What makes these other churches think they are right and other's are wrong?

Gracesaves, here is the website that I got the info from http://jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm

 

Homebound:

Ah....one of the favorite verses of the Waldensians. They had a hard time giving that up to become Protestant.


God Bless

[ November 13, 2003, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Kathryn ]

 

Bumped for Bob Ryan

 

Bob, still waiting on this one.

 

Homebound:
The KJV is not the inspired, infallible Word of God. It is a translation. The originals are inspired, and God has preserved His Word to this day in the underlying Greek texts of which I believe to be the KJV. The KJV itself is simply a translation written by fallible men prone to mistakes, who in fact did make mistakes when making their translation. Every translation has mistakes in it. Every translation is translated by humans, and humans are not perfect.

For example in Acts 12:4 the Greek word "pascha" is translated "Easter," when every other time that word is used it is translated "passover," and thus it should have been so translated here. It was an error on their part not to do so.

I am a missionary in a country (not Canada) that speaks an entirely different language than English. They are 80% illiterate when it comes to their own language, much less English. Yet by logical extension you would have me to teach these poor illiterate people the Shakespearean English of the seventeenth century, rather than teach them out of their own Bible because it is not KJV?? A little absurd isn't it!

As to the Apocrypha I agree that it never was part of the Word of God. The Old Testament was completed around 450 B.C. One of the guidelines for any book to be part of the canon of the Old Testament was for the book to be written or to be extant prior to 450 B.C. None of these books were written prior to that date. They were all written during the intertestamental period; all fraudulent; and all of them were never accepted by the Jews. The Jews wrote and preserved the canon of the Old Testament, not the Catholics (thankfully). These books were never accepted by the Jews, the early believers, the Apostles, nor the protestants of today. That is plenty of evidence in itself to show that they are not inspired books as you say. In fact they were not accepted by the Catholics themselves, officially, until 1532! The Catholic Church changes all the time; Christ never.
DHK

 

Sorry to interrupt, but could you please provide the book, chapter, and verse in the Bible where this guideline is laid out? Thanks.

Nothing like placing something into a category and declaring that because its in the category it is wrong. Ever heard of circular reasoning?

Well, since the only documentation you have is on the "protestants of today," that's the only one that is factual. The rest you assume.

More proof that you do not understand dogmatic declarations, which arrise because beliefs are CHALLENGED. It's an official statement for a belief that was held since the canon was completed and had to be officially declared as true because of challenges from the revolutionaries.

 

I agree, humans are not perfect, but God is. God gave
us his word for it to be "...profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness:"(2 TIM 3:16) WHY?
"That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 TIM 3:17) If you don't believe that what you have in your hand is the infallible, inerrant, perfect word of God, then how do you know that you are saved and going to Heaven, because if there is one mistake, whose to say it's not in the salvation plan.

I personnaly do not know because I have not studied it, but I guarantee that the Bible will always be right over anything else. It's my final authority.

DHK, I believe that is the great commission for America, especially since Gos blessed us with his word and you would have to adment, America has been blessed because of it. I believe that we are to go out and spread the Gospel to everyone. That may be why God calls people to the field that may speak the language or may not, but they usually learn it. I'm not saying that they should not have a Bible in their own language, but I believe that any Bible should be translated out of the King James Bible. BTW, if you were going to teach them Shakespeare, would you use anything other than his writings.

 

So God can protect his word from containing error over 2000 years and many translations (in what you believe is the KJV)...but he is incapable of protecting His Church from error, which He said he would do through Peter? I love your double standands.

Being "right over anything else" is not "infallible, inerrant, perfect," your own words. "Best case" is not "perfect." You just shot your own foot.

WOW. Can anyone say, "ETHNOCENTRIC?" Give me a break.

More ethno-centricity. Congrats.

Shakespeare was originally written in English. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and then for centuries, it was read from Latin. English is a relatively new langauage, so according to your own analogy, we should only be reading the Greek Bible (after all, you expect other people to learn English...why not follow your own advice and read the Bible in its original languages?).

Double standards and ethnocentricity. I love it.

 

God never promised that He would preserve the Bible in the KJV. I believe that Luther, Tyndale, Jerome, not to mention a few, would all have a say to that! I know I am saved and going to Heaven because I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He was the one that saved me. The person that led me to the Lord over thirty years ago used the "Good News for Modern Man." Does that mean I am not saved? No, of course not. Sure, it's a paraphrase, and one of the worst ones at that. But I trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ, not in a paraphrase. I have led people to the Lord without a Bible in my possession. It is the message not the version. It is the relationship not the religion, that saves. I serve a risen Saviour; not a translation of the Book. The preservation of the Bible is found in the Greek and Hebrew, not in any translation thereof. If you really want to learn it thoroughly learn the original languages.
DHK

 

I'm Baptist, and I've had Baptists tell me I'm wrong. So this ain't nuthin' new. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree. I had somebody in the BB music forums tell me I wasn't saved because he didn't like the music I listen to. I tend not to take these pronouncements all that seriously.

