What ever became of the Apocrypha and even more, studying it along with other early writings regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ? surely there is someone here who has studied in this area that may have some light to shed on this subject.
Didn't it include books like Maccabees, Judith, Tobias, epistles of Jerimiah,, continuing books of Esther and other books, so why are they not part of our bible today? Why would those concerned who canonized the books consider the writings of the bible holy spirit inspired and yet decide some were not inspired placing these books if at all in a section of bible called secondary canons? I believe the origional writings were holy spirit inspired weather they ever got canonized is the organized religionists uninspired decision.
Too many portions of truth I feel have been kept secretly locked away from us and just possibly this is Gods way of drawing us to him in searching the deep things of the spirit, because historicly and biblicaly by the hands of religionists these things are not forthcoming for too long now, after all religionists do not want to give up their rule and authority in lording it over their weaker or lessor brethren they call the masses.
Also the Geneva bible was the first widely printed bible available to the public and not the Kings James bible like so many today might believe. Due to bloody Mary queen of England wanting to put England under strict papacy control during her riegn, the Roman Catholic Church then did not believe anyone other than clergy should ever have a bible, many fled to Geneva and there a bible was printed in quanities enough for all who could read and wanted one to have a bible, weather it contained the appocrypha I don't know, however I do realize that the Catholic bible has some books they allowed into in it from Apocrytha that are not found in the so called protestant bibles, what is up with that difference?
There are things that the religious church doesn't want us to know , like the burning and destroying of biblical era writings, all those killed in the name of the church, like burning the last of the Cathers at the stake for being witches, the enqusitions the crusades a never ending river of blood the more of history I study the more hidiously repulsive the history of the religious practices of the church is brought to light. Even today here and around the world many things that ought not be done are done all in the name of church religion.
The word does say that revelation of truth comes by the spirit and not by man that any should teach you, that Jesus Christ did not leave us orphaned, the more I study the more of the truth I see it that.
Peace,
Fire Walker
Its so easy to just have everyone make all the decisions for us. To tell us what is inspired and what is not. To tell us how we should do this and that and what we can believe or not believe. This is where we all start out as little children. But at some point we begin to grow up, hopefully.
kept
Fire & Kept: Presently there is approaching 1 foot + of snow in my yard, street, City. Snow, for individuals such as Kept who knows nothing of snow :laughing7: is the following....
Snow=
Noun: atmospheric water vapour frozen into ice crystals and falling in light white flakes or lying on the ground as a white layer.
http://www.onelook.com/?w=snow&ls=a
I do not like snow. :mshock: I am tired of shovelling snow. :thumbsup: A test is looming on the horizon that does not encompass snow. :thumbsup:
The Test=
Read the Book of Ecclesiastes which is inspired, and thus included by those in the "know" in Canon. Then read the Book of Ecclesiasticus....
HERE (http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvapocrypha/B68C001.htm)
Or HERE (http://www.tldm.org/bible/Old%20Testament/eccltus.htm)
...which is not included in the Sacred writings, and thus not inspired.
What is the defining criteria for not including the Book of Ecclesiasticus?
The Apocrypha On Line
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/index.htm
Lost/ Forgotten Books & Ancient Sacred Texts
http://reluctant-messenger.com/lost_forgotten_books.htm
Old Testament Apocryphal Writings
http://www.bibleufo.com/anomlostbooks2.htm
King James Apocrypha
http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvapocrypha/index.htm
Hi Firewalker,
I have a questions for you too. It is well known that the apostles and Jesus quoted from the Septuagint. Yet, Paul told Timothy:
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
The only scripture that they had was the Old Testament! Well Firewalker, the Apocrypha was part of the Septuagint. The very scriptures they quoted from. :mshock: What does this mean? That would be a good question my friend. :thumbsup:
Check out my Septuagint study...
