The "Its not in the Bible" line.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T

Todd7181

Guest
#1
#1
Im not a biblical scholar and im not attached to a particular denomination (I also vote as an independent). However in my brief time on here Ive noticed many people immediately jump to "Its not in the Bible". Sometimes they are right and sometimes not. Most of the time its a matter of interpretation as to whats in the Bible.

However I know enough to know there have been at least a few versions of that thing we call the Bible. Martin Luther rejected seven books that were around in the apostolic age.

Im interested to hear your thoughts on the different "Bibles.". Heres a link that briefly discusses the issue EWTN.com - The 7 books removed by Martin Luther.
 
crossnote

crossnote

Senior Member
#2
Nov 24, 2012
30,706
3,650
113
#2
It's interesting is it not that the Jews, to whom the Scriptures came, rejected the Apocrypha and Jesus never quoted from it.
Luther's main reason for rejecting James and Revelation, was the lack of Gospel content in them. To me, Luther is too far removed from the source timewise to be such a judge.
 
wattie

wattie

Senior Member
#3
Feb 24, 2009
3,027
1,022
113
New Zealand
#3
The other thing here is there was seperate from Catholicism, independent bible believing New Testament christian assemblies that were plants from the original churches such as Phillipi.. Antioch.. etc that have been around since then and their doctrine has remained in some churches nowadays.

I would say the people in these humble churches would be the ones to consult on matters biblical :)

There wasn't just Roman Catholics and 'no one else' at the beginning of the New Testament churches.. and following on from them.

The Reformation wasn't the entire christian world trying to back to the bible (and in some ways, there was a lot of things kept from Catholicism in many reformed churches that aren't biblical). Before the Reformation.. there were independent New Testament christian assemblies that didn't need to reform.

They did protest with the Reformers.. but weren't part of the Reformation.

So what I am saying is to look at how these people treated different bibles. They have the heritage.

Now.. I know what most will say-- that the kind of churches I mean started with the statements of faith in the likes of the confessional statements from the 1500s to 1600s.

Maybe some of those statements of faith are accurate to churches I mean.. but these churches didn't conform to any union or mother church org larger body.

They got nick-named ana-baptist.. for 're-baptism'. They would only baptise by full immersion in water of already professed believers and stuck to tithing and the Lords Supper. They stuck tenaciously to seperation from larger 'mother church' bodies or unions. They believed the bible to be the infallible, inerrant Word of God. They believed in salvation as a free gift not by works. They believed Jesus is God.

Now.. are is someone going tell me that these kind of teachings in a church didn't get into proper action until the Reformation?

Wouldn't that make a mockery of Jesus telling that He would preserve His churches throughout all generations?

It isn't 'Catholics, then the Reformation, and that is all the history of churches'... there is literally millions of independent bible believing christians that weren't part of either Roman Catholicism or the Reformation.

Read The Battle for Baptist History by I.K. Cross... My Church.. by Moody...and Churches in the Valley of Piedmont.

Our 'church fathers'? Should be the elders, pastors and deacons of these humble churches.
 
tanakh

tanakh

Senior Member
#4
Dec 1, 2015
4,635
1,040
113
76
#4
Todd7181 said:
Im not a biblical scholar and im not attached to a particular denomination (I also vote as an independent). However in my brief time on here Ive noticed many people immediately jump to "Its not in the Bible". Sometimes they are right and sometimes not. Most of the time its a matter of interpretation as to whats in the Bible.

However I know enough to know there have been at least a few versions of that thing we call the Bible. Martin Luther rejected seven books that were around in the apostolic age.