 

I don't have my reference material with me right now, but any Old Testament or even New Testament Introduction book dealing with the apocrypha would have that knowledge for you. It is common knowledge. All of the Old Testament books were written before 450 B.C. That was one of the criteria for being in the canon. There was set criteria for which the Jews followed for the inclusion of a book into the canon of Scripture, and that happened to be one of them.

There is no circular reasoning here. This is the same continuation of the previous thought. Obviously if the book was not written before 450 B.C., it only stands to logical reasoning that it would not be included in the canon. The canon was closed. The apocrypha was written in the intertestamental period between the closing of the Old Testament canon and the coming of Christ. What is circular about that? It is a direct timeline of history. It just happens to be the history that you don't want to hear.

There is nothing assumed here. Ask the Jews of any period, even today. They have never accepted the apocrypha. I have a Hebrew Old Testament, accepted by the Jews. There is no apocrypha in it. There never was. No Jew would accept those spuriuous books. Christ did not accept them. (Luke 24:44,48). The Apostles did not accept them. There is no evidence that they did. The only early "Christians" that did were the Catholics, and that only officially in 1532.

More proof that you do not understand dogmatic declarations, which arrise because beliefs are CHALLENGED. It's an official statement for a belief that was held since the canon was completed and had to be officially declared as true because of challenges from the revolutionaries. </font>[/QUOTE]It still didn't become official until 1532, did it?
DHK

 

You base the rest of your post on this (you actually refer back to it). Look at your base for your argument

"any Old Testament or even New Testament Introduction book dealing with the apocrypha would have that knowledge for you"

Really. So these books are authoritative and we should trust them to let us know when God stopped inspiring people to give us His Word? If it's not testified in the Bible, how can you know it is true? There aren't even any hints in the Bible about it.

"It is common knowledge."

This is suddenly a basis for truth? "Everyone knows it!" Boy, I'm glad I don't depend on that kind of reasoning. Perhaps its common knowledge because this has become the Protestant stance that they have been taught for several centuries. That does not in ANY way make it the "Truth."

"All of the Old Testament books were written before 450 B.C."

Circular reasoning based on the premise that you have YET TO PROVE.

"That was one of the criteria for being in the canon."

Really? What, because it's "common knowledge" and some books I should look into say it is? Really, that has been your proof so far. Color me unconvinced.

"There was set criteria for which the Jews followed for the inclusion of a book into the canon of Scripture, and that happened to be one of them."

Says who? Some people in books, or the common Protestant consensus?

Seriously, where is the hard evidence about 450 BC? It's not in Scripture, and apparently Scripture is your final authority accept when it comes to determing WHAT SCRIPTURE IS.

 

This is somewhat funny to me because you say this know that it doesn't say in the the BIBLE. The one that you said is not perfect or inspired. The BIBLE doesn't even say BIBLE, so are we to denounce that word? I believe the King James Bible to be God's infallible word to us today, if you do not, then all I can do is try to show what little I know and allow the Holy Spirit to do the convicting.

You're right, it does not mean that you aren't saved. I do believe that the new versions contain the word of God, they're just not the pure word of God. I do believe that in order to fully grow in the Lord, you will need meat not sour milk.

I agree.

Nor do I. But, in order to get to know the Saviour more, you have to read about him.

Though this sounds good, how many people today learn a second lanuguage, and what is the most spoken language today? Isn't it English? Would not God want us to have the inspired, preserved word of God instead of "just a translation." I believe he would and I believe it is found in the King James Bible. If I'm wrong, I will have to answer to God on judgement day.

 

This is somewhat funny to me because you say this know that it doesn't say in the the BIBLE. The one that you said is not perfect or inspired. The BIBLE doesn't even say BIBLE, so are we to denounce that word? I believe the King James Bible to be God's infallible word to us today, if you do not, then all I can do is try to show what little I know and allow the Holy Spirit to do the convicting.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually the word BIBLE is used over 20 times in the New Testament alone. The Greek word "Biblios" is where we get the word Bible. It is translated "book" in the KJV, and thus you would not recognize it as Bible unless you went to the Greek as I suggested. But no you insist that it is the KJV that is inspired instead of the actual Greek from which it came. A couple of those references are in Rev.5:1 and 22:7 if you are interested in checking them out for yourself. The word again is Biblios. It looks aweful familiar doesn't it?
The Word of God is preserved only in the original languages in which it was written and in no other languages. Sorry to blow your balloon, but that's the truth of the matter. For 1600 years according to you no one else would have had the truth. I guess the Apostle Paul would have preached out of the KJV too, eh?
Infallible translations don't make fallible mistakes like the KJV.