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=936.0
Peace,
Paul
I wanted to mention a side issue brought up in the initial post. The general availability of scripture in the language of the people is historically verifiable. These handwritten vernacular versions were burned by the wheelbarrowful by representatives of The Roman Church for reasons I can only repeat what others have said or guess at. It seems around the world there was agreement between the vernacular versions as well the actual Textus Receptus, the underlying text of the KJV. These are different than the text promoted by the Roman Church and underlying most of our new English versions.
I recommend the book on CD I quote from. It is about the King James version. The CD includes the rare entire 8 volumes of Foxe's Book of Martyrs (1563) and more. Regarding English, the first century Christians brought the gospel and vernacular Scriptures to England and Ireland. (Rom 16:26)
The following is found at the website: www.avpublications.com (http://www.avpublications.com) and is copied from the chapter previews (very worth reading) from the book In Awe of Thy Word by Gail Riplinger.
The Cambridge History of the Bible states that scriptures were so widely known worldwide that a deacon in the ancient church in Heraclea was "confident that even if all copies of the scriptures should disappear, Christians would be able to rewrite them from memory..."
"It is assumed by writers of the next hundred years that lay people can without difficulty get hold of Bibles for private study, if they will. 'Get books that will be medicine for the soul,' Chrysostom [A.D. 345-407] told his people. 'At least procure the New Testament, the Acts of the Apostles, the Gospels.' More surprisingly perhaps, in the sixth century, Gaul Caesarius of Arles can press his flock to buy the Bible and read it at home in the dark hours of winter. He does not appear to anticipate any lack of copies, or that they will be impossibly expensive for the farmer and tradesman" (vol.3, pp. 476-477).
Hey Guy's it goes way deeper than this. Bart Ehrman explains this well in his book Misquoting Jesus the Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.
BTW, Mr. Ehrman is a well known textual critic scholar with well established credentials.
Significant Editions of the Greek New Testament
Textus Receptus
although the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament was the Complutensian Polyglot (published in Spain in 1514), the printed edition of the Greek New Testament (later known as the Textus Receptus) in 1515 has achieved a lasting legacy. In the year 1514 and 1515, the well-known scholar Desiderius Erasmus was approached by a publisher, Johann Froben, to produce a manuscript of the Greek New Testament for the purpose of making a printed texts. When Erasmus compiled this text, he used five or six very late Byzantine manuscripts dating from the 10th to the 13th century-notably, minuscule 1 and miniscule 2, both of the 12th century.
Thus, Erasmus's text was a printed version of a Byzantine text. Many scholars consider that the Byzantine text goes back to the work of Lucian of Antioch. According to Jerome, Lucian of Antioch was responsible for producing a major recention of the New Testament. Another name that has been ascribed to this text is "Syrian," because of its association with Antioch in Syria. This text was a definite recention (i.e., a purposely created edition), which displays a popular to, characterized by smoothness of language, harmonization, and blending of variant readings. Lucian's text was produced before the Diocletian persecution (ca. 303), when many copies of the New Testament were confiscated and destroyed. Lucian's text soon became the standard text of the Eastern church and form the basis for the Byzantine text. Century after century-from the six to the 14th-the great majority of New Testament manuscripts were produced in Byzantium, all bearing the same kind of text.
Erasmus's edition, with various alterations, was published again and again by different printers. This text then went through a view more revisions by Robert Stepanus and then by Theodore Beza. Beza's text was then published by the Elzevir brothers in 1624, with a second edition in 1633. In this edition they announced that their edition contained "that text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted." As such, the name "Textus Receptus" became a descriptor of this form of the Greek New Testament text. This edition became the standard Greek New Testament for several centuries until it was superseded by a superior addition of the Greek New Testament, compiled from superior manuscript evidence. Both editions-that of Stepanus (1550) and the Elzevirs' text (1624)-are known as the Textus Receptus.
In recent years, a few scholars have attempted to defend the validity of what they would call the Majority text. But the Majority text is nearly the same as the Textus Receptus in that the TR was composed from manuscripts belonging to the Majority text.
