Apocrypha, use it, trust it?

Tatertot, the apocrypha was not important to those in the NT times. Why do you think that? Yes, some of the books were important to the Catholic Church because they base prayer for the dead and purgatory on books from the Ap.

I still fail to see how it "enhances God's word." It may be a historical document but is not about history except for a few of the books such as the Maccabees. The books I recall are fable-like and are not historical at all.

 

The pseudepigrapha and apocrypha may have never been a part of the canon but there are quotes from them in the NT.

 

Because Jude alluded to it.

 

If everything I needed was in the Bible then I wouldn't need to pray and apply James 1:5. Every principle I need to walk with God is in scripture.

 

Many have misinterpreted 2 Peter and Jude today because they do not understand the imagery during that time period. The intertestamental books have much of that kind of imagery used. You cannot jump from the OT and then to the NT and then now and expect all the words and imagery to mean the same thing today as they did then.

 

Enoch's claim to have visited Sheol is certainly not historical.

MR

 

If we want to understand the bible, we need to understand the world it was written in. I understand that neither side will win the other, lol, and thats ok.
There is value in learning it because God chose to reveal Himself in THAT social setting. We cant interpret historical documents without keeping that in mind.

Here is a list of just a few allusions and verbal parallels to the Apocrypha from the NT:
I Cor. 10:21 (BARUCH 4:7)
Rev. 18:2 (BARUCH 4:35)

I Peter 1:12 (ENOCH 1:2)
Rev. 15:3 (ENOCH 25:5; 27:3)

Eph. 6:14 (WISDOM 5:18)

JAmes 1:19 (SIRACH 5:11)
There are 89 references like these in the NT. That tells me it was kinda important in that time.
There is just so much that we dont know about scripture.

 

Amen. This has been my point all along.

 

lol, mine too.

 

Tatertot, can you please give your sources for the above?

BTW, I never said the Apocrypha has no value, just that there is no way to verify its data except by other historical info, and no way to verify its theology except by the Bible. In and of itself, it is questionable as far as its value goes (beyond literary study).

 

Marcia, I got it straight from the greek New Testament (reference section in the back)

 

The books known as the Apocrypha are generally those fourteen included in manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate. They were also found in the Greek Septuagint. As a technicality, the Book of Enoch is not part of these 14 or the Apocryphal books adopted by the Council of Trent (and the Catholic Church) in 1546. The Greek Orthodox Apochrypha is slightly different but also doesn't contain the Book of Enoch.

The fourteen books as found in my KJV 1611 are:
</font>

• I Esdras</font>
• II Esdras</font>
• Tobit</font>
• Judeth</font>
• The Rest of the Chapters of the book of Esther (usually called Additions to Esther)</font>
• The Wisdom of Solomon</font>
• Ecclesiasticus</font>
• Baruch (the Epistle of Jeremie appears as Chapter Six of Baruch)</font>
• The Song of the Three Holy Children</font>
• The History of Susanna</font>
• The History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon</font>
• The Prayer of Manasses King of Judah</font>
• I Maccabees</font>
• II Maccabees</font>

Here is a site that appears to give an accurate rundown:

The Old Testament Canon and Apocrypha

The testimony of our forefathers in the 1689 London Confession of Faith (which follows the Westminster 1647) appears to be good advice: "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule of the Scripture, and, therefore, are of no authority to the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings."

1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

The best approach is to avoid the two extremes. We shouldn't imply that we need to read them in order to understand and interpret the Scriptures, nor should we discount the value of reading them (unless we're willing to swear off reading all "human writings").

 

I submit that nobody who posts to these boards is willing to swear off all human writings!

 

Surely we can all agree on that!

 

I wouldn't count on it

 

Amen. This has been my point all along. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you realize that the Apocrypha was included in our 1611 Authorized KJV of the Bible?

 

Sorry, for a minute there I forgot that we are Baptists!

 

Yes. I realize it was part of the 1611.

rl what are you thinking

 

If we believe that the 1611 Authorized KJV was the inerrant word of God, why don't we accept the Apocrypha today?

 

Well, I dont believe that the 1611 Auth. KJV was the inerrant word of God - in and of itself. But thats a great question.