Im interested to hear your thoughts on the different "Bibles.". Heres a link that briefly discusses the issue EWTN.com - The 7 books removed by Martin Luther.
Click to expand...
My take on this is that if you go into any Christian Book shop one thing all the books have in common is that they are not in the Bible. It doesnt stop people buying and reading them. Whatever we read we should judge the content against scripture. If you want to read the Apocrypha go ahead, just keep in mind that the books are not considered scripture by Protestants. There are some good things in them some bad and others plainly ridiculous but just keep the Bible as your
standard if you read something that is plainly unscriptual reject it.
 
tanakh

tanakh

Senior Member
#5
Dec 1, 2015
4,635
1,040
113
76
#5
crossnote said:
It's interesting is it not that the Jews, to whom the Scriptures came, rejected the Apocrypha and Jesus never quoted from it.
Luther's main reason for rejecting James and Revelation, was the lack of Gospel content in them. To me, Luther is too far removed from the source timewise to be such a judge.
Click to expand...
That is not actually correct. The Alexandrian Jews had the Septuagint which included the Apocrypha a few hundred years before present Jewish cannon of scriptures were formed. The present Jewish cannon was decided on by a group of Rabbis in 130ad. During the time of Jesus and after most Jews and early Christians read from the Septuagint because it was in Greek the language they understood. OT quotes in the New Testament come from it. For the first few hundred years Christians used a number of books that are no longer considered scriptural. The fact that Jesus didn't quote from an Apocryphal book doesn't mean much. There are other books in the OT that he didnt quote from Esther being one of them.
 
K

Kaycie

Guest
#6
#6
I am 100% big on if it's not in the bible. The bible has everything we need. And there is no private interpretation- the bible answers itself. Where there is question in one area, the answer is in another area. Even though there are some translation mistakes, I still believe that if you study hard enough that you will get to the truth. God does not lie. He says ask, seek, and knock, and the door of understanding will be opened to you.
 
Angela53510

Angela53510

Senior Member
#7
Jan 24, 2011
11,780
2,943
113
#7
Reading the apocrypha us not going to kill you or lead you down the primrose path to destruction. Those books were required reading for New Testament studies. Not because they were in any way, shape or form inspired, but because they fill in the historical time period between Malachi and Matthew.

But beware! While 1 Maccabees is a fairly accurate historical story, 2 Maccabees and the other 5 books are not. They are filled with inaccuracies, and in some cares, outright lies.

I believe there is much to learn outside the Bible. But if I want the truth, which is unchanging and from God, I only trust the Bible. It is not just a book on how to live, but more important, it is about how to know Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world.

Todd, you are searching for Jesus. Read the Bible, and you will find him. The Holy Spirit will then guide you in all truth.
 
T

Todd7181

Guest
#8
#8
What I am saying is there are multiple Bibles. So that word means different things to different people. Also, it is clearly open to interpretation, just look at this forum and the thousands of denominations that exist. My earlier post on "trust in the lord with all your heart" evoked different interpretations as to what it means.
 
T

Todd7181

Guest
#9
#9
Right, but what what you say is the bible is different for someone else, which was my point.
 
V

Vdp

Banned
#10
Nov 18, 2015
479
8
0
#10
The reason many of us insist it has to be in the Scriptures is because there are many false Christians who have perverted the very Word of God to create other gods for them to Worship.

A good example is the Catholic Church. They have declared as Doctrines from God the commandments of the Catholic Church.

They have declared Mary as being without sin. They have declared Mary as being our Mediator. They have declared Mary as being assumed into Heaven. They have declared Mary as Queen of Heaven.

This is why we insist it has to be in the Scriptures.

Also the reason we reject the Apocrypha books is because Jesus Christ never quoted from these books.
 
notuptome

notuptome

Senior Member
#11
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
#11
Todd7181 said:
What I am saying is there are multiple Bibles. So that word means different things to different people. Also, it is clearly open to interpretation, just look at this forum and the thousands of denominations that exist. My earlier post on "trust in the lord with all your heart" evoked different interpretations as to what it means.
Click to expand...
Your observation is reasonably correct but I have noticed that men do not come up with creative interpretations of the bible because they do not see what is written but because they do not like what they see written.

