-
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.
C
its not biblical, although some do believe it can be used. Although they dont have much relevance except give historical writings. Some or all might be wrong, but im sure it aint scriptures. Believe they were written by theologians and them. Im not sure, but all i know is, its not in our bible for a reason because its not scriptural. I heard actually the apostles prayed about whether they should keep it or not. Im not sure tho.
Other posters will chime in with various bits of information, but as noted in the 1560 Geneva Bible, the apocrypha is good for historical purposes, but not so good for building doctrine.
Here's a (somewhat one-sided) web page that explores some of the reasons why the Apocrypha might not be accepted in many circles:
Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible!
Here's a (somewhat one-sided) web page that explores some of the reasons why the Apocrypha might not be accepted in many circles:
Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible!
Until Luther, most bibles included the apocrypha. At first Luther was not anti Jewish, but in later years he became extremely so. He insisted on eliminating the apocrypha. Most of it covers the 400 years before Christ, a period our bibles do not cover. He also wanted the book of Hebrews taken from our bibles because it was too Jewish, but that book is included.
The King James and Geneva bible included the apocrypha. The Puritans and Pilgrims used this bible.
When it was decided exclude these books from in our bible, they also excluded the prayer of Manasseh from the end of Chronicals. Manasseh was a wicked king of Judah who repented. We do not have his prayer of repentance in our bibles.
The King James and Geneva bible included the apocrypha. The Puritans and Pilgrims used this bible.
When it was decided exclude these books from in our bible, they also excluded the prayer of Manasseh from the end of Chronicals. Manasseh was a wicked king of Judah who repented. We do not have his prayer of repentance in our bibles.
Luther was the first person to separate the Apocryphal books and put them after Revelation. Miles Coverdale, (who translated/compiled the first complete printed English Bible in 1535,) was the first person to place the Apocryphal books in between the Old and New Testaments.
(And just as a minor note, the website I posted above has some incorrect historical information [like its statement 'the apocrypha wasn't in the Latin Vulgate' - it was], so remain vigilant and double-check things for yourself.)
(And just as a minor note, the website I posted above has some incorrect historical information [like its statement 'the apocrypha wasn't in the Latin Vulgate' - it was], so remain vigilant and double-check things for yourself.)
Last edited:
J
The Apocrypha is non-canonical, meaning it is not scripture. The Epistles of Paul are by far of more spiritual value than the Apocrypha That being said, it is often included, or encouraged to be included in the basis of it being historical. While it is generally reliable for history, it isn't hugely more reliable than a well researched history book.
K
Every old book is historical, and accurately reflects the views of the author (unless later people messedup what it says by bad copying). If it was popular, it reflected the views of a lot of people. Not canonical means it is not believed to reflect what God wanted written for us to use as Scripture.
The jews weren't particularly found of what is called the apocrypha. Most of "mainstream" judaism rabbis of today would say they were never considered scripture by the jews. However, they were part of the LXX, which was the Bible (translated from hebrew/aramaic to greek) that the earliest christians used. The "problem" with apocrypha is there is little base material for a reliable original text, though the DSS finds unveiled some.
N
I see nothing wrong with reading the Apocrypha if, your grounded in the main teachings of Christ in the Bible. That go's for anything you read of this nature...
I haven't read all of the Apocrypha . I have read 1st and 2nd Esdras . Esdras is Greek, for Ezra . Those two seem good to me. They seem to aline with scripture .The story of Susana is also good. There aren't too many good translations of it in the English though.
While not perfect, I think it's the better of the translations available in English; I recommend : The Apocrypha: by Edgar J. Goodspeed. His translation is a pretty good one.
I haven't read all of the Apocrypha . I have read 1st and 2nd Esdras . Esdras is Greek, for Ezra . Those two seem good to me. They seem to aline with scripture .The story of Susana is also good. There aren't too many good translations of it in the English though.
While not perfect, I think it's the better of the translations available in English; I recommend : The Apocrypha: by Edgar J. Goodspeed. His translation is a pretty good one.
Last edited: