What are the implications?

[ClubV12]

I am absolutely fascinated by Jewish history Gregory! I take the counsel of Sister White seriously when she speaks about the Jewish economy having so many lessons worthy of study. My personal studies of late have given me much more appreciation for the Old Testament. I recently read King (1 and 2) again and it's a terrific study.

Do I NEED the apocrypha to learn more about Jewish history? No, I don't think anybody does frankly. I don't care to invest my time in might be, mostly, kind of sort of, lots of good but look out for the error kind of books. Especially considering the vastness of the 100% reliable information we DO have (Spirit of Prophecy being the primary source in that regard)!

I rather enjoy an occasional piece of insight from Josephus, but no way I go out of my way to study his work! The Jewish economy and the sanctuary are intimately linked, that will hold me for a few a decades, or a lifetime.

I don't even bother to read the latest and greatest book being promoted by the ABC as far as that goes. The Conflict series alone, by itself, is worthy of a lifetime of study.

Who needs the apocrypha? No one, really, it's just a distraction.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

I am absolutely fascinated by Jewish history . . .

Do I NEED the apocrypha . . .?

Who needs the apocrypha? No one, really, it's just a distraction.

You will note that I have never suggested that anyone read the Apocrypha. What I have said is that 1st Maccabees is the best history that we have for the period that it covers. That is true. If you actually are fascinated by that period of Jewish history you have to read 1st Maccabees. There is nothing else. You can not get the history of that period of time from EGW. She did not write on that period of time to the extent that is covered by 1st Maccabees.

2nd Maccabees, as I stated, contains good information on that history of the period of time that it covers. But, it also contains some misinformation. It is not as accurate as is 1st Maccabees.

3rd and 4th Maccabees are not considered to be historically accurate.

Why would anyone want to read the Apocrypha and/or any of the extensive collection of writings that arose during that period of time and claimed to be inspired? Well, that could be answered in multiple ways and each person would have to answer for themselves. To me, the answer is this: I see the hand of God leading in the selection of the parts of the Bible that were considered to be inspired Scripture. E.g. What kind of a God would I worship if I believed that Christ, as a child, used godly powers to harm children who laughed at him?

I have not and do not read extensively in these other writings. However, there may be other value in these writings. The question can be asked: Where did people get some of the ideas that they attribute to the Bible that are not Biblical? That answer can be that they actually came fro these other writings.

Johann has stated a number of times that certain beliefs claimed to be Biblical are actually derived from Roman Catholic theology. I would say that some of these are older than the Roman Catholic Church and are actually derived from some of these ancient writings.

You may not be interested in the origin of false teachings. Some people are and want to know where they came from. That answer is from some of these writings.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

It looks like the Apocrypha, and the Pseudepigraphia are different books, right?

Each is actually a collection of writings by different authors.

Note my post # 19857 in which I stated that the books of the Apocrypha were written between 200 B.C. and 30 B.C. a period of 170 years.

[ClubV12]

It is true, Gregory, that some people actually DO need to study "error" in order to defend the truth to some groups of people or persons. To some degree that is true in my case as I deal with a number of off-shoot and people who have removed their membership in protest to the Church.

But in general I advise people to be very careful when entering upon anything that can lead to error. Until and unless a person is well grounded it is a danger to them. It can be a danger even to those who are well grounded. I don't go to deep into error even while working with off-shoots, I stay focused on why the organized Church is going through. Bloody, wounded, apostasy on every hand, reduced in numbers, whole Churches closed, it's a mess and will get worse. But I will stay the course!

In time, perhaps, I will consider Macabees for the history it presents. SO much to study, I don't know that time will allow for it for myself.

[Gail]

Well, thanks, Gregory, for mentioning the incident about the child Jesus and the birds. That is included in a movie from the 70s called, The Child Jesus. Now I know where the writers of that film came up with that idea!

[Gregory Matthews]

When Hollywood has made a movie about Christ, or the Bible, they have often taken incidents recorded in these various writings.

I have not seen the History Channel production of THE BIBLE, which is now showing on TV. But, I have wondered if their treatment of Creation came in part from these writings?

Maybe not?

[ClubV12]

Tempting to watch that TV show, thankful that I don't have a TV so I don't have to deal with it!! Maybe it's OK, maybe, that "maybe" part concerns me though...

All though, at times, I do miss not having TV access to 3ABN and other such channels. I get by with internet access in that regard.

Whew that whole story of the mud birds and such sounds "fantastical". It seems entirely inconsistent with is revealed about the life of Christ from Desire of Ages. An interesting foot note though, like Gail, thanks for that Gregory.

[Gregory Matthews]

I work in a Federal hospital. Patients and staff ask me about programs that they l have seen on TV and in the movies. When they ask, it is an opening to lead them to a higher understanding.