Some are going to continue to re-interpret the bible until it says what they are comfortable with. The is just what the serpent did in the garden. He asked did God really say that to Eve?

The Apocrypha was rejected because it contradicts the scriptures. Gods inspired word does not contradict itself. There are numerous gnostic gospels floating around and they too are unreliable because they contradict the scriptures.

The US Treasury department teaches its agents to recognize counterfeit money by giving them the genuine article to study until they know it to a very high degree. They can recognize the counterfeit simply by touch. Ought we not to know Gods word the same way?

We need more folks like the ones in Berea.

Acts 17:10 ¶ And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.


For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
T

Todd7181

Guest
#12
#12
Vdp said:
The reason many of us insist it has to be in the Scriptures is because there are many false Christians who have perverted the very Word of God to create other gods for them to Worship.

A good example is the Catholic Church. They have declared as Doctrines from God the commandments of the Catholic Church.

They have declared Mary as being without sin. They have declared Mary as being our Mediator. They have declared Mary as being assumed into Heaven. They have declared Mary as Queen of Heaven.

This is why we insist it has to be in the Scriptures.

Also the reason we reject the Apocrypha books is because Jesus Christ never quoted from these books.
Click to expand...
Interesting points. I don't know if a Catholic would agree with you. Regarding what Jesus quoted, I seem to recall him quoting from Isaiah heavily, perhaps a few others as well...certainly not every single OT book. By that logic, the OT needs to have many other books removed!
 
J

JesusIsAll

Guest
#13
#13
crossnote said:
Luther's main reason for rejecting James and Revelation, was the lack of Gospel content in them. To me, Luther is too far removed from the source timewise to be such a judge.
Click to expand...
And how much more true of all the modern critics, trying to create new truths, most of whom haven't yet mastered the Bible enough to be commenting on theological matters. Anything but the Bible is epidemic, these days.
 
J

JesusIsAll

Guest
#14
#14
​Something I'm 100% certain of, that's not in the Bible, is that God oversaw assembling the canon of scripture we have. The reason is that we are instructed to learn scripture, to seek the truth, therefore we need to have somewhere to go to get reliable truth. God couldn't hold us responsible for truth, if the Bible were unreliable, as who could then say what is truth, and what is not? Neither can all scripture be inspired if it's not all scripture, which would be the case, if there were fraudulent or uninspired "scripture" in the Book.

I bought the Charles hardbound apocrypha books when young, at quite a cost at the time, and regretted buying them, the library would have done, as they are in a box somewhere now, I know not which one. This is because, reading the apocrypha, you can see why it's not in the Bible, as it's either doing things like injecting Judaizing, supernaturally off the reservation, contradicting the Bible, or history of man, clearly works of man. I don't personally see use in any concerted study of fake scripture, any more than it would seem sensible to plumb the depths of comic books. If it's fake, if you can't tell what may not be fake, where's the profit in it, but to inject error into thinking? The disputed book of Enoch is largely trash, mythology, though I do recall some fragments of it with inspired appearance, but if most of it is bogus, then who's to decide what is not? Anyway, omnipotent God, Creator of the universe and all things therein, is also competent to write a book.

Would add that, on the other hand, you can spend your life studying the Bible and only see it more the perfect, harmonious work of God, even unsurpassed in writing style. I sometimes wondered if Charles was simply a paraphraser, never looked into it, but even the style of writing in the apocrypha I read is not up to the precision of the Bible. This is all to say that you didn't have to be an apocrypha scholar to quickly see why the books were rejected.
 
Angela53510

Angela53510

Senior Member
#15
Jan 24, 2011
11,780
2,943
113
#15
Todd7181 said:
Interesting points. I don't know if a Catholic would agree with you. Regarding what Jesus quoted, I seem to recall him quoting from Isaiah heavily, perhaps a few others as well...certainly not every single OT book. By that logic, the OT needs to have many other books removed!
Click to expand...

