The Apocrypha

Discussion in 'Bible Study' started by Pastor Gary, Jan 13, 2007.

  1. The Apocrypha

    I would recommend that if anyone wishes to read the King James Version in it's FULL ORIGINAL FORM, to purchase "The Apocrypha" as edited and translated by Edgar J. Goodspeed. Vintage Publications, ISBN 0-679-72452-4.

    This will re-introduce the so called "missing" books of the King James Version that were included in 1611 before 'the church' edited them out for their own reasons. Please read the preface in The Apocrypha for a full explaination of why and more importantly WHO removed the Books. I will not go into that further here.

    The Apocrypha will supply you with the First and Second Books of Esdras, The Book of Tobit, The Book of Judith, The additions to the Book of Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, The Wisdom of Sirach, The Book of Baruch, The Story of Susanna, The Song of the Three Children, The Story of Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasseh, And the First and Second Books of the Maccabees.

    These Books were part of The Original Manuscripts as well as part of the original Authorized King James Version Bible of 1611 and by adding these to your King James Version readings, you will have the full studies that God provided to His prophets and scribes BEFORE the agenda and biases of 'the church' removed them.
  2. Tobit is a strange book ;) it tells you how to inquire things by cutting up fish and other strange procedures.

    But I do suggest that people read the apocryfa, because they do fill in the gaps that the bible leaves open, and also gives you more insight into Isrealite culture.

    Very interesting reading.

    For those who don't have the money, or will to buy a new bible solely cause of a few books more in it:
  3. Re. Apocrypha

    If you profess to be a Christian; I do not understand why you would recommend the spurious uninspired fiction known as the Apocrypha, to be read to complete the King James Version of the Bible. Are you a romanist religionist or an 'eastern orthodox' religionist, propagating your religious errors
    The Apocrypha will do nothing for the new Christian or the poorly schooled mature Christian, except cause confusion. I definitely disagree with your recommendation; the Apocrypha has absolutely nothing for God's Church and should be ignored.

  4. The Books of the Apocrypha were part of the Original Manuscripts and part of the Original King James Version Bible before being EDITED OUT by the biases, cover-ups and political agenda of one particular denomination. To disallow those Books to be made available to those who wish to have the FULL TEXTS that were part of the original concepts and teachings of God through His prophets and Scribes, is nearly the same as the supression of reading materials in Europe in the late 1930's. I am not saying that they should be read by all Christians; I am saying only that they are AVAILABLE and MAY be looked into as a continuation of studies along with other research tools such as The Companion Bible and the Exhaustive, Complete Concordance of the Bible.

    Your comment about it being fiction, in the opinion of many schollars who have researched the matter over the centuries, is irresponsible to say the least. These WERE part of God's Word before they were tossed out because of the agenda of MAN.
  5. Gary,
    When you say "original manuscripts", to what exactly are you referring?

  6. KJV Apoc is almost as bad as the erroneous KJV itself. But aside from that, it really is pretty nifty.

    I'd suggest to those interested, that they study the history of each book they read in the Apoch, and the pros and cons from scholors about them. I'd suggest Maccabee 1, but not Maccabee 2 for example.

    But what the original author of this thread said is true. The Apoc was originally a part of the acceptable canon of scripture. As were many other books not in the Apoc that have been excluded by BOTH Protestants and Catholics.

    Oops did I give away the identity of the secret denomination?

    Anyways, other books like Enoch were in there originally and are quoted by New Testament Writers.... yet church politics has its way with things in the end.

  7. The apocrypha is intersting but I don't believe it belongs in the Bible- I have 50 translations of the bible on my pc and non of them contain aprocryphil writings. I am not trying to argue with you but I think most bible translators would put your opinion in the minority. :)
  8. Why would anyone necessarily have to be so concerned about having to read the KJV in "it's original form"? Its not as if Jesus and the disciples and the writers of the Bible in general spoke Elizabethan English ;) After all, even the original translation team for the 1611 KJV… (and there are, btw, numerous “translations†of the KJV, very few actually read the 1611 version)…. stated the case for the Bible needing to be in a language that people could understand .... so even they would not have insisted upon any religious dedication to their translation(s), for it was and is, simply one more translation in a long list of translations.

    Also, we mustn’t forget, those who wanted to include the Apocrypha, and those who worked on the translation of the KJV ALL had their “agenda and biases†as well. In fact, King James put restrictions on the translation committee to “guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England.†(wikipedia, )

    So the question is not merely one of biases, for all of us have biases, indeed its impossible not to have biases… its rather: “who’s bias is the best bias to be biased with?†;) It seems to me, anyway, that the best bias is to simply ask which books the Jews considered to be canonical, inspired, infallible, and to base our Scriptures, concerning the OT anyway, on theirs. After all, the NT itself tells us that the Jews were specifically entrusted by God concerning the OT: (Romans 3:1-2) Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.â€

    At any rate, we simply cannot rightly dismiss any translation of the Bible simply because of the absence of the Apocrypha. That is circular reasoning; it’s assuming that the KJV with the Apocrypha is the standard by which to judge other translations and the biases behind them. But then, that is the very thing that must be proven, and that, IMHO, cannot be done.