It was a staff member who first asked me about the series on the History Channel about the Bible. I could not tell him what I thought of it because I had not seen any of the

series.

Do I have to watch everything that is shown on TV and at the theatre? Of course not. I do not.

But, sometimes the opening requires me to have an intelligent conversation with someone who has no real grounding in Christianity.

[OzarkWoman]

When Hollywood has made a movie about Christ, or the Bible, they have often taken incidents recorded in these various writings.

I have not seen the History Channel production of THE BIBLE, which is now showing on TV. But, I have wondered if their treatment of Creation came in part from these writings?

Maybe not?

Their treatment of of Creation follows the Bible exactly. I have been watching it and though, certain parts are left out, like Moses being told to remove his shoes and the breaking of the first 10 Commandments. I look at it as they only have so much time.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Their treatment of of Creation follows the Bible exactly.

Thank you.

As you probably know, the two people most involved in its production are active Christians.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that there are six (6) parts to this series. I have been able to record four (4) and hope to get the others. One of these days, when I have time, I will watch them.

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Gregory Matthews

When Hollywood has made a movie about Christ, or the Bible, they have often taken incidents recorded in these various writings.

I have not seen the History Channel production of THE BIBLE, which is now showing on TV. But, I have wondered if their treatment of Creation came in part from these writings?

Maybe not?

Their treatment of of Creation follows the Bible exactly. I have been watching it and though, certain parts are left out, like Moses being told to remove his shoes and the breaking of the first 10 Commandments. I look at it as they only have so much time.

We are recording these episodes, and watching them as we get time to. So far, I am less than impressed. If this treatment is getting rave reviews, I would wonder what reviews they'd get if they actually did a work of the same stature as the old 'The Ten Commandments"?

In addition to what OW listed, this series also leaves Isaac/Rebekah' story, and that of their sons - Jacob and Esau - completely out as well. I guess the name "Israel" just popped out from somewhere???

The two angels tending to Christ at the meeting with Abraham show more swordsman craft than angelic power in Sodom.

When the series covered Moses, it left out his wife Zipporah, their son Gershom, and her father Jethro.

The film makers also left out God defending His people at the Red Sea with a pillar of fire.

It gives no reason for why Joshua takes over 40 years later. The Israeli spies in Jericho are made to appear more as terrorizing outlaws than spies moving quietly amidst the land and peoples.

Samson is cast by a big, bruising athlete...someone it would be no problem to understand as super strong - yet the Philistines could see no obvious reason for Samson's strength.

That's as far as we have watched...

Blessings,

[Gail]

Just goes to show how the world, while hungering for Scripture (hence the popularity of the series) is severely lacking in it.

What will happen when the famine for God's word comes about? Perhaps we are there already. In an age where it is easy to obtain a Bible, there is a real dearth for it anyway.

[Gregory Matthews]

I would suggest that limited by time they picked and chose what to present. I would doubt that they claimed to be comprehensive. Perhaps something like the Bible story books that we purchae for children. The authors pick and choose what they tell.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

it would be good for those in the last days - to study the Koran.

Great point, Woody. How will we ever be able to present the gospel in terms that non-Christians can relate to if we don't even know their world and spiritual views?

[JoeMo]

Quote:

EGW - Manuscript 4, 1850

The implications are that Christians should be looking outside of the bible for hidden truths.

MT- I'm truly impressed! You know your EGW way better than I do! I'm persuaded to send you 1,000 points myself (all unmarked used 10's and 20's)

[JoeMo]

Quote:

if God wanted them in the Bible, they would've been in there. No doubt in my mind about that.

You are probably aware that it was a group of Catholic bishops that decided what would be in the Bible, not God. I can't say that God did not inpire them - He may very well have done so.

[JoeMo]

Does anyone know why the Book of Enoch (referred to in Jude 1:14-15) is not included in the "official apochrypha? It must have been familiar to early Christians and Jews.

[phkrause]

Quote:

if God wanted them in the Bible, they would've been in there. No doubt in my mind about that.

You are probably aware that it was a group of Catholic bishops that decided what would be in the Bible, not God. I can't say that God did not inpire them - He may very well have done so.

He obviously did! Or are you saying that God can't inspire others?

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

. . . it would be good for those in the last days - to study the Koran.

Why? For one reason to be better able to relate to the people of Islam. There is a SDA who has a ministry for them who knows Arabic and the Quran and teaches basic Christian truth from the Quran.

As a second reason to have some sort of understanding of what their sacred book actually teaches. Much of what is said in the popular press is false.