Romans 6:2 "God forbid" Check the Greek. Neither the words God or forbid are in the original Greek. So why the expression? Why didn't they translate it literally as their duty was supposed to be.

Phil. 3:20 "for our 'conversation' is in heaven"
What does the word conversation mean here? It doesn't mean speech. In every other case in the KJV it means behaviour. But what about here? Again another mistranslation.

Acts 12:4 the word "Easter" As I pointed out to you already. The word "pascha" everywhere is translated "passover." Why the mistaken translation here?

An infallible translation does not have fallible mistakes.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The Scriptures were written by holy men of God that were moved by the Holy Ghost. These holy men of God were the prophets of the Old Testament and by extension the Apostles of the New Testament. They do not included the wicked Anglican/Catholic translators (many of whom may have been unsaved) of the KJV.
DHK

 

Bumped for Bob Ryan </font>[/QUOTE]Bumped again for Bob.

 

"Did the original KJV 1611 include a disclaimer which said that certain books were not Scripture but only included because of historical value?"
Yes.

"2. No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times. "
No. A number of references to various Apocrypha do show up in the New Testament.

 

Homebound
"how many people today learn a second lanuguage,"
Over a billion people, but you probably aren't one of them and I would be surprised if you see any reason to change that.
By the way, personally I believe that anybody who is not multilingual has no bussiness being involvedin either politics, or missionary work.

"and what is the most spoken language today? Isn't it English?"
No it's Mandarin Chinese. A lovely flowery language that is absolutely not a form of English.

DHK
In the interest of fairness it is worth pointing out that there has never been a real Christianitywide consensus on what books were the Old Testament canon. I know of 6 different versions myself.

 

Homebound
"I believe that is the great commission for America, especially since Gos blessed us with his word and you would have to adment, America has been blessed because of it. I believe that we are to go out and spread the Gospel to everyone."
If that were true it must have been quite embarassing to be Americans in the last 2 centuries. First the German and Dutch speaking Christians steal the great commision from under their noses in the 2nd half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century and afterwards the local converts continue that fine tradition.

 

C. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. In 300 BC, Alexander the Great, made Greek the official language. Hebrews fearful that the Scriptures would be lost to their children who were being taught Greek, called a group of seventy scholars (six from each Tribe) together in Egypt and the translated the Old Testament into Greek. The translation is called the Septuagint, meaning The Seventy which is the supposed number of Scholars who made the translation. The Roman numerals LXX, symbolized the name. It was completed in 250 BC. It was a poor translation in many aspects and certainly not a uniform work. The spurious ancient "Letter of Aristeas" is presented as a record of how the translation was made saying for example it was completed in seventy two days. Probably the translation actually took more than a century to complete.
The LXX differs greatly from the the Hebrew text in the books of Ester, Job, Amos, and Jeremiah. Job is 25% shorted and Jermeiah is almost 15% shorter. Daniel, Job and Proverbs are very loosely translated.
Some conclude that this was the translation in which Jesus and the Apostles read and quoted. Some of Jesus' quotes seem to be from the LXX and some are quotes are where the LXX and the Hebrew text is the same. Minton makes the following statement about Christ's use of the Old Testament:
"Jesus taught and preached almost exclusively to the Jews in or near Judea and Galilee, so he very likely used Aramaic and Hebrew, not Greek, in his everyday ministry. The quotations from the Gospels are Greek translations of Jesus' discourses. When Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1 from the cross it was in Aramaic Targum rendering of the text." (Ron Minton, The Making and Preservation of the Bible , Piedmont Bible College, Jan. 2000, pg. 101)
[Author's note: There is no real support for the modern translations in saying that Jesus used the LXX which was a poor Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. Although many "scholars" believe Jesus and the Apostles used the LXX there is also serious doubt that they actually did.)

D. The Masoretic Text. These are copies of the Old Testament made during the middle ages dating from 5th to the 9th Centuries AD. Scribes would carefully copy word for word each page of the Scriptures. These were the oldest copies of the Old Testament known until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947 to 1956. Many critics of the Bible cast doubt on the accuracy of the Scriptures, stating that we only had recent copies of the Old Testament. Further, they said that because of supposed copy errors we could not be sure the Old Testament was correct. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls, pushed the date of the manuscripts back a thousand years. When the Scrolls were compared with the Masoretic Text, they compared in 95 per cent of the text word for word. The 5 per cent variations between the two texts were ALL misspelled words, or obvious slips of the pen. Modern critics of the Scriptures were proven wrong again. God's Word was shown to be accurately preserved down through the ages.

