A Request for Assistance

  • Thread starter Thread starter Silvereel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks Aslieas 🙂 I’ll try to return the favour of the prayer!
Luke, I did manage to get the link to work, after I saw the typo. It’s a good site. I’ll check out the mp3s as well, Broski. I’ve been listening to things like this at night on my PSP.
 
I may need to start a new thread, I don’t know. I’d perfer to keep everything in one place, though. Makes it easier to keep up with. I was talking with my dad about the Apocrypha last night and I showed him some qoutes from the early church fathers who used it. He is curious now why they were removed. Can anyone direct me to a good source of info on this? Everything I find from google seems to be from Fundamentalist sites on why they DON’T belong in the Bible. I need something that puts up a good argument for the oppisite, but is still unbiased.
 
There is a thread currently about prayers for the dead. In the thread the deutrocanon has come up as it is used to back up prayers for the dead (thought the NT does this).

One poster posted 21 reasons against the deutrocanon.

If you click on the following link (no typo this time 😃 ) you will find the objection post (#78) and my responses (#81+).

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=306488&page=6

Another poster Randy Carson adds some great info too! Included are some highlighted posts to show the duetocanon quoted in the NT. So have a read through the next few pages of posts, some great work from all the posters.

Scripture Catholic as you probably saw has the deutrocanon cross referenced too.

All the best!

🙂
 
Thank you mate. I’m also looking for something that provides a bit of a history lesson, though, explaining why the reformers decided to remove them. Do you have any suggestions? Of course, this gives me some more apologetic fire power 👍
 
I can give you one indisputable historical fact. The Church never, at any time in her history, declared the 66 book canon used by Protestants as the correct canon. There is not one time in the past 2000 years when either a Pope or a Council declared the 66 book canon as correct.

p.s. The Eastern Orthodox also don’t accept the 66 book canon.
 
Silvereel said:
Thank you mate. I’m also looking for something that provides a bit of a history lesson, though, explaining why the reformers decided to remove them. Do you have any suggestions? Of course, this gives me some more apologetic fire power 👍
Click to expand...
I don’t think it happened all at once, but rather over the course of a few centuries. For example, the original King James Version included them.

geocities.com/cott1388/kjv.html

Says that the Archbishop of Canterbury only removed them in 1885! :eek:
 
Basically the ‘reforemrs’ did not consider them canonical becuase most (though not all) Jews don’t consider them scripture.

Some argue they they were not accepted as they contain various Catholic beliefs like prayers for the dead and the above was used as an excuse of sorts.

The Church considers them just as inspired as all the other books. If she got the NT right how could she mess up the OT.

Orignally, such as the 1611 King James, the deuterocanon was published as an appendix, but later one of the Bible socities decided to remove them all together as it was cheaper to print.

The following links may give some more specifics

Catholic Encyclopedia article
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

Online book: Where we got the Bible: Our debt to the Catholic Church
geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/wherewegotthebible.html

Article by apologist James Akin
cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm

Other
godtouches.org/deutero-intro.html
 
One of my reference books ( The Essential Catholic Survival Guide, I believe) gave me an historical account of when and why the Apocrypha was taken out. Unfortunately, I can’t look that up to be sure I remember it correctly. We did some major readjusting of our belongings (our apartment is tiny and we needed more space) and now I can’t find my copy of that book. If anyone else can find their copy and look this up, I know that the book does address this question.

I would tell what I remember, but I don’t want to be relying on false information!👍
 
Canto said:
Orignally, such as the 1611 King James, the deuterocanon was published as an appendix, but later one of the Bible socities decided to remove them all together as it was cheaper to print.
Click to expand...
That’s the only part I remember reading in the book I mentioned.:o
 
Again, thanks all of you. You’ve all been very helpful once more!
I’m printing out some of the articles for him to read.
I’m aware the KJ version was printed with the Apocrypha in them in the first edition. Apparently it was against the law to own one without it. I own a nice trade paper back of the Apocrypha by itself.
 
Silvereel said:
I own a nice trade paper back of the Apocrypha by itself.
Click to expand...
Oh, that’s nifty! I didn’t know that sort of thing existed. Well, it’s more than nifty, anyway; it’s very good, because it means you have access to them.:yup:
 
I hope no one minds me reviving this old thread, but I thought I’d give an update.
I am no less interested in joining today than I was when I first posted. So, do not worry about it dying out on me…
I’ve been spending alot of time studying the Catholic faith, and praying as well. I’ve been saying the Rosary from time to time as well.
But I’m curious to hear what Protestants think of this post…
 
👍

Come Holy Spirit Creator blest
And in our souls take up Thy rest
Come witth Thy grace and heavenly aid
To fill the hearts which Thou has made

Veni Creator Spiritus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top