Modern advocates of the superiority of the TR over other types are Hodges and Farstad, who produced The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. Their arguments are more theological than textual. They reason that God would not have allowed a corrupt or inferior text to be found in the majority of manuscripts, while permitting a superior text to be hidden away in a few early manuscripts somewhere in the sands of Egypt. Further, they argue that the church's adoption of the majority text was a vindication of its correctness, while the obscurity of the Egyptian texts was a sign of its rejection. And all of this reasoning, they miss the whole idea that God may have superintended the recovery of earlier and superior manuscripts during the past few centuries. This discovery has enabled biblical scholars to use earlier and superior manuscripts in the task of recovering the original wording of the Greek New Testament.
Those who defend the Textus Receptus (and KJV) would have to prove that these earlier manuscripts, usually having a slimmer text than what appears and later manuscripts, were purposely trimmed at an early stage in the textual transmission. In other words, they would have to come up with good arguments as to why scribes (in the early centuries) would have purposely excised the many passages.
Had these portions originally been in the text, there are no good reasons to explain why they would have been eliminated. Rather the opposite is true: there are several good reasons to explain why they were added-such as, gospel harmonization, the insertion of oral tradition, and theological enhancements. Thus most scholars see the Textus Receptus as being a culmination of theological growth.
"The first Western scholar to conceive the idea of producing a version of the Greek New Testament was a Spanish cardinal name Jimenes de Cisneros (1437-1517) under his leadership, a group of scholars... undertook a multi-volume edition of the Bible. This was a polyglot edition; that is, it reproduced the text of the Bible in a variety of languages. And so, the Old Testament was represented by the original Hebrew, the Latin Vulgate, and the Greek Septuagint, side-by-side in columns. The work was printed in a town called Alcala, whose Latin name is Complutum. For this reason, Jimenes's edition is known as the Complutensian Polyglot".
"Even though the content Complutensian Polyglot was the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament, it was not the first published version... Desiderius Erasmus must have studied the New Testament, along with other great works of antiquity, on and off for many years, and had considered at some point putting together an addition for printing. But it was only when he visited Basil in August of 1514 that he was persuaded by a publisher named Jonathan Froben to move forward. Both Erasmus and Froben knew that the Complutensian Polyglot was in the works, and so they made haste to publish a Greek text as quickly as possible... Erasmus went to Basil and search for suitable manuscripts that he could use as the basis of his text. For the most part, he relied on a mere handful of late medieval manuscripts, which he marked up as if he were copyediting a handwritten copy for the printer; the printer took the manuscripts and set his type directly from them."
Ehrman continues, It appears that Erasmus relied heavily on just one twelfth-century manuscript for the Gospels and another, also of the twelfth-century, for the book of Acts and the Epistles--although he was able to consult several other manuscripts and make corrections based on their readings. For the book of Revelations had to borrow a manuscript from his friend the German humanist Johannes Reuchlin; unfortunately, the manuscript was almost impossible to read in places, and it had lost its last page, which contained the final six verses of the book. In his haste to have the job done, in those places Erasmus simply uses the Latin Vulgate and translated it's text back into Greek, thereby creating some textual readings found today in no surviving Greek manuscript. And this, as we will see, is the addition of the Greek New Testament that for all practical purposes was used by the translators of the King James Bible nearly a century later." Erasmus's editions (he made five, all based ultimately on this first rather hastily assembled one) became the standard form of the Greek text published by the Western Europe printers for more than 300 years. Numerous Greek editions followed, produced by publishers whose names are well-known to the scholars in this field; Stephanus (Robert Estienne), Theodore Beza, and Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir. All these text, however, relied more or less on the text of their predecessors, and all those go back to the text Erasmus, with all its faults, based on just a handful of manuscripts (sometimes just two or even one--or in parts of Revelations, none!) that had been produced relatively late in the medieval period. Printers for the most part did not search out new manuscripts that might be older and better in order to base their text on them. Instead, they simply printed and reprinted the same text, making only minor changes.
The larger point I'm trying to make, however, is that all the subsequent editions--those of Stephanus included--ultimately go back to Erasmus's editio princeps which was based on some rather late, and not necessarily reliable, Greek manuscripts. They were simply the ones he could lay his hands on.
