A little help

[muhammad_isa]

From what I understand the apocrypha were written in the 400 silent years between Malachi and the birth of John the Baptist. It is believed no divinely inspired prophetic utterance was made in this time.

The word apocrypha has undergone a major change in meaning throughout the centuries. The word apocrypha in its ancient Christian usage originally meant a text read in private, rather than in public church settings. In English, it later came to have a sense of the esoteric, suspicious, or heretical, largely because of the Protestant interpretation of the usefulness of non-canonical texts.
Apocrypha - Wikipedia

It can refer to any text that is not canonical i.e. not included in the Christian Bible

 

[TheLightWithin]

We have an extensive library of New Testament apocrypha here: https://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha/

The Catholic Bible contains several books or sections of books that were discarded from the King James Bible, and Orthodox and Ethiopian Bibles contain other books too

Ever since I learned about the Ethiopian/Eritrean or Assyrian bibles, with additional materials, I have wondered how many additional Protestant sects would have developed if more people in the West had gotten their hands on the additional materials and taken them as inspired Scripture.

 

[TheLightWithin]

From what I understand the apocrypha were written in the 400 silent years between Malachi and the birth of John the Baptist. It is believed no divinely inspired prophetic utterance was made in this time.

I've heard that, or things like it, and I always wondered how they could tell? What criteria they used to determine what was inspired and what was not? Were there consistent clues they looked for?

 

[Thinking required]

1-4 Maccabees pretty well marks this comment as incorrect, particularly since this is celebrated every year as Hanukkah

Did I say anything about not being Historical Jewish. Nope, Just said that it's not included in the Jewish text. God walks away from Israel, after the divided kingdoms come to a close. He will return Israel at some point. Unless you can show me where I am wrong here, I have read these books, but it's been a long time ago. I could be wrong and if I am would you please show me.

 

[Faithfulservant]

I've heard that, or things like it, and I always wondered how they could tell? What criteria they used to determine what was inspired and what was not? Were there consistent clues they looked for?

If there were inconsistencies *Shrug* there's a list of them that deviate from what are considered to be inspired texts.

 

[juantoo3]

Did I say anything about not being Historical Jewish. Nope, Just said that it's not included in the Jewish text. God walks away from Israel, after the divided kingdoms come to a close. He will return Israel at some point. Unless you can show me where I am wrong here, I have read these books, but it's been a long time ago. I could be wrong and if I am would you please show me.

• 1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras)
• 2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras)
• Tobit
• Judith ("Judeth" in Geneva)
• Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4 – 16:24)
• Wisdom
• Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach)
• Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy ("Jeremiah" in Geneva) (all part of Vulgate Baruch)
• Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24–90)
• Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13)
• The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)
• Prayer of Manasseh
• 1 Maccabees
• 2 Maccabees

These are all in the original King James Version. All are inter-testamental apocrypha. I focused only on Maccabees, 3 and 4 are available from other sources but the first two are included in the KJV. It was a publishing decision - nothing to do with "Church," as to why these books were dropped.

The Vulgate (/ˈvʌlɡeɪt, -ɡət/; also called Biblia Vulgata (Bible in common tongue), Latin: [ˈbɪbli.a wʊlˈɡaːta]), sometimes referred to as the Latin Vulgate, is a late-4th-century Latin translation of the Bible.

The Vulgate is largely the work of Jerome who, in 382, had been commissioned by Pope Damasus I to revise the Vetus Latina Gospels used by the Roman Church. Later, on his own initiative, Jerome extended this work of revision and translation to include most of the books of the Bible. The Vulgate became progressively adopted as the Bible text within the Western Church. Over succeeding centuries, it eventually eclipsed the Vetus Latina. By the 13th century it had taken over from the former version the designation versio vulgata[1] (the "version commonly used") or vulgata for short. The Vulgate also contains some Vetus Latina translations that Jerome did not work on.

The Vulgate was to become the Catholic Church's officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible as the Sixtine Vulgate (1590), then as the Clementine Vulgate (1592), and then as the Nova Vulgata (1979). The Vulgate is still currently used in the Latin Church. The Catholic Church affirmed the Vulgate as its official Latin Bible at the Council of Trent (1545–1563), though there was no authoritative edition at that time.[2] The Clementine edition of the Vulgate became the standard Bible text of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, and remained so until 1979 when the Nova Vulgata was promulgated.