E. The Canonicity of the Old Testament.
Canonicity is a human process of recognizing the authority of the Bible, which authority is inherent in the books of the Bible because of their inspiration.

The word "canon" was originally from a Hebrew word "qaneh" meaning "reed" and from the Greek word "kanon" meaning "rod." The reed or rods were used to measure things. It came to mean "anything that serves to determine or regulate things." The word was applied to the authentication of the Scriptural books. A canon then is "the body of writing which go to make up the inspired ruler of faith and practice." The Old Testament canon is the 39 books of the Old Testament. The New Testament canon is made of 27 books.

The 66 books that make up the Bible have then been recognized down through time by examining both internal and external evidences that they are truly the authentic Word of God. Other books written through time have been rejected as not canonical because they contain historical, scientific and doctrinal errors. One series of these books are called the "Apocrypha." These 14 or 15 books are I & II Esdras, Tobit, Judith, The Rest of Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasseh, I & II Book of the Maccabees. These non-canonical books were composed during the last two centuries before Christ and in the first Century afterwards. The Apocrypha, although not revelation from God does give much secular information on the political and religious developments during the Inter-Testamental Period (400 years from Malachi to John the Baptist). The beginnings of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the synagogues are recorded in these books. Christ nor any New Testament writer quotes from the Apocrypha and they have never been accepted by the Jews. They were totally rejected by the Roman Catholic church until 1546 Ad when they accepted them as being Scriptures. Their teaching of purgatory (place where man go to be tormented for unpaid for sins after death before they are allowed to go to heaven) came from one of these books. (Ref: An Outline of Bibliology, by Dr. Hoyle E. Bowman, Piedmont Bible College)

Before the Exile (Period of 70 years in Babylon) there was a large body of sacred literature (Ex. 21-23; 24:4, 7; Josh. 24:26; I Sam. 10:25). Each of the Books of the Old Testament canon were accepted by Hebrews at the living Word of God. In the Fifth Century BC, the canonical books were collected and the Jews officially recognized the whole Old Testament as being inspired.
Josephus (the Jewish historian, who was born in Jerusalem in 37 AD) is quoted as limiting the Old Testament canon to 22 books, (the same as our 39 books). He called them "divine," and dates the Old Testament from Moses to the reign of Artazerxes (465-425 BC). Cyril of Jerusalem also wrote in 315 AD of the 22 books of the Old Testament.

The History of the Old Testament Canon
1500-1400BC
Pentateuch, Job? & Joshua. Original Pentateuch Scrolls Stored Inside the Ark of the Convenant ( Deut. 10:5,31:24, Joshua 1:7-9, Deut 17:14-20)
1300 BC
1200 BC
1100 BC
Shiloh Destroyed by Philistines & Tabernacle Moved. Original Scrolls Dispersed and New Copies made(?) Judges & Ruth written.
1000 BC
Davidic Psalms written. I Samuel, David. The Levites Distributed copies throughout Israel.
900 BC
Proverbs, Eccl. Song of Solomon, II Samuel added. Obadiah written near the end of the century. Copies brought to the Northern Kingdom during Elijah's reform.
800 BC
Joel & Jonah Written. 1 Kings written by a succession of prophets & collected & edited by Jeremiah(?). Amos, Hosea & Micah written. Assyrians capture Samaria.
700 BC

Isaiah Copies obtained by priest at the order of Saigon (2 Kings 17:27-28). Nahum, Habakkuk, & Zephaniah written. The Book of the Law is rediscovered in the Temple (2 Kings 22:8, 2 Chron. 34:6-9,21)
600 BC

Ezekiel( Ezekiel Taken captive & Jerusalem destroyed) Copies brought to the people from Jerusalem during Josiah's reform (2 Chron. 34:6-9, 21). Jeremiah, Lam. & I&II Kings written.
Daniel, Cyrus captures Babylon. Haggai, The Temple Rebuilt.
500 BC

Zechariah
550 BC

Esther, Ezra, Chronicles, Ezra returns to Jerusalem. Nehemiah, Copies taken to Samaria at time of Nehemiah (Neh. 12:28-30).

400 BC
Malachi

http://www.bible-truth.org/Howwegot.htm
DHK

 

Bumped for Bob Ryan </font>[/QUOTE]Bumped again for Bob. </font>[/QUOTE]