Jesus quoted the most from Deuteronomy and Zechariah. He did quote from Isaiah, but the important thing about Isaiah is how incredbily many prophecies about Jesus are in that book. Including Isa. 53, which the Jews will not read because it is so obviously about Jesus. Psalm 22 is another chapter they will not read for the same reason.

I'm going to say it again - the reason we read the Bible is because it is the revelation of Jesus Christ. From Genesis 3, where his coming is prophesied, to Rev. 22, Jesus is found prophesied, living and dying for our sins throughout the pages. That is why I am telling you to read the Protestant Bible, preferably in a version you can understand.

The purpose of the Bible, besides giving us guidelines to live, which we can totally trust, is that the Bible reveals Jesus. That is who you are searching for, Todd!

I would not worry about the history of the canon until you have met Jesus. He is the way the truth and the life, and NO ONE comes to the Father, except by him. I cannot urge you strongly enough to stop worrying about versions, and apocrypha, and instead to search for Jesus Christ. I promise you that you will not regret finding him.

A relationship with Jesus is not about rites, rituals, or all kinds of alternate theories of the Bible. A relationship with Jesus is the way to salvation. To say nothing of the fact that he will change and transform you and make you grow into his image.
 
crossnote

crossnote

Senior Member
#16
Nov 24, 2012
30,706
3,650
113
#16
tanakh said:
That is not actually correct. The Alexandrian Jews had the Septuagint which included the Apocrypha a few hundred years before present Jewish cannon of scriptures were formed. The present Jewish cannon was decided on by a group of Rabbis in 130ad. During the time of Jesus and after most Jews and early Christians read from the Septuagint because it was in Greek the language they understood. OT quotes in the New Testament come from it. For the first few hundred years Christians used a number of books that are no longer considered scriptural. The fact that Jesus didn't quote from an Apocryphal book doesn't mean much. There are other books in the OT that he didn't quote from Esther being one of them.
Click to expand...
Paul said All Scripture is inspired by God, apparently Paul, Peter, John and Matthew not quote from the Apocrypha either, but all together they profusely quoted from other books. You'd think at least one of the 7 apocrypha books would have been quoted from if they were considered Scripture. Anyhow decide for yourself.
 
crossnote

crossnote

Senior Member
#17
Nov 24, 2012
30,706
3,650
113
#17
JesusIsAll said:
​Something I'm 100% certain of, that's not in the Bible, is that God oversaw assembling the canon of scripture we have.
Click to expand...
Well, not directly but indirectly He must have in order for this to be fulfilled...

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
(Mat 5:18)

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
(Mat 24:34-35)

For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
(Psa 119:89)
 
crossnote

crossnote

Senior Member
#18
Nov 24, 2012
30,706
3,650
113
#18
Todd7181 said:
Right, but what what you say is the bible is different for someone else, which was my point.
Click to expand...
Immaterial. Since God is the Author of His Word it is the duty of man to seek out what He has written (inspired) and what was HIS intended meaning.
 
Magenta

Magenta

Senior Member
#19
Jul 3, 2015
55,864
26,030
113
#19
crossnote said:
Immaterial. Since God is the Author of His Word it is the duty of man to seek out what He has written (inspired) and what was HIS intended meaning.
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that the apocrypha was never considered inspired even when included*. The apocrypha was never included as part of the groups considered to be the law, the prophets, or other writings such as Psalms, and, as others have already mentioned, never quoted from in the NT. *Roman Catholics were not required to accept such writings as Scripture until the council of Trent in the mid fifteen hundreds.
 
Blain

Blain

The Word Weaver
#20
Aug 28, 2012
19,212
2,547
113
#20
The it's not in the bible and things that by that line shouldn't be relevant or exist-t.v. motercycles baby formula laptop cell phones
The word of God is holy and we should use the scriptures but the bible doesn't speak of everything
 
You must log in or register to reply here.