GIANTS

  • 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.

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
56,295
26,331
113
Is the Apocrypha Inspired? Does it really belong in the Bible?

Let us consider while we are at this point, the subject of the Catholic apocrypha, for which they make such great claims; and because of which they deny the Bible in common use by most brethren. 2 Macc 12:38-46 seems to be the principal reason they cling to the apocrypha. There is no other doctrine that depends so heavily upon support in the apocrypha.

The Catholics have 46 Old Testament books rather than the 39 found in our (Protestant) Bibles. However, they have added much more material to other books which does not appear under separate titles. That material follows: The Rest of Esther added to Esther; The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon added to Daniel; Baruch; 1 and 2 Maccabees; Tobias; Judith; Ecclesiasticus; and the Wisdom of Sirach.

The only powerful support for these books is that they appear in the Septuagint version. However, in many of our Bibles there is much material that is uninspired, including history, poetry, maps, dictionaries, and other information. This may be the reason for the appearance of this material in the Septuagint. The apocrypha was not in the Hebrew canon.

The usual division of the Old Testament by the Jews was a total of 24 books: The Books of Moses (51, The Early prophets 14; Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings ~, The Late Prophets (4; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the 12 Minor Prophets), and the Hagiagrapha (11; Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon. Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles i. These 24 books contain all the material in our numbering of 39.

Josephus spoke concerning the canon, but his book division combined Ruth-Judges and Lamentation-Jeremiah for a total of 22 books rather than 24:

"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, ... only 22 books, which contain the records of ail the past times; which are justly believed to be divine;...It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers;...and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, or to make any change in them." (Flavius Josephus Against Apion Book 1, Section 8).

Plainly Josephus distinguishes between those books written before and after Artaxerxes. This eliminates most of the apocrypha, especially the Maccabees.

The apocrypha itself denies all notion of inspiration. Referring to the events in the Maccabees the author makes these statements:

"...all such things as have been comprised in 5 books by Jason of Cyrene, we have attempted to abridge in one book. For considering the difficulty that they find that desire to undertake the narrations of histories, because of the multitude of the matter, we have taken care for those indeed that are willing to read,...And as to ourselves indeed, in undertaking this work of abridging, we have taken in hand no easy task, yea. rather a business full of watching and sweat. .. Leaving to the authors the exact handling of every particular, and as for ourselves. according to the plan proposed, studying to brief... For to collect all that is known, to put the discourse in order, and curiously to discuss every particular point, is the duty of the author of a history. But to pursue brevity of speech and to avoid nice declarations of things, is to be granted to him that maketh an abridgement." (2 Maccabees 2: 24-32).

"...I will also here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired; but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me. For as it is hurtful to drink always wine, or always water, but pleasant to use sometimes the one, and sometimes the other, so if the speech be always nicely framed, it will not be grateful to the readers..." 12 Maccabees 15: 39-40).

This forms a bizarre contrast with passages in the New Testament:

"Take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the spirit of your Father which speaketh in you" (Matthew 10: 19-20).

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God: that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in words which man s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." (1 Corinthians 2: 12-131)
Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible!
 
Mar 7, 2016
4,678
24
0
Is the Apocrypha Inspired? Does it really belong in the Bible?

Let us consider while we are at this point, the subject of the Catholic apocrypha, for which they make such great claims; and because of which they deny the Bible in common use by most brethren. 2 Macc 12:38-46 seems to be the principal reason they cling to the apocrypha. There is no other doctrine that depends so heavily upon support in the apocrypha.

The Catholics have 46 Old Testament books rather than the 39 found in our (Protestant) Bibles. However, they have added much more material to other books which does not appear under separate titles. That material follows: The Rest of Esther added to Esther; The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon added to Daniel; Baruch; 1 and 2 Maccabees; Tobias; Judith; Ecclesiasticus; and the Wisdom of Sirach.

The only powerful support for these books is that they appear in the Septuagint version. However, in many of our Bibles there is much material that is uninspired, including history, poetry, maps, dictionaries, and other information. This may be the reason for the appearance of this material in the Septuagint. The apocrypha was not in the Hebrew canon.

The usual division of the Old Testament by the Jews was a total of 24 books: The Books of Moses (51, The Early prophets 14; Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings ~, The Late Prophets (4; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the 12 Minor Prophets), and the Hagiagrapha (11; Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon. Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles i. These 24 books contain all the material in our numbering of 39.

Josephus spoke concerning the canon, but his book division combined Ruth-Judges and Lamentation-Jeremiah for a total of 22 books rather than 24:

"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, ... only 22 books, which contain the records of ail the past times; which are justly believed to be divine;...It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers;...and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, or to make any change in them." (Flavius Josephus Against Apion Book 1, Section 8).

Plainly Josephus distinguishes between those books written before and after Artaxerxes. This eliminates most of the apocrypha, especially the Maccabees.

The apocrypha itself denies all notion of inspiration. Referring to the events in the Maccabees the author makes these statements:

"...all such things as have been comprised in 5 books by Jason of Cyrene, we have attempted to abridge in one book. For considering the difficulty that they find that desire to undertake the narrations of histories, because of the multitude of the matter, we have taken care for those indeed that are willing to read,...And as to ourselves indeed, in undertaking this work of abridging, we have taken in hand no easy task, yea. rather a business full of watching and sweat. .. Leaving to the authors the exact handling of every particular, and as for ourselves. according to the plan proposed, studying to brief... For to collect all that is known, to put the discourse in order, and curiously to discuss every particular point, is the duty of the author of a history. But to pursue brevity of speech and to avoid nice declarations of things, is to be granted to him that maketh an abridgement." (2 Maccabees 2: 24-32).