    There was no insidious conspiracy to exclude the Apocrypha. People simply wanted to know what the Jews used as their canonical/inspired scriptures, and based on their exclusions, Protestants eventually came to exclude it as well. And there are very good reasons why this is the case. One may honestly disagree with those reasoning’s, and that’s fine… but there is not some terrible conspiracy at work denying the “Word of God†to people who want it simply by the removal of the Apocrypha. We might just as well as ask: “what is the bias behind the INCLUSION of the Apocrypha?†Is it sufficient to do so simply because the 1611 translators included it in the 1611 KJV? Is it sufficient to say that we should do so because the Roman Catholic Church had always done so with it’s translation of the Bible into Latin? Is it sufficient to do so just because some Jews translated some of their religious writings into Greek?†I don’t think so…..

    The question is, then, what did the Jews consider to be the canonical Old Testament? And this turns out to not include the Apocryphal writings. Yes, the Apocrypha is in the LXX/Septuagint, and he NT writers often (but not always) quote from the LXX, but the only reason why the Apocrypha became included in the LXX at all was simply this; the Pharaoh (Ptolomy Philadelph) wanted a copy of the Hebrew “religious writings†to include in the famous Alexandrian library. He could have cared less what the Jews considered to be canonical, he just wanted to include their “religious†writings (whether they were considered canonical or not) along side the other religions of the world in his library which was gathering together the writings of many different people groups, and the Apocryphal writings did not themselves even become a part of what we today call the “LXX†until many years after the original Torah had been translated in Greek, that is, the Jews slowly added to the books they were translating from Hebrew to Greek over the course of many years, and their inclusion does not necessarily entail anything about their canonicity, inspiration or infallibility.

    Also, if the LXX is to be the standard as to why the Apocrypha ought to be included in the English bibles of today, and if it is the case that the 1611 KJV ought to be read because it contains to Apocrypha, I have to ask, “why accept it on this basis when the 1611 KJV does not included ALL of the Apocryphal books included in the Greek LXX?†These books are included in the Apocrypha of the LXX but omitted in the 1611 KJV Apocrypha: Psalms 151, 3 Maccabees. So which “version†of the Apocrypha is the correct one?

    Here are a few more comments from the translators of the KJV, which would apply to the LXX, and to the Apocrypha:

    “Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet [Isa.31:3] to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit: so it is evident, (and Saint Hierome [S.Hieron. de optimo genere interpret.] affirmeth as much) that the Seventy were interpreters, they were not prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the Spirit gave them utterance.â€

    2 But now the Latin translations were too many to be all good, for they were infinite Latini Interpretes nullo modo numerari possunt, saith S.Augustine.) [S.Augustin. de doctr. Christ, lib. 2.cap.11.]
    3 Again, they were not out of the Hebrew fountain (we speak of the Latin translations of the Old Testament) but out of the Greek stream, therefore the Greek being not altogether clear, the Latin derived from it must needs be muddy.
    4 This moved S.Hierome, a most learned father, and the best linguist without controversy, of his age, or of any that went before him, to undertake the translating of the Old Testament, out of the very fountains themselves (i.e. the Hebrew canon- Ken); which he performed with that evidence of great learning, judgement,(sic) industry, and faithfulness, that he hath for ever bound the Church unto him, in a debt of special remembrance and thankfulness.â€

    Lastly I would just add that its not enough to add an apocryphal book to the canon simply because one of the NT writers quoted from an apocryphal book. Based on this reasoning we would have to say that we could therefore EXCLUDE any apocryphal books NOT quoted from and, secondly, that we would have to add any other books to the canon that the writers of the Scriptures quoted from. But I know we would not want to do this, Paul alluded to and quoted from the secular Greek poet Epimenides and Plautus in Acts 17:28. So just because he agreed with their poetical works and referred to them, should we include their works in the canon of Scripture? Of course not, so too, then, we ought not include any book simply because it was alluded to or quoted by the writers of Scriptures.

  9. I believe in the souvernty of my God and I am convinced that He has given us the 66 books that He wanted us to have.
  10. I am glad you believe int he sovereignty of God, but unfortunately that won't answer the question at hand.... for it will probably be the case that those who consider the Apocrypha to be canonical will say something along the lines of "I believe in the sovereignty of my God and I am convinced that He has given us the 80 (or 82, or 83.....) books He wanted us to have." :)

  11. And what of the other omitted books of the Bible? The Gnostic Texts? The Ethiopian Catholic Bible, The Book of Enki, The Book of Enoch, and for that matter, the alleged times of Christ in America as divinely received by Joseph Smith? Where are the lines drawn and who gets to decide what is cannon and what is not? I've read all of these books and find some merit in all of them. Mind you, none of them give us a complete look at Christ and are all politically motivated in their inclusion or exclusion in denominational cannon. Does this negate the value of their alleged wisdom? Are these writers charlatans, and if so, on what basis do we condemn them as heretical? I'll grant you that there is some utter nonsense (at least to me) in all of these books, but there is also some beautiful philosophies that certainly apply to Christian life. Am I way off base?

