differences in Bible versions.

[Scotth1960]

Dear friends, Not all of the Church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha. So appeal to the Church Fathers as a reference in deciding this controversy will not solve this issue. Some didn't accept these books; some did. What is clear is that these books were including in the early Greek OT LXX Septuagint Bible version. Why? Also, as Jews did not accept their Messiah, how can their knowledge of what should not be accepted in Scripture be accepted without question. It is clear these books are of some value, and are not at all as bad as some Protestants might try to make them out to be. The jury is out and it would be better to read all these books and not reject them out of hand. It shouldn't be rejected from Scripture just because "Luther said so". That is no way to run a railroad. Many Western Church Fathers accepted these books, including Irenaeus. Not all of these books are of equal quality, I will grant you. But there is nothing which I have read in any of them which so far has been shown by any scholar or exegete of Scripture to contradict or stand opposed to the Scriptures of the Hebrew Canon. Certainly, the Jews reject the DSSB (Dead Sea Scrolls Bible) and the Greek LXX OT Bible version of Isaiah 53:11 of their own Jewish canon, they follow a later Hebrew canon that excludes the saving and salvific word "light" referring to the resurrection of Christ in ISAIAH 53:11. There is no light in this Hebrew Masoretic text (cf. Isaiah 8:16,20), no "light" in Isaiah 53:11 in the Rabbinic Jewish Hebrew MT. Why?
Is not the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible the more inspired version of this key text on Christ the Messiah in Isaiah. And, ISTM, Wisdom and Sirach contain much good material. As well. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

[Slepsog4]

Jerome in his Latin Vulgate (405) admits these books were non-canonical with the Hebrews or other such descriptions. The RCC has no authority to elevate books to the Hebrew Canon the Jews did not recognize.

The fact that they were among Septuagint texts does not establish the point.

Indeed the septuagint was a latin text not Hebrew. You will not find these scriptures taught in a synagogue anywhere.

[Scotth1960]

Originally Posted by Slepsog4

Jerome in his Latin Vulgate (405) admits these books were non-canonical with the Hebrews or other such descriptions. The RCC has no authority to elevate books to the Hebrew Canon the Jews did not recognize.

The fact that they were among Septuagint texts does not establish the point.

Dear Slepsog4, You have not addressed the fact that the text believed by some to be "canonical", the MT (Masoretic Text), which is a Jewish Rabbinic text of some 800 to 1000 years after Christ, does not contain the word "light" in the Hebrew text of ISAIAH 53:11. The SEPTUAGINT HAS THIS WORD, and the DEAD SEA SCROLLS BIBLE HAS THIS WORD. The NIV, following the DSSB and the LXX, translates Isaiah 53:11 as, "After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life, and be satisfied; by this knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities". The KJV and the MT (Masoretic text) do not have this resurrection of Christ word, "light". If this is the inspired Hebrew word of God, why is the word "light" missing, when it is in the Hebrew word of God according to the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, which is the OLDEST HEBREW VERSION OF THE BIBLE. Why not the DSSB and the LXX? Why the LATER, RABBINIC Hebrew, when these Rabbis REJECT CHRIST?
In Erie PA Scott Harrington

To argue for a word and use it as proofs for the inclusion of the apocrypha in scripture is a thin agrument at best.

[Scotth1960]

Originally Posted by DanuckInUSA

Indeed the septuagint was a latin text not Hebrew. You will not find these scriptures taught in a synagogue anywhere.

Dear DanuckInUSA, Correction! The Septuagint was a GREEK text, not Latin. Why should we care what is taught in a synagogue anywhere, when these Jewish rabbis reject Christ? Until they accept Christ, God has no covenant with them. Anyone who rejects Christ is a covenant-breaker. Someday, All Israel will be saved (Romans 11). Until then, the Jews are in danger, as is anyone who rejects the Lord Jesus Christ. John chapter three says that those who accept Christ are not condemned, but that those who reject Christ are condemned already, because they do not believe in Christ as Messiah/God. In Erie PA Scott

the reason why is the texts in question are not valid in a Christian context. the only place they would hold validity would be in the hebrew tradition and they are not even found there.

[Scotth1960]

Originally Posted by DanuckInUSA

To argue for a word and use it as proofs for the inclusion of the apocrypha in scripture is a thin agrument at best.

