Inquiring Mind said:
Did a search on lay and treasure.
It only shows up once in the NT
Mat 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
So it is not common.
Did you search in the Hebrew language?
Did you search in the Greek language? How about the Aramaic?
Did you search the works of Homer, Greek poets, and others. Are you sure that your search was thorough? Why would you do a simple KJV search for a phrase commonly used in both Greek and Hebrew. That doesn't make sense to me.
As for what was inspired at the time of Christ was walking the earth. The missing books that are not in your bible were considered inspired. They were part of the LXX when Jesus walked the earth.
I find your "If the KJV is good enough for Paul" approach to Scripture quite humorous. You really believe in that philosophy don't you, just like a KJVO--the type that believes that the KJV is more inspired and even corrects the Greek and the Hebrew. This is your philosophy and what you are demonstrating on this board. How?
All the Jews knew and accepted that the Hebrew MT was the inspired OT. It and it only was the Word of God or at least a copy of the preserved Word of God. Inspiration in and of itself extends only to the original manuscripts. "Holy men of old spoke as they were moved of the Holy Spirit."
Those holy men of old were not the translators of the Septuagint, nor were they the translators of the KJV or Jerome or Luther or of any other translator. They were Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, etc. and by extension the Apostles. Those holy men specifically refer to the authors of the 39 books of the Old Testament, who wrote them all in Hebrew.
That canon was completed between 450 and 400 B.C. The Jews would not accept any book written after that date as inspired. All the books of the Apocrypha werer written after 150 B.C. (150 B.C. -30 A.D.)
They never accepted any book that was written in any other language except for Hebrew. The apocryphal books were all written in Greek.
It is impossible to have any such thing as an apocryphal book in the Old Testament, given the above facts--an absolute impossibility. Again, let me remind you--when speaking of the Bible both we today, and the Jews of yester years (as well as Jesus) considered only the original manuscripts inspired. Inspiration only extends to the original manuscripts.
So 150 years or more, the Septuagint comes, a translation made by about 70 men who translate the Hebrew MT into Greek. Perhaps it takes some time and may be completed in about 100 years (150 B.C.) During that period of time and the time leading up to Christ other copies of the LXX are made. Even after Christ copies continue to be made. In the later editions of the LXX, after the birth of Christ especially, apocryphal books are found to be inserted that was never found in the original Septuagint. The Jews would never have the apocrypha in their OT. They weren't even in existence when the work of the LXX started, nor when it finished. How could the original LXX possibly could have contained the apocrypha. It didn't.
Secondly, when Jesus and the apostles (if they did) quoted from the Septuagint, they would have been perfectly aware that they were not quoting inspired Scripture. They would have been quoting from a translation, just as I quote from the KJV, or perhaps a French translation, or any other translation. None of them are inspired. The LXX is only a translation. It is not inspired. The only parts of it that are inspired are those that became inspired when they were written down as Scripture in the NT. It didn't mean that the whole book was inspired.
Examples:
Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch, but that doesn't mean that the entire book is inspired, only the verse that Jude quotes.
Paul quotes in Titus, a Cretian philosophers. Are all the philosophers of Crete inspired? I don't think so.
In the book of Acts Paul quotes a Grecian pagan poet. Is he also inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, and all of his works as well?
Only those things that made their way, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, into the pages of Scripture are inspired. The LXX is a translation, not inspired.
Concerning the Apocrypha, when they did make their way into certain editions of the Septuagint often it was not because they were inspired but because of their value in reference material. The same is true today. Heretics like Origen tried to keep them within the canon itself, but then he was a heretic even by Catholic standards.
There were some editions of the KJV with the Apocrypha. But those 14 books were grouped together and inserted between the two testaments. They were not interspersed throughout the Old Testament like the Catholics do. There were no extra chapters added to Daniel for example. They were put there because the KJV translators knew that they were not the Word of God, and that they were for reference only.
I have a study Bible. Within its pages I have a Bible dictionary, a concordance, maps, and other information. If I had wanted a Bible with the apocrypha in it I could have ordered one with it as well, but I didn't want it. The fact is that the dictionary and the concordance are not part of the Bible, and neither is the apocrypha. They are all extras, helps, reference material--the apocrypha included. The people of King James time understood this; can you?
The apocrypha is not, never was part of the canon of Scripture. There has been no evidence given that it ever was.
Even the full quotation from Josephus states that any addition to the MT was wrong. He didn't accept the apocryphal books.
DHK