  12. Other historical writings can be informative and entertaining but that doesn't make the part of my bible- I am not knocking them as I have read some af them and enjoy myself doing so - however I stand by my opinion that allmost unanamously bible translators have left them out for a reason- and I still beleive in God's soveriengty that He has the majority of the Christians on the earth reading His w Word the eay He intended it.
  13. There is good reason to exclude the other texts... the NT writers, especially John and Paul write directly against the Gnostics and their doctrines... that should be reason enough to dismiss their writings.... I don't know anything about the Ethiopian Catholic Bible... I will try and look into it... as far as the "prophet" Joseph Smith, the Book or Mormon has been shown repeatedly to fail tests applied to it... tests of archeology, manuscript tests... inconsistencies regarding the story of the golden tablets, their location and their "translation"... the Mormon religious texts come nowhere near the Christian canon.... and it is most unlikely that he (Smith) received the messages he claims.... Mormonism denies many of the central truths about the Christian religion, and therefore should not even be called "Christian"... so often the cults want to borrow many of the words from Christianity so that they sound orthodox, but in reality, it is a deceptive ploy... and any religion based on that sort of deception is highly suspect.... for instance, the Mormons will tell you, if you ask them, that they believe in the virgin birth... all well and good... until you probe a little farther and find out what it is that they actually mean by saying that the believe in the "virgin birth"...w hat they really believe is that Adam, from the Garden of Eden, is the God of this world, and it was he who had sex with the virgin Mary which in turn produced the conception of Jesus. This is known as the "Adam-God" doctrine. Secondly, the book of Mormon is really largely a rip-off from the KJV, and it is rather odd that when Smith lived, even then the Elizabethan English spoken in 1611 was already outdated….. the fact that the Book of Mormon retained this periods English style further reveals that is plagiarism.

    As far as what was accepted as canonical, the books of the NT had to have been written either by one of the disciples themselves, or a close associate of them.... the canon was settled very early on in church history.... so much that tried to make its way into the canon was easily shown to have been written by either persons claiming to be one of the disciples or immediate followers, but the content and style reveals that the books were written far too late to satisfy the criteria set up for canonicity.

    To say that any and all inclusion or exclusion of a given book is politically motivated is pretty strong language. Do you have any facts to back this assertion up?

    Does any truth in them negate their value? Well, what is truth? By what standard do you claim to be appealing to when you say that a given teaching in a certain “religious” book is “good” or “true”? If you say that it’s teaching lines up with the canonical Scriptures, then there is no reason to have to appeal to these other texts for the teaching, because it already appears in the canon, so there is no need to have to hear it or read it from somewhere else. If it disagrees with or is contradictory to the canon, then it has to be rejected. These same test apply to those who claim to be receiving continuing “revelation” from God. If what they claim to have received is already found in the Scriptures, why then do they have to make such a big deal about their “vision” or “message”? We already have that “message in the pages of the Bible, so there is no need to try and claim special revelation is continuing in them such that they have to share “what God has given them”, for God has already “given to us” all we need for life and godliness in the pages of Scripture. But, if their so-called “revelation” contradicts the Scriptures, then it is to be rejected. Of course if they claim to foretell the future and their foretelling is wrong, they are to be immediately and permanently rejected as a false teacher according to Deuteronomy. So the basis by which we condemn the as heretical is the basis of using the canonical scriptures as our objective infallible guide. There may be some “beautiful philosophies” that appear in some of these books, but if so, they are only beautiful if they are true, and they are only true if they line up with the canonical Scriptures. Beauty alone is no criteria of truth, remember, the Bible itself tells us that Satan disguises himself/itself as a beautiful angel/angle of light in order to deceive. People know that a being appearing to the in a red suit and horns complete with a pitch fork is pretty easily identifiable and therefore just as easily rejected. So Satan does his best to give just enough of the truth to sound, at first glance, like the real thing, as evidenced by his temptation of Jesus where he used Scripture, but, he used it wrongly and Jesus properly applied the Scriptures to the temptations, and he does his best to appear “beautiful”, so be on your guard… your enemy prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour! Don’t be taken in by worldly philosophies or worldly wisdom, trust in the Lord and lean not on your own understanding, acknowledge the Lord in all of your ways and He will make your path straight, knowing that the scripture contains all that you need for life and godliness.. 2 Peter 1:3-4 (ESV) 3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.”
    The “promises” are found nowhere but in the canonical Scriptures.


Share This Page