed separately, and it calls Greek Ezra 2 Esdras and it calls Latin Esdras "3 EsdrasThe majority of the content of 1 Esdras completely parallels Ezra, Nehemiah, and II Chronicles. In particularAuthor and criticismThe purpose of the book seems to be the presentation of the dispute among the courtiers, to which details from the other books are added to complete the story. Since there are various discrepancies in the account, most scholars hold that the work was written by more than one author. However, some scholars believe that this work may have been the original, or at least the more authoritative; the variances that are contained in this work are so striking that more research is being conducted. Because of similarities to the vocabulary in the Book of Daniel, it is presumed by some that the authors came from Lower Egypt and some or all may have even had a hand in the translation of Daniel. Assuming this theory is correct, many scholars consider the possibility that one "chronicler" wrote this book.Josephus makes use of the book and some scholars believe that the composition is likely to have taken place in the first century BC or the first century AD. Many Protestant and Catholic scholars assign no historical value to the "original" sections of the book. The citations of the other books of the Bible, however, provide a pre-Septuagint translation of those texts, which increases its value to scholars.In the current Greek texts, the book breaks off in the middle of a sentence; that particular verse thus had to be reconstructed from an early Latin translation. However, it is generally presumed that the original work extended to the Feast of Tabernacles, as described in Nehemiah 8:13-18. The book was widely quoted by early Christian authors and it found a place in Origen's Hexapla. It was not included in canons of the Western Church, Clement VIII relegated it to an appendix following the New Testament in the Vulgate "lest [it] perish entirely" [1]. However, the use of the book continued in the Eastern Church, and it remains a part of the Eastern Orthodox canon.

 

[Vickie]

Hi sis While I will not argue with any one's decision not to accept this as scripture there are some points I would like to addressin your post. The fact this book repeats draws from other books .. Is very typical of God he often tells the same stories in other books One need only look to Mathew, Mark and Luke to see that they often told the same story from slightly different perspectives. This is not a sound reason to reject the book but in fact very familiar way in which God works.

Thanks Christina, we children of God need to always be kind to one another and I appreciate that from you. I honor your stand when we disagree. What I am referring to is an event that had taken place of one of God's prophets, say the lion eating him for disobedience in the holy bible. That same event but different person was told it happened to them. The Apocrypha book was Tobiath, (if I spelled it right) The Gospels are different accounts of the same Jesus, not making it another human that it happened too. Judith, used the story of Sisera in Judges of a woman named Jael whose tent he came into and she drove a nail through his temple. Judith also takes this event out of the bible and has built her own story similar in the same kind of event. There are other disturbing ares that all of these books have in them. Esdras is one that is very subtle in bringing in things that twist the truth of God's true words. If one is not fully familiar with the writings of God, these books are easily accepted and sway the mind in another way, weakening the words,and causing God to appear in a different light to us if taking in what is written and it is very subtle.

Esdras is also translated as Ezra. The book is still a part of certain Bibles ..It was often quoted by other prophets. And was a part of the 1611 King James Bible ... So even as late as 1611 it was widely accepted as scripture ... unlike many other Apocryphal Books that never were in the Bible... I think this book holds unique place ... The fact that it clarifies and confirms much that is already written just gives it more weight IMHO....

I can appreciate you're opinion. After all what I write is my opinion also from what I have gathered. I know your sincere and very much a woman who desire to serve the Lord. We do have Ezra, in the O.T. But it is not the same Esdras that is part of the Apocrypha, the characteristics of the writers are very different and how they are moved to write the words and acts of God on Israel. Further Explanation of the BookIt is similar to the Book of Ezra, but under a different arrangement and with 99 additional verses, which include a polished conclusion that the much shorter Ezra lacks. Modern texts begin with the last two short chapters of the preceding Biblical work — II Chronicles (Paralipomenon) — and the work properly begins in Chapter 2.Josephus and the Church Fathers quoted 1 Esdras extensively; it was considered part of the Canon of the Old Testament,[citation needed] and indeed it is found in Origen's Hexapla.[/quote] I am sure Josephus did quote Esdras extensively. The entire Christian community has taken a man word, as a great historian, who, saw Jesus, wrote of him in his books of Antiquity and refused to acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God, and all time exposed to all Jesus did, and denied The Christ in his writings. A Jew whose whom Jesus called all of them in Josephus's time, a brood of vipers, and serpents, and their father was not Abraham, but Satan, the father of LIES. I prefer to believe what Jesus said of them at that era Josephus was in, and not trust a single word Josephus wrote, because his father was satan as Jesus said. The bible is the only history book of writers I will study and take to heart every word for it is God breathe. All our encyclophedias have based all their biblical history on the books of Josephus instead of the truth of God written at the same time. When the Lord showed me this I was amazed at what had taken place by this deception.