NOTE: I have read the English translation of Quran along with an official commentary as to the meaning.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

You are probably aware that it was a group of Catholic bishops that decided what would be in the Bible, not God. I can't say that God did not inpire them - He may very well have done so.

I prefer another explaination.

From Wikepedia:

Quote:

The Masoretic Text (MT, 𝕸, or \mathfrak{M}) is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible. While the Masoretic Text defines the books of the Jewish canon, it also defines the precise letter-text of these biblical books, with their vocalization and accentuation known as the Masorah. The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent years (since 1943) also for some Catholic Bibles, although the Eastern Orthodox continue to use the Septuagint, as they hold it to be divinely inspired.[1] In modern times the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 BCE but different from others.

The MT was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries CE. Though the consonants differ little from the text generally accepted in the early 2nd century (and also differ little from some Qumran texts that are even older), it has numerous differences of both greater and lesser significance when compared to (extant 4th century) manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation (made in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE) of the Hebrew Scriptures that was in popular use in Egypt and Israel (and that is often quoted in the New Testament, especially by the Apostle Paul).[2]

Also, The Jews in the time of Christ, well before the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church had an accepted listing of the Old Testament Scripture.

Yes, that canon of the O.T. in the Eastern tradition (LXX) had the aprocraphal books.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Does anyone know why the Book of Enoch (referred to in Jude 1:14-15) is not included in the "official apochrypha? It must have been familiar to early Christians and Jews.

Yes, Jude references the Book of Enoch. The Old Testament references a number of extant writings that were not included in the canon. Some of those not included are implied to be inspired. The bottom line is that God led people to include the writings that God wanted to be preserved throughout history. Some inspired writings probably were meant for local times and not throughout history until the 2nd Advent.

For an example of two such books cited in the O.T. please read Ist Chronicles 29:29.

[Gail]

The Orthodox Bible has even more apocrypha than the Roman Catholic church.

[Gail]

I found what is called the Book of Jasher online for free. I got the one that purported to be the best version.

[JoeMo]

From Columbia.edu

Quote:

DEVELOPMENT OF THE BIBLICAL CANON

adapted from materials of Professor Paul Hahn of the University of St. Thomas, Houston, Texas

Development of the Old Testament Canon

1000-50 BC:

The Old Testament (hereafter "OT") books are written.

C. 200 BC:

Rabbis translate the OT from Hebrew to Greek, a translation called the "Septuagint" (abbreviation: "LXX"). The LXX ultimately includes 46 books.

AD 30-100:

Christians use the LXX as their scriptures. This upsets the Jews.

C. AD 100:

So Jewish rabbis meet at the Council of Jamniah and decide to include in their canon only 39 books, since only these can be found in Hebrew.

C. AD 400:

Jerome translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin (called the "Vulgate"). He knows that the Jews have only 39 books, and he wants to limit the OT to these; the 7 he would leave out (Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach [or "Ecclesiasticus"], and Baruch--he calls "apocrypha," that is, "hidden books." But Pope Damasus wants all 46 traditionally-used books included in the OT, so the Vulgate has 46.

AD 1536:

Luther translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek to German. He assumes that, since Jews wrote the Old Testament, theirs is the correct canon; he puts the extra 7 books in an appendix that he calls the "Apocrypha."

AD 1546:

The Catholic Council of Trent reaffirms the canonicity of all 46 books.

Development of the New Testament Canon

C. AD 51-125:

The New Testament books are written, but during this same period other early Christian writings are produced--for example, the Didache (c. AD 70), 1 Clement (c. 96), the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 100), and the 7 letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110).

C. AD 140:

Marcion, a businessman in Rome, teaches that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the OT, and Abba, the kind father of the NT. So Marcion eliminates the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he is anti-Semitic, keeps from the NT only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke's gospel (he deletes references to Jesus' Jewishness). Marcion's "New Testament"--the first to be compiled--forces the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four gospels and letters of Paul.

C. AD 200:

But the periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter.

AD 367:

The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Easter letter of 367. [Note: this is well after the Constantine's Edict of Toleration in 313 A.D.]

AD 904:

Pope Damasus, in a letter to a French bishop, lists the New Testament books in their present number and order.

AD 1442:

At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognizes the 27 books, though does not declare them unalterable.

AD 1536:

In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removes 4 NT books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations) from their normal order and places them at the end, stating that they are less than canonical.

AD 1546:

At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirms once and for all the full list of 27 books as traditionally accepted.

Digitized and formatted in HTML by the Augustine Club at Columbia University, 1995

[JoeMo]

Quote:

He obviously did! Or are you saying that God can't inspire others?

To repeat from my post...

Quote:

I can't say that God did not inpire them - He may very well have done so.

Obviously I believe God can inspire others. Why so testy?