-Wiki "Vulgate"

 

[juantoo3]

Deuterocanonical and apocryphal books in the Septuagint

Greek name[17][47][a]	Transliteration	English name
Προσευχὴ Μανασσῆ	Proseuchē Manassē	Prayer of Manasseh
Ἔσδρας Αʹ	1 Esdras	1 Esdras or 1 Ezra
Τωβίτ (called Τωβείτ or Τωβίθ in some sources)	Tōbit (or Tōbeit or Tōbith)	Tobit
Ἰουδίθ	Ioudith	Judith
Ἐσθήρ	Esthēr	Esther (with additions)
Μακκαβαίων Αʹ	1 Makkabaiōn	1 Maccabees
Μακκαβαίων Βʹ	2 Makkabaiōn	2 Maccabees
Μακκαβαίων Γʹ	3 Makkabaiōn	3 Maccabees
Μακκαβαίων Δ' Παράρτημα	4 Makkabaiōn Parartēma	4 Maccabees[48]
Ψαλμός ΡΝΑʹ	Psalmos 151	Psalm 151
Σοφία Σαλoμῶντος	Sophia Salomōntos	Wisdom or Wisdom of Solomon
Σοφία Ἰησοῦ Σειράχ	Sophia Iēsou Seirach	Sirach or Wisdom of Sirach
Βαρούχ	Barouch	Baruch
Ἐπιστολὴ Ἰερεμίου	Epistolē Ieremiou	Epistle or Letter of Jeremiah
Δανιήλ	Daniēl	Daniel (with additions)
Ψαλμοί Σαλoμῶντος	Psalmoi Salomōntos	Psalms of Solomon

-Wiki "Septuagint"

The Septuagint *is* the Jewish text

 

[TheLightWithin]

If there were inconsistencies *Shrug* there's a list of them that deviate from what are considered to be inspired texts.

What I meant was, how were they able to determine which texts were inspired and which weren't? Are there criteria?

 

[Thinking required]

I've heard that, or things like it, and I always wondered how they could tell? What criteria they used to determine what was inspired and what was not? Were there consistent clues they looked for?

You would have to ask the Jews about why it's not included in their cannon.

 

[Thinking required]

These are all in the original King James Version.

All King James Bibles published before 1666 included the Apocrypha, though separately to denote them as not equal to Scripture proper, as noted by Jerome in the Vulgate, to which he gave the name, "The Apocrypha".

Biblical apocrypha - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TheLightWithin]

You would have to ask the Jews about why it's not included in their cannon.

Oh believe me, I ask around.
What I hope someone might say, some fine day, is that there is a way of reading a text that will help you sort out whether it is inspired or not.
Or, that there is some list of criteria it meets.
Scholars have criteria for determining how old something is or who the (human) author may have been.
When the New Testament was being compiled, in the 4th century AD, my understanding is that books were chosen based on some criteria such as being ancient, anything too new was not considered scripture. I don't know what their cutoff date was. They also included things that seemed consistent with the emerging orthodox dogma, and excluded things they deemed "heretical"
What I don't know is how they ascertained the inspired status of the text.
I do not know what criteria Rabbis used.
I do not know what criteria the Vedics used for the Vedic texts.
My understanding is that Muhammed outright stated he had received revelation.
My understanding is that Guru Nanak outright stated he had received revelation.
I don't know if there is any other way for readers to tell that they are reading inspired texts.

 

[Faithfulservant]

You can Google it. That's all I would provide to you anyways.

Here is one of many

Why Were the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha Rejected as Holy Scripture by the Protestants?

The Old Testament Apocrypha consists of eleven or twelve books, depending upon how they are divided, that the Roman Catholic Church adds to the Old Testament.

www.blueletterbible.org

 

[TheLightWithin]

You can Google it. That's all I would provide to you anyways.

Here is one of many

Why Were the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha Rejected as Holy Scripture by the Protestants?

The Old Testament Apocrypha consists of eleven or twelve books, depending upon how they are divided, that the Roman Catholic Church adds to the Old Testament.

www.blueletterbible.org

Interesting material! This is great!!
So, from an initial glance... lemme se... it sounds like they base it on doctrine. If it doesn't agree with the doctrines they have developed, they reject it... it seems... but doesn't doctrine come from the writings?
But it answers one question. If they HAD kept the apocryphal material and said it was scripture, it seems doctrine WOULD be different.
More works-oriented and more in support of Purgatory. (just taking what I see at a quick glance)
What is less clear at a glance (but maybe it will become clear upon reading) is whether one could tell that a work was inspired.
Thought experiment: Imagine a brilliant literary scholar originally trained in communist China.
If they went elsewhere in the world, and started studying world religious documents, would they be able to determine which documents were supernaturally inspired and which were not?

 

[Thinking required]

My understanding is that Muhammed outright stated he had received revelation.