The question is: Which text is more reliable: A Hebrew text edited and taken care of by Jewish rabbis who reject Christ, or a Greek text based on the original Hebrew preserved by the ancient Jewish rabbis in Egypt and handed down in the Greek-speaking Christian Church, which knows and accepts Christ?
In Erie PA Scott Harrington

[Glowing]

Originally Posted by Scotth1960

Dear Slepsog4, You have not addressed the fact that the text believed by some to be "canonical", the MT (Masoretic Text), which is a Jewish Rabbinic text of some 800 to 1000 years after Christ, does not contain the word "light" in the Hebrew text of ISAIAH 53:11. The SEPTUAGINT HAS THIS WORD, and the DEAD SEA SCROLLS BIBLE HAS THIS WORD. The NIV, following the DSSB and the LXX, translates Isaiah 53:11 as, "After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life, and be satisfied; by this knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities". The KJV and the MT (Masoretic text) do not have this resurrection of Christ word, "light". If this is the inspired Hebrew word of God, why is the word "light" missing, when it is in the Hebrew word of God according to the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, which is the OLDEST HEBREW VERSION OF THE BIBLE. Why not the DSSB and the LXX? Why the LATER, RABBINIC Hebrew, when these Rabbis REJECT CHRIST?
In Erie PA Scott Harrington

Seeing as how i am adressing a question, that has many diffrent beleivers slants on it; and the fact that i haven't read the entire thread, i would like to address the above question with what i have learned, that may help shed some light on this for you.

The Book of Isaiah contains enough information in it, that any gifted teacher of of God, would need nothing more than this Book to PROVE The Word of Get Over Death (is Temporal) GOD .
Life and Time are Eternal and Nothing else IS!

ALL the Good things that NOW exsist, Have already exsisted before, Only on a MoreNatural (SuperNatural) Basis.

WITHOUT the polution, rot, deteriorization, destruction,death and probabley MOST IMPORTANTLY The ILL Communication that currentley Now Exsists.

Although what you have stated above MAY be true, according to todays understanding of the English Bible, From my studies this is what i understand is what you are lacking in understanding (no offense meant whatsoever) Though the Word Light may not be there, It would be understood already that it is in Fact that LIGHT Speaking; and In Fact It Is that Book of Issaih that Chist IS teaching out of, when He was reading out of the scrptures, while teaching In the Synagouges.

Not only does it NOT say the Word Light, But in FACT, Christ purposley pauses at these points you are referring to; as its No longer Prophecy, but History.

Anyway, in no way am i a teacher, just trying to help and share. Hope this gives you something to chew on.

Love and Peace Forever in CHRIST!!!

[SantoSubito]

Originally Posted by DanuckInUSA

the reason why is the texts in question are not valid in a Christian context. the only place they would hold validity would be in the hebrew tradition and they are not even found there.

However, there is still a lot of debate on whether or not the Jews accepted them before the time of Christ. Once again I will have to bring up the Jewish Council of Jamnia for the date of the removal of the Deuterocanon in the late 1st century AD.

The abandonment of scripture in Judaism is blasphemy. They uphold the scriptures as sacred. What is scripture following Christ did not change from the scripture preceding Christ including the prophecies they could have removed in order to discredit Jesus.

[SantoSubito]

Originally Posted by DanuckInUSA

The abandonment of scripture in Judaism is blasphemy. They uphold the scriptures as sacred. What is scripture following Christ did not change from the scripture preceding Christ including the prophecies they could have removed in order to discredit Jesus.

The canon wasn't closed in Judaism until after Jesus died, and the many Jewish sects all had different scriptures. The scripture the Jews have today is the result of the triumph of Pharisaical Judaism as the dominant Jewish sect after Christ. The Jews at Qumran where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found accepted books that neither Jews nor Christians accept today. The Sadducees only accepted the Torah, and not the other books of the OT.

[Slepsog4]

The presence of a book in a library or collection does not mean agreement. I have many books in my personal library as resources to study cults and world religions. Their presence is not an endorsement.

And if the Qumran community was heretical their collection proves even less.

[SantoSubito]

Originally Posted by Slepsog4

The presence of a book in a library or collection does not mean agreement. I have many books in my personal library as resources to study cults and world religions. Their presence is not an endorsement.

And if the Qumran community was heretical their collection proves even less.

Honestly, this argument would convince me more if the Deuterocanon were bound in a separate volume apart from the rest of the LXX, and to be quite honest we could apply your same standard to all the books in the LXX including the ones Protestants accept. Why would the Jews spend so much time copying the Deuterocanon in the LXX when they did not consider them inspired? Sirach alone would take weeks to copy by hand as would both books of the Maccabees.