A few scholars date one or two of the apocrapha to the 1st century AD ... answer me this - how can apocryphal works found at Qumran have been written after Christ? ...
How many apocryphal books were found at Qumram?
And do you know that the closing of the Canon by the catholics at Trent was a response to Luther's playing with the scriptures?
The closing of the Canon has nothing to do with Catholics. Catholics have nothing to do with canonicity or preservation of our Scriptures. They were bent on destroying them. Read up on the history of William Tyndale.
Christian writings in which the catholics listed their canon existed long before Trent and they included these disputed writings. It is diengenous to state that the catholics 'added' these books at Trent -
Catholics
officially accepted them at Trent, and not before then. Certainly they were listed in Catholic works long before then. I don't deny that. But that is when the RCC officially accepted them as canonical.
1. It is consistent throughout history that the Jews never accepted the Apocrypha (even though they supposedly are a part of the OT.
2. It is consistent throughout history that no group outside of the RCC never accepted the Apocrypha as canonical.
3. They were only officially accepted by the RCC at Trent.
4. The OT Canon was completed by 400 A.D. Any book written after that date would never even be considered as part of the canon of Scripture.
5. The Septuagint was simply a translation of the OT. It was not inspired. The sacred Scriptures were written in Hebrew. Orthodox Jews despised the Septuagint. It was written for Hellenistic Jews and the Greek population in general.
6. The Septuagint was written between 250 B.C. and 150 B.C. It is a fact that most of the Apocrypha was written after these dates and therefore could not have been included in the
original Septuagint.
7. Their inclusion allows the RCC to teach unbiblical doctrine such as Purgatory, praying to the dead, and other such doctrine.
9. Some of them read like fairy tales, not like Scripture at all.
Sorry - but that is bigotry at work and I will not go there as history does not support it. I don't have a dog in that 500 year old debate with Luther
I have no idea what you are talking about.
How fortunate for you to have this book - I only have a pdf version .. aas well as for its not including the apocrypha - I hold that to the non-catholic position of the publisher .. He certainly mentions Sirach in the preface discussion so he knew it was part of the Septuagint - he just did not include those portions ... there are far older extant versions that include them .. you can call that catholic bias and added by catholics all you want ... funny how they influenced so much ancient manuscriptus - when you personally don't admit that catholics existed in the first 3 centuries ...
They were influenced by the authors of those books who wanted some notoriety, not necessarily the Catholics themselves.
I always like advice like - study but avoid this "source" because they are wrong .. I would not buy that advice from a "catholic" as in "study the scriputres but stay away from baptist sources" .... Your David Cloud has similar warnings about lots of denominations ....
And so he should. The RCC has done a good job at "Revisionist history."
Right - that quote from the Cardinal Hosius - can you cite the source - I mean other then the "Trail of Blood" citation because along with that book it - I think that one has been debunked as inaccuarate or at least a mischaracterization.
I originally saw it in J.T. Christian's book, "A History of the Baptists." He may have a reference for it, but I would have to look it up.
So for the record, I saw our claim uniting the Waldensians to the Itala - it is an intriguing thought but you really provide no authoritative sources other then an I say so, random bible quotes on the sufficiency and Godly inspiration of the Scriptures by a preacher [who holds anti-catholic and anti-just about every well known protestant], loys of discussion on how the KJV is the best , that you know exactly the historical dating of ancient manuscripts and don't think I do, that I am influenced by liberals and the inclusion of anti-catholic digs [as if that would mean anything to me personally].
What sources [scholarly] do you use to date the Waldensians to the 2nd century and for your assertion that the Septuagint or the Vetus Italia did not contain the apocrypha ... it is an easy request ... a Book Title and an Author ... and hopefully it won't be Jack Chick or Mr. Cloud
Here is a source:
The Itala Version
A mistake which is often made is the assumption that anything Latin or pertaining to Italy is to be associated with the Roman Catholic Church. However, in northern Italy as early as the 2nd century, there existed what was known as the Italic Church. Because it was located in the region of the sub-Alpine Italian Alps, its geographic remoteness and topographical ruggedness kept it from significant interaction with the Church of Rome. The Italic Church was the forerunner of churches in the same region which would later be called the Vaudois, or, alternatively, the Waldenses. Both of these names simply refer to "peoples of the valleys."7 The Italic or pre-Waldensian Church produced a version of the NT which was translated from the Received Text by the year A.D. 157.8 Theodore Beza, the associate and successor of John Calvin and the great Swiss reformer, credits the Italic Church to have begun in A.D. 120.9 The Bible translation of the Italic Church came known as the Itala translation (also known as the Italic). The point of all of this is that the Itala Bible was translated from the Received Text!10 It has existed since A.D. 157. Noted church historian Frederic Nolan confirms the same.11 This date is less than one hundred years after most of the books of the NT were written. The greater point is that the Itala (or Old Latin) was translated from the Received Text, indicating its existence to the earliest days of the NT church. Therefore, the Received Text clearly existed and was used by churches in early church history.
7. Vaudois is a French language derivative for “valleys” as waldenses is an Alpine word for “valleys.”
8. Frederick Henry Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, Deighton, Bell, & Co., 1874), 2:43.
9. McClintock and Strong, Encyclopedia, s.v. “Waldenses.”
10. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (New York: Harper Brothers, 1895, 1951), 169-71. Kenyon here refers to the Itala as the Old Latin which is another name for it. It should also be noted that Kenyon, though acknowledging that the Itala (Old Latin) was based upon the Received Text, rather sought to date it much later.
11. Frederick Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate: or, Received Text of the New Testament (London: F.C. & Rivington, 1815), xvii, xviii.
This is from David Sorenson's book, "Touch not the Unclean Thing," pp. 78,79.
Although the Waldenses themselves lived in the 12th century and were pre-Reformation, the question is: What Bible did they use. The contention is that they used a Bible that has its roots in antiquity--the Itala.
Note that Sorenson gives plenty of documentation for his work. I have included that as well.