There was one key passage of Scripture that Erasmus's sources of manuscripts did not contain, however. This is the account of I John 5: 7-8, which scholars have called the Johannine Comma, found in the manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate but not in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, a passage that had long been favored among Christian theologians, said is it the only passage in the entire Bible that explicitly delineates the doctrine of the Trinity.
KJV 1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
"More than anything else, it was this that outraged at theologians of his day, who accused Erasmus of tampering with the text in an attempt to eliminate the doctrine of the Trinity. As the story goes, Erasmus--possibly in an unguarded moment--agree that he would insert the verse in a future edition of his Greek New Testament on one condition: that his opponents produced a Greek manuscript in which the verse can be found (finding it in Latin manuscripts was not enough). And so a Greek manuscript was produced. In fact, it was produced for the occasion. Despite his misgivings, Erasmus was true to his word and included the Johannine Comma in his next edition, and in all his subsequenteditions." And so familiar passages to readers of the English Bible--from the King James in 1611 onward, up until modern editions of the 20th century--include the woman taken into adultery, the last 12 verses of Mark, and the Johannine Comma, even though none of these passages can be found in the oldest and superior manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. They entered into the English stream of consciousness merely by a chance of history, based on manuscripts that Erasmus just happen to have handy to him, and one that was manufactured for his benefit."
"The various Greek editions of the 16th and 17th centuries were so much alike that eventually printers could claim that they were the text that was universally accepted by all scholars and readers of the Greek New Testament as indeed they were, since there were no competitors! The most-quoted claim is found in an edition produced in 1633 by Abraham and Bonaventure Elzevir in which they told their readers, in words that have since become famous among scholars, that "You now have the text that is received by all, in which we have given nothing changed or corrupted." The phrase of this line, especially the words "text that is received by all," provides us with the common phrase Textus Receptus or the Received Text. It was the inferior textual form of the Textus Receptus that stood at the base of the earliest English translations, including the King James Bible, and other editions until near the end of the 19th century."
"But almost no one recognize the enormity of the problem of textual variations until the ground-breaking publication in 1707 of one of the classics in the field of New Testament textual criticisms, a book that had a cataclysmic effect on the study of the transmission of the Greek New Testament, opening the floodgates that compelled scholars to take the textual situation of our New Testament manuscripts seriously. John Mill had invested 30 years of hard work on amassing the materials for his edition. The text that he printed was simply the 1550 edition of Stephanus; what mattered for Mill's publication was not the text he use, but the variant readings from that text that he cited in a critical apparatus. Mill had access to the readings of some 100 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. In addition, he carefully examined the writings of the early church fathers to see how they quoted the text--on the assumption that one could reconstruct the manuscript available to those fathers by examining their quotations. To the shock and dismay of many of his readers, Mills apparatus isolated some 30,000 places of variation among the surviving witnesses, 30,000 places where different manuscripts, Patristic (=church father) citations, and versions had different readings for passages of the New Testament. Now the status of the original text was thrown wide open to dispute".
Make no mistake; Erasmus was in it for the money. He used what he had on hand and rapidly put it together to beat the competition! The desire for money not theology gave us the Textus Receptus.
Paul
In certain areas, like the reliability of Scripture's underlying documents, church history and the like, what some read among possible choices reminds me of a cartoon I once saw. In a library with only one patron there were placards placed among the books that read, "Biography," and "History," "Science," "Art" and the like. A man, bent over with his eyes bugging out, was digging through where, on a large container a similar placard read, "Trash."