That's easy to say, difficult to prove. That is why miracles accompanied the Jewish and Christian text. I always ask myself this question, would it change anything? I could throw a lot of the books out of the Bible and it would change very little. Please, Please do not think I don't think that all Scripture in the Bible is from God. I simply mean that Books like the Gospel of Luke and Mark are mostly contained in the Book of Matthew. Don't come back and tell me they were written before the Gospel of Matthew. John is different because John is showing us the Deity of Jesus and he does this again in 1st John. Matthew is dealing with the Jews, showing that Jesus is the Messiah. When one person writes one book and said that I got it from standing in a cave, can I question that. The Quran is just a repeat of the Jewish texts with changes made. Did Muhammad have access to a Bible, certainly, did he have access to a Catholic Church, certainly. Every story spoken about in the NT from the OT is spot on. Why did Allah change the stories in the Quran. And believe me, they are changed. The Quran says that Allah warned Adam not to touch the tree and that he would sin if he did. It also says that Satan tempted Adam, it also says that Adam was created in the Garden, which Muslims claim to be heaven and then got sent down to earth. and it goes on and on with every story, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses. They are similar but different. I am not even why the stories are in the Quran, since Muslims become the new Israel, the people that God brought out of Egypt and called His children, a Nation that was His and would always exist.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Interesting material! This is great!!
So, from an initial glance... lemme se... it sounds like they base it on doctrine. If it doesn't agree with the doctrines they have developed, they reject it... it seems... but doesn't doctrine come from the writings?
But it answers one question. If they HAD kept the apocryphal material and said it was scripture, it seems doctrine WOULD be different.
More works-oriented and more in support of Purgatory. (just taking what I see at a quick glance)
What is less clear at a glance (but maybe it will become clear upon reading) is whether one could tell that a work was inspired.
Thought experiment: Imagine a brilliant literary scholar originally trained in communist China.
If they went elsewhere in the world, and started studying world religious documents, would they be able to determine which documents were supernaturally inspired and which were not?

So this is where faith comes in for me. I trust that God would supernaturally preserve His divinely inspired Word. I've said this before of course. I don't question this and I trust Him.

 

[Thinking required]

If it doesn't agree with the doctrines they have developed, they reject it... it seems... but doesn't doctrine come from the writings?

Let's look at this, I am not about to try to speak as or for a Jew and what they believe. The Torah, or first 5 books are the critical books for Jews. Then you move into writings and Prophets. You probably already know this. The first 5 books are creation, sin and setting up the Nation of Israel. With the New Testament, all the books were written by people who lived in the time of Jesus except Paul, who says he was one "untimely born".

 

[TheLightWithin]

So this is where faith comes in for me. I trust that God would supernaturally preserve His divinely inspired Word. I've said this before of course. I don't question this and I trust Him.

I'm guessing you believe the inspired word is the Christian bible only, but I just wanted to double check, do you believe other works, such as the Vedas, Avesta, Koran, Adi Granth, or writings of the Bab or Bahá’u’lláh, or the Book of Mormon, could be inspired as well? Is it possible?

 

[TheLightWithin]

So this is where faith comes in for me. I trust that God would supernaturally preserve His divinely inspired Word. I've said this before of course. I don't question this and I trust Him.

I'm guessing you believe the inspired word is the Christian bible only, but I just wanted to double check, do you believe other works, such as the Vedas, Avesta, Koran, Adi Granth, or writings of the Bab or Bahá’u’lláh, or the Book of Mormon, Or Kabbalah...could be inspired as well?
Is it possible? Either way, is there a way to tell by looking at them?

 

[Faithfulservant]

I'm guessing you believe the inspired word is the Christian bible only, but I just wanted to double check, do you believe other works, such as the Vedas, Avesta, Koran, Adi Granth, or writings of the Bab or Bahá’u’lláh, or the Book of Mormon, could be inspired as well? Is it possible?

Yes I believe the only inspired word is the Christian bible. And anything that has a Jesus + anything else is a false gospel. I've also said this before.. My brand of Christianity is very intolerant of other messages that include Jesus + anything else.. but we are also called to love our neighbors and to be a light unto the world and salt of the earth preserving until He returns.

I find it very interesting how people come to believe what they believe and like to hear ( or read) their stories.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I am not even why the stories are in the Quran, since Muslims become the new Israel, the people that God brought out of Egypt and called His children, a Nation that was His and would always exist.

Have you no idea at all?
Abraham had two sons .. Ishmael and Isaac.
It states in the Bible that each would have a blessed nation spring from their loins.

Of course, we see that both nations compete, claiming they are the one loved by God etc.
This is nothing new .. Adam's sons had this argument, and one brother killed the other.