"...I will also here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired; but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me. For as it is hurtful to drink always wine, or always water, but pleasant to use sometimes the one, and sometimes the other, so if the speech be always nicely framed, it will not be grateful to the readers..." 12 Maccabees 15: 39-40).

This forms a bizarre contrast with passages in the New Testament:

"Take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the spirit of your Father which speaketh in you" (Matthew 10: 19-20).

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God: that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in words which man s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." (1 Corinthians 2: 12-131)
Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible!
Nothing like a good old cathlic bashing to prove your self right .....gees where did you copy and paste all this from.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
56,295
26,331
113
You need to do your research the book opf enoch was once in our bible........ never mind what wiki says :rolleyes:
You are deceived to think I used Wiki when I have directly quoted Scripture, which you obviously need to read, since you do not recognize it.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
56,295
26,331
113
Nothing like a good old cathlic bashing to prove your self right .....gees where did you copy and paste all this from.
Since when is telling the truth "bashing"? Oh, are you a Catholic? It all makes sense now.
 
Mar 7, 2016
4,678
24
0
You are deceived to think I used Wiki when I have directly quoted Scripture, which you obviously need to read, since you do not recognize it.
Im not alking about the scripture im talking about all that befor it..

Ive seen acient bibles in the acc church with the book of enoch inside it..
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
56,295
26,331
113
Im not alking about the scripture im talking about all that befor it..
Unless you are you are lying, you should be able to show me what came from wiki.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
56,295
26,331
113
I will go with you being a liar. My Scriptural beliefs are not formed by wikipedia.
 
Mar 7, 2016
4,678
24
0
Why is your so offended by what you dont know.. or do you feel this topic is disrespectful ? i mean its not my fault that evil spirits have far more intelligence that i or you..

its not my fault thereS hundred od thousands of them walking about..

its not mu fault there here living and walking in our world.. none of this is my fault got nothing to do with me being an anglican English catholic i am a child of God.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
56,295
26,331
113
Ok then prove to me that the book of enoch was not once in our bible
It has been included with Scripture, I already said that, you show how blind you are. Being included as part of the collection with Scripture does not mean it was considered inspired. You missed that also. I even told you when the RCC canonized the apocrypha. Do you know when that was? Not very long ago, all things considered. How many time does someone need to say something to you before you are able to acknowledge that it has been said to you already?
 
Mar 7, 2016
4,678
24
0
Like i said it was once in our bible.. thats all its not whats in there now thats the issue its that book.

Do you even know who ordered scripture to be canonized ? Ill give you a clue it wasnt a priest or a vicar or a pastor..
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
56,295
26,331
113
Like i said it was once in our bible.. thats all its not whats in there now thats the issue its that book.
Sure, it was ADDED to Scripture, but not considered Scripture. Can you differentiate? It seems you lack discernment. Okay, so the demons are smarter than you are, I will give you that :)
 
Mar 7, 2016
4,678
24
0
Sure, it was ADDED to Scripture, but not considered Scripture. Can you differentiate? It seems you lack discernment. Okay, so the demons are smarter than you are, I will give you that :)
hahaha hilarious well if thats all you got to offer to prove your theory then im sorry but its you who are niave.;)
 
Dec 2, 2016
1,652
26
0
Jimbo and Magenta fight it out, meanwhile I am still wondering if anyone has an idea about where the giants came from, also will they come back. If they came through Adam and Noah then of course it is in the human possibility of real giants coming back. These are not tall fellows on steroids that play basketball, but real giants, ten foot or more maybe 800 to a 1000 pounds. How did they come out of the human race, if they were indeed human?
 
Mar 7, 2016
4,678
24
0
It was constantine who who ordered it.. while you may be right about some books not being God inspired meg.. the question is which ones.

The shocking truth of how our bible was formed........

[video=youtube;k-P0bm3SeQs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-P0bm3SeQs[/video]
 
Mar 7, 2016
4,678
24
0
If you watch this vid you would realize one thing that what has been kicked and what has been allowed is not a 100 percent done deal "that all scripture has been reproduced from copies ".... ie not al are deemed to be original texts,,, from the the first account of there texts,,,

The truth is some books have yet to find there originaly first copies...ie after copies as all the books of our gospel mathew john mark luke are all dated to be 150 years after christ....Im quite the sherlock holmes you know,,, im not such a nut after all.but quite nutty :rolleyes:
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,395
113
I read thru Enoch twice and found nothing per se that contradicts the bible...and found things that could not have been known by mere men without divine influence....such as...

Solar winds, the Axis tilt of the earth, the circular revolutions of ALL galaxies, the sun being exactly 7 times brighter than the moon....ALL of these things ONLY recently (last few centuries or recently) discovered and proven.........
 
W

wsblind

Guest
I read thru Enoch twice and found nothing per se that contradicts the bible...and found things that could not have been known by mere men without divine influence....such as...

Solar winds, the Axis tilt of the earth, the circular revolutions of ALL galaxies, the sun being exactly 7 times brighter than the moon....ALL of these things ONLY recently (last few centuries or recently) discovered and proven.........
I am convinced that if we literally saw what was going on in Noahs day, We would all pee ourselves a little.
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,395
113
I am convinced that if we literally saw what was going on in Noahs day, We would all pee ourselves a little.
Oh I agree........humanity is all smug in it's belief that this generation is all that and a bag of chips....when it comes to knowledge.