Among other things, Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman have a neo-gnostic agenda. Many wouldn't even regard them as legitimately Christian authors. To search for writings that provide grist for the scandal mill is one way of selling books today. Everything you conservative believers have held dear about the Bible and Jesus all these years is supposed to be all wrong. The story of the underlying texts is quite a bit different in the book I mentioned above (at www.avpublications.com (http://www.avpublications.com) ), particularly regarding Erasmus. He gets slandered a lot. In the quote from Ehrman above, the latter mention of his traveling all over to obtain manuscripts, more in line with history, can be quoted if one complains he's stacked the deck against Erasmus in an earlier mention. On the In Awe of Thy Word CD version there is included the original English translation, valued at over $30,000 today, of The Tome of the Paraphrase of Erasmus Upon the New Testament (1548-1549) Vol. 1 and 2 (about 1880 pages) accompanied by the English N.T. of the Great Bible of 1540. It reveals the nature of the man. Remember, the Reformation largely originated from religious professionals inside the Roman Church.
To offer a feel for the different sort of sources involved in these matters...the KJV translators, while working at translating, fasted one day a week. They also prayed 5 hours before they went into translating, as well as standing while they were engaged in translating in order to honor the Word of God. A far cry from Westcott and Hort. Among other things, the Luciferian Annie Besant played the piano for Westcott's singalongs.
Somewhere in the Bible's book of Proverbs there is one that says something like, "A man seems right in his cause, until his neighbor comes and tells the other side of the story." When I talk to people like Jehovah's Witnesses, I like to tell them that the first thing they ought to do, before they invest themselves in any group or it's special belief system, is to read other authors who say there's something wrong with it and here's why from the words of the Bible. When you approach something with little knowledge, so unknown to you the knowledge you get is skewed or even false, a barrier is created against the truth. "Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety." (Prov 11:14, KJV) Hopefully you understand my plea to consult recognized experts in their field and apologists answering the anti-everything crowd while sampling deviant scholars. Bruce Metzger and specially C. A. Carson have some excellent books on textual criticism, for instance.
Including that I find it distasteful and nearly a waste of time since others so able have already abundantly provided, for my own reasons I won't invest the time and labor to answer the lengthy quotes posted. It is enough to say one or two extremist authors do not fairly represent the field of knowledge.
P.S. Sampling about 400 out of 1500 documents invalidates the title, "The Majority Text!"
Quote from: reFORMerIt is enough to say one or two extremist authors do not fairly represent the field of knowledge.
This is so true, but time has shown us the truth. The Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition and the UBS 4th edition both support the Westcott and Hort text. Quote from: reformerAmong other things, Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman have a neo-gnostic agenda. Many wouldn't even regard them as legitimately Christian authors.
I don't know about Pagels but Ehrman is not a Christian anymore. He lost his faith working on textual criticism. Unfortunate for him, but this makes him less bias at his job. He does not have a Church agenda to support. He does not care about the Catholic, Baptist, Methodist or any other Church. He searches the manuscripts for the historical facts. Yes, he writes to sell books, so is dramatic in his public writings. However, his The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament is a serious study for scholars with out the drama. It's a very good book on the subject! Quote from: ReFORMerBruce Metzger and specially C. A. Carson have some excellent books on textual criticism, for instance.
I have read about 7 books on Textual Criticism:
Misquoting Jesus The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why By Bart Ehrman
The New Testament Documents Are They Reilable? By F.F. Bruce
The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce
The Text Of The New Testament An introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland
The Text Of The New Testament It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman.
The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament by Bart Ehrman
Encountering The Manuscripts An Introduction To New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism by Philip Comfort
I will have to check into C. A. Carson, as I have not heard of him. There are a lot of good critics and it's hard to get your name out there. I was however impressed with both Ehrman and Comfort.
One note too, the Text does not always make a good Bible. For example the King James version is more accurate in some areas than some modern Bibles based on the UBS text. The translators change the meaning of some words when the KJ version had it right all along. Translators are just as important as the text themselves. The KJ version is also beautifully written. Paul
Paul,
Have you also read that the KJV also had hidden agendas in it? Like the Shakepeare reference, etc?
Books Mentioned, But Not Found, In The Bible
There are between eighteen to twenty-four books mentioned in the Bible, but not included. The variation is due to possible double mentions using differing names for the same book.
Book of the Covenant
♦ Exodus 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.
There are those that believe the Book of the Covenant is found in Exodus chapters 20 through 23. There are no authoritative sources for this text.