In the Slavonic editions of the Bible this book is called 2 Esdras; in the Vulgate it is called 3 Esdras, and in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible it is called Ezra Kali which means 2 Ezra. For information about the book called 1 Esdras in the Vulgate and Slavonic editions, see the article on Book of Ezra.The book now called 1 Esdras presents various problems of naming it. In most editions of the Septuagint, the book is titled in Greek: Εσδρας Α′ and is placed before the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which are together titled in Greek: Εσδρας Β′.However, the Vulgate titled the books of Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, giving the current book the title 3 Esdras.Since most modern translations use the more Hebraic transliteration of "Ezra" for the Hebrew book, the Vulgate's 3 Esdras is styled 1 Esdras in most English Bibles. The Vulgate's 4 Esdras becomes 2 Esdras.The Russian Orthodox Church, considers this book canonical but has Latin Ezra in an Appendix to the Slavonic Bible. It calls the Hebrew book of Ezra "1 Esdras", with Nehemiah listed separately, and it calls Greek Ezra 2 Esdras and it calls Latin Esdras "3 EsdrasThe majority of the content of 1 Esdras completely parallels Ezra, Nehemiah, and II Chronicles. In particularAuthor and criticismThe purpose of the book seems to be the presentation of the dispute among the courtiers, to which details from the other books are added to complete the story. Since there are various discrepancies in the account, most scholars hold that the work was written by more than one author. However, some scholars believe that this work may have been the original, or at least the more authoritative; the variances that are contained in this work are so striking that more research is being conducted. Because of similarities to the vocabulary in the Book of Daniel, it is presumed by some that the authors came from Lower Egypt and some or all may have even had a hand in the translation of Daniel. Assuming this theory is correct, many scholars consider the possibility that one "chronicler" wrote this book.

Thanks for sharing this information with me. I see there is many debates concerning Esdra and I myself read and made my own decision. No one else has to accept what I have determined with the books of the Apocrypha, I read what I needed to solely make my own decision, not needing anyone to validate what God has shown me. Very thankful I have read some of the books. It helps me know what others are speaking about when they speak of these books.

Josephus makes use of the book and some scholars believe that the composition is likely to have taken place in the first century BC or the first century AD. Many Protestant and Catholic scholars assign no historical value to the "original" sections of the book. The citations of the other books of the Bible, however, provide a pre-Septuagint translation of those texts, which increases its value to scholars.In the current Greek texts, the book breaks off in the middle of a sentence; that particular verse thus had to be reconstructed from an early Latin translation. However, it is generally presumed that the original work extended to the Feast of Tabernacles, as described in Nehemiah 8:13-18. The book was widely quoted by early Christian authors and it found a place in Origen's Hexapla. It was not included in canons of the Western Church, Clement VIII relegated it to an appendix following the New Testament in the Vulgate "lest [it] perish entirely" [1]. However, the use of the book continued in the Eastern Church, and it remains a part of the Eastern Orthodox canon.

IMHO the first thing all Christians have done wrong is to believe anything that Josephus has written, for it was put out to deceive and water down Christ, his resurrection, the power and the Jews losing their rights to the Son of God whom was sent. Very vindictive and destructive to destroy as many Christians a possible with their lies as Jesus points this out over and over in warnings to us as well as the rest of the N.T writers point it out the high government officials killed the prophets sent to them, every time, and killed the Christ. Thanks again for you brought a lot of information explaining your stand and I do appreciate it very much. Vickie

 

[Christina]

While I appreciate your stand. And I stop short of taking Ezra as scripture ...I do think it makes a very reliable strong 2 nd wittness and should not be dismissed.Nor put in the same catogory as the other books you mentioned I think men did as they were warned not to and took away from Gods Word reguardless of their reasons .. good conversation anyway even if we do not see eye to eye

 

[BenTobijah]

... I think men did as they were warned not to and took away from Gods Word reguardless of their reasons .. good conversation anyway even if we do not see eye to eye

I think if God wanted Esdras in the Scriptures it would have been there. Many men didn't like the Book of James either but it's still in the Bible.

 

[Christina]

I think if God wanted Esdras in the Scriptures it would have been there. Many men didn't like the Book of James either but it's still in the Bible.

Thats fine I as I said I cant take it as fully scripture myself but you seem to missing the point it was in there till the church/men removed it ...

 

[tim_from_pa]

I think if God wanted Esdras in the Scriptures it would have been there. Many men didn't like the Book of James either but it's still in the Bible.

If one reads II Esdras, it answers your point:And it came to pass, when the forty days were filled, that the Highest spake, saying, The first that thou hast written publish openly, that the worthy and unworthy may read it:But keep the seventy last, that thou mayest deliver them only to such as be wise among the people:For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge.What this passage is saying is that the OT cannon, as we know it, was to be presented to ALL people, but other books, including this one, were only to the wise people. The implication is that it is not FORMAL scripture, but that it contains keys of understanding that wise people would know how to accept.The 66 books of the OT is what I call FORMAL scripture---- everything is contained therein to make a case and to teach, but the apocryphal books shed further light on them to see deeper into those scriptures of the FORMAL Word of God. Some people can see deep insights in the FORMAL without the apocryphal books. These are the wisest of the wise.