Book of the Wars of the Lord
♦ Numbers 21:14 Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon,
Certain sources believe that this is to be found by drawing text from several Old Testament books. There are no authoritative sources for this text.
Book of Jasher Here
♦ Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
♦ 2 Samuel 1:18 (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)
The Manner of the Kingdom / Book of Statutes
♦ 1 Samuel 10:25 Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord. And Samuel sent all the people away, every man to his house.
Book of Samuel the Seer
♦ 1 Chronicles 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer,
Nathan the Prophet
♦ 1 Chronicles 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer,
♦ 2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?
Acts of Solomon
♦ 1 Kings 11:41 And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?
Shemaiah the Prophet
♦ 2 Chronicles 12:15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.
Prophecy of Abijah
♦ 2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?
Story of Prophet Iddo
♦ 2 Chronicles 13:22 And the rest of the acts of Abijah, and his ways, and his sayings, are written in the story of the prophet Iddo.
Visions of Iddo the Seer
♦ 2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?
Iddo Genealogies
♦ 2 Chronicles 12:15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually
Book of Jehu
♦ 2 Chronicles 20:34 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Jehu the son of Hanani, who is mentioned in the book of the kings of Israel.
Sayings of the Seers Here (Description)
♦ 2 Chronicles 33:19 His prayer also, and how God was intreated of him, and all his sin, and his trespass, and the places wherein he built high places, and set up groves and graven images, before he was humbled: behold, they are written among the sayings of the seers.
Book of Enoch Here
♦ Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Book of Gad the Seer
♦ 1 Chronicles 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer,
Epistle to Corinth Here
♦ 1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
Epistle to the Ephesians (Missing)
♦ Ephesians 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Epistle from Laodicea to the Colossians (Missing)
♦ Colossians 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
Nazarene Prophecy Source
♦ Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene
Acts of Uziah
♦ 2 Chronicles 26:22 Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last, did Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, write.
The Annals of King David
♦ 1 Chronicles 27:24 Joab son of Zeruiah began to count the men but did not finish. Wrath came on Israel on account of this numbering, and the number was not entered in the book of the annals of King David.
Jude, the Missing Epistle
♦ Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Books Removed From the Biblical Collection - A Partial List
There are those that cling to a singular view of all things biblical. If it is not in the King James Bible exactly the way he had it translated, it is a fake, a forgery, or an insidious plot by Satan to corrupt the minds of men. Those works referenced here are not mentioned in the Bible, but are associated with it. Many of the books listed below may be found on the internet by doing a search using the name of the book as a keyword.
We have compiled a list of over 500 books that have been associated with the Bible either through archeological research or historical documentation. Many of these books are available online, and we have a majority of them linked. There is no guarantee that the books listed here are inspired works, or genuine books actually included in original versions of writings used by, and considered true by the Early Christian Church.
http://www.thelostbooks.com/list.htm
A good majority of those books on that site have no authoritative (even from secular historians) sources as being genuine and written by whom they say wrote it. Example, there is a book called, "Adam & Eve & the Serpent" written in 1-3 Century AD describing what happened out of the garden. It is not very compelling truth, especially since the Torah is far before it and does not mention most of the 'facts' it states.
Just becareful that one does not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Quote from: SOtW on January 04, 2008, 01:55:24 AM
A good majority of those books on that site have no authoritative (even from secular historians) sources as being genuine and written by whom they say wrote it. Example, there is a book called, "Adam & Eve & the Serpent" written in 1-3 Century AD describing what happened out of the garden. It is not very compelling truth, especially since the Torah is far before it and does not mention most of the 'facts' it states.
Just becareful that one does not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
er um.. as it said.>>>>
QuoteThere is no guarantee that the books listed here are inspired works, or genuine books actually included in original versions of writings used by, and considered true by the Early Christian Church.
surley you dont think i was implying anything other than posting the info? with the disclaimer at the end., its just a compiled list thats all.
i personally like the book of hymms....check it out.
God bless
chuck
When I start looking at this type of stuff right now...it makes my head spin. And I understand how one could 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'. How do you know what is inspired and what is not? It is a little circular. We are to use the scriptures as a map of sorts to keep us on track..not out in left field...and yet use our wits to determine which is the map. A little crazy.
Quote from: Sarah on January 04, 2008, 06:49:02 PM
How do you know what is inspired and what is not?
Simple, the Scriptures we have now, are inspired and are considered genuine by even secular historians. People are looking for bias where there is none, looking for excuses where there is none. King James is a bad translation, but the books are not bad. etc.
To find out why the King James Version is one of the very best English versions we have, go to www.avpublications.com (http://www.avpublications.com) and read the chapter summaries of In Awe of Thy Word.
For someone without much formal education as I am all of these things to do with books, writings and ect are to quote what Sarah said are enough complicated confusion to make ones head spin, too much study of these things I suppose can lead to ever increasing in knowledge and never coming into the truth. In Ecc12:12
we can see that being admonished from making many books there is no end because much study is weariness to the flesh. So it appears that to study all things weather they be true, or study to show yourselves approved involves all things to do with life from the things that creep to the deepest oceans and highest mountains,
to the love of one another and the love of God for us in having sent his word is much more than study of books alone, remembering the words practical application comes to mind here, the word is a living word not dead letters on a piece of paper.
Certainly the historical study surrounding all these writings are interesting to me and it is not my goal in searching these things out to so narrow mindedly say this writing is entirely false and this other writing is not.
Although it is quite obvious that a lot of work went into writing many of these books
some write only to sell books or market their relegious doctrines, until we receive spiritual descernment in our reading of the bible or any other written work to do with it then as far as I can see we are only reading the letters printed on a page and are not receiving the fullness of the word or message weather it be of God or of the minds of men alone who wrote them.
In another thread here about the best bible
translation, I received a lot from it, edified I suppose you could say by just reading that thread "the best bible translation"
"have you ever read the white?" it is clear
and not clouded, the bible itself shows faith accounting as righteousness
was found in the world before the bibles we have today were even in print, simple trust in God who provides our way in the word, (not the complicated religious leadings that come by the flesh)
weather oral, written, comes by a bird in flight, a shining river or a wind singing through the trees, for me it is always peaceful and comforting revelations that come by spirit that leave one at rest within.
Peace,
Fire Walker
Quote from: reFORMerTo find out why the King James Version is one of the very best English versions we have, go to www.avpublications.com and read the chapter summaries of In Awe of Thy Word.
The King James is in my top 3 picks. However, I would not use the word "very" as it still has many problems.
Paul
Quote from: Pierac on December 18, 2007, 01:05:24 AM
"Even though the content Complutensian Polyglot was the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament, it was not the first published version... Desiderius Erasmus must have studied the New Testament, along with other great works of antiquity, on and off for many years, and had considered at some point putting together an addition for printing. But it was only when he visited Basil in August of 1514 that he was persuaded by a publisher named Jonathan Froben to move forward. Both Erasmus and Froben knew that the Complutensian Polyglot was in the works, and so they made haste to publish a Greek text as quickly as possible... Erasmus went to Basil and search for suitable manuscripts that he could use as the basis of his text. For the most part, he relied on a mere handful of late medieval manuscripts, which he marked up as if he were copyediting a handwritten copy for the printer; the printer took the manuscripts and set his type directly from them."
For years Erasmus traveled all over Europe seeking out and collecting the oldest and best Greek texts of Scripture . What he couldn't buy, after he went on, were seized by representatives of the Vatican who followed him around.
The Christian Bible is a translation I like quite a bit. It is touted as being the most accurate translation to the Greek that is available, which I can't vouch for because I'm no expert, but it does seem like a very good translation. It is not real well known, but I do see Gary has listed it on his list of Bibles that don't contain the word 'hell'. It can be seen and ordered at www.christianbiblesociety.org if anyone's interested. I'm getting ready to give mine to a friend and order another one, as it has become my primary Bible.