If the Scripture is inspired then why do the Protestant reject the Deutrocanonical Books?

[Mannyfit75]

Further article that refute the so called Protestant claim of errors in the Deutrocanonical Books.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/cloud.html

 

[Mannyfit75]

An another article from Evoy Magazine also refute Sia and sambos’ claim and I will quote it;

Myth 3

The deuterocanonical books contain historical, geographical, and moral errors, so they can’t be inspired Scripture.

This myth might be raised when it becomes clear that the allegation that the deuterocanonical books were “added” by the Catholic Church is fallacious. This myth is built on another attempt to distinguish between the deuterocanonical books and “true Scripture.” Let’s examine it.

First, from a certain perspective, there are “errors” in the deuterocanonical books. The book of Judith, for example, gets several points of history and geography wrong. Similarly Judith, that glorious daughter of Israel, lies her head off (well, actually, it’s wicked King Holofernes’ head that comes off). And the Angel Raphael appears under a false name to Tobit. How can Catholics explain that such “divinely inspired” books would endorse lying and get their facts wrong? The same way we deal with other incidents in Scripture where similar incidents of lying or “errors” happen.

Let’s take the problem of alleged “factual errors” first. The Church teaches that to have an authentic understanding of Scripture we must have in mind what the author was actually trying to assert, the way he was trying to assert it, and what is incidental to that assertion.

For example, when Jesus begins the parable of the Prodigal Son saying, “There was once a man with two sons,” He is not shown to be a bad historian when it is proven that the man with two sons He describes didn’t actually exist. So too, when the prophet Nathan tells King David the story of the “rich man” who stole a “poor man’s” ewe lamb and slaughtered it, Nathan is not a liar if he cannot produce the carcass or identify the two men in his story. In strict fact, there was no ewe lamb, no theft, and no rich and poor men. These details were used in a metaphor to rebuke King David for his adultery with Bathsheba. We know what Nathan was trying to say and the way he was trying to say it. Likewise, when the Gospels say the women came to the tomb at sunrise, there is no scientific error here. This is not the assertion of the Ptolemiac theory that the sun revolves around the earth. These and other examples which could be given are not “errors” because they’re not truth claims about astronomy or historical events.

Similarly, both Judith and Tobit have a number of historical and geographical errors, not because they’re presenting bad history and erroneous geography, but because they’re first-rate pious stories that don’t pretend to be remotely interested with teaching history or geography, any more than the Resurrection narratives in the Gospels are interested in astronomy. Indeed, the author of Tobit goes out of his way to make clear that his hero is fictional. He makes Tobit the uncle of Ahiqar, a figure in ancient Semitic folklore like “Jack the Giant Killer” or “Aladdin.” Just as one wouldn’t wave a medieval history textbook around and complain about a tale that begins “once upon a time when King Arthur ruled the land,” so Catholics are not reading Tobit and Judith to get a history lesson.

Very well then, but what of the moral and theological “errors”? Judith lies. Raphael gives a false name. So they do. In the case of Judith lying to King Holofernes in order to save her people, we must recall that she was acting in light of Jewish understanding as it had developed until that time. This meant that she saw her deception as acceptable, even laudable, because she was eliminating a deadly foe of her people. By deceiving Holofernes as to her intentions and by asking the Lord to bless this tactic, she was not doing something alien to Jewish Scripture or Old Testament morality. Another biblical example of this type of lying is when the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh about the birth of Moses. They lied and were justified in lying because Pharaoh did not have a right to the truth - if they told the truth, he would have killed Moses. If the book of Judith is to be excluded from the canon on this basis, so must Exodus.

With respect to Raphael, it’s much more dubious that the author intended, or that his audience understood him to mean, “Angels lie. So should you.” On the contrary, Tobit is a classic example of an “entertaining angels unaware” story (cf. Heb. 13:2). We know who Raphael is all along. When Tobit cried out to God for help, God immediately answered him by sending Raphael. But, as is often the case, God’s deliverance was not noticed at first. Raphael introduced himself as “Azariah,” which means “Yahweh helps,” and then rattles off a string of supposed mutual relations, all with names meaning things like “Yahweh is merciful,” “Yahweh gives,” and “Yahweh hears.” By this device, the author is saying (with a nudge and a wink), “Psst, audience. Get it?” And we, of course, do get it, particularly if we’re reading the story in the original Hebrew. Indeed, by using the name “Yahweh helps,” Raphael isn’t so much “lying” about his real name as he is revealing the deepest truth about who God is and why God sent him to Tobit. It’s that truth and not any fluff about history or geography or the fun using an alias that the author of Tobit aims to tell.

envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html SOURCE

 

[sambos671]

According to who?

The bible scholars all over the world that are credible including the Roman Catholic Churches’ very own. I would suggest the Pope even understands this since he is a scholar and taught scriptures for many years and headed The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office.

 

[sambos671]

An another article from Evoy Magazine also refute Sia and sambos’ claim and I will quote it;

envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html SOURCE

Refute all you want. This is what it says in the body of your text:

Similarly, both Judith and Tobit have a number of historical and geographical errors, not because they’re presenting bad history and erroneous geography, but because they’re first-rate pious stories that don’t pretend to be remotely interested with teaching history or geography, any more than the Resurrection narratives in the Gospels are interested in astronomy.

I haven’t question the moral aspects of the stories. I question the accuracy. Which you’re own quote affirms what I have said. Also in the body of your quote it says

the author of Tobit goes out of his way to make clear that his hero is fictional. He makes Tobit the uncle of Ahiqar, a figure in ancient Semitic folklore like “Jack the Giant Killer” or “Aladdin.” Just as one wouldn’t wave a medieval history textbook around and complain about a tale that begins “once upon a time when King Arthur ruled the land,” so Catholics are not reading Tobit and Judith to get a history lesson.

Which is exactly as I have said.

Education is a great thing.

 

[The_Preacher]

I think it’s time to ask just what the canon, or should I say canons are, as there have been and are many. A canon is simply a list of books of scripture which are held to be authentic. That is, a person without extencive formal training in ancient writings may safely believe what is in them. (I should note however that canons seldom take into consideration the fact that there are frequently differing versions of canonical books.) History and theology are chock-a-block with ancient manuscripts, most of which have their adhearants. We’ve all encountered sensationalist popular books about this “newly discovered” Gospel which the church supposidly repressed for some nefarious reason or other. A few are rejected as outright frauds. Some are rejected because they contradict the perpoderance of accepted writings. The Masorites who established what we inherited as the Old Testament Canon refused to consider any book available at that moment only in Greek, not Hebrew. There are authentic manuscripts which came to light after the canon was set. Technically, the Lutheran Church has no closed canon, though most Lutherans don’t know it! Even the rejected books often contain passages held to be authentic. A canon is a scholarly decision, not inspired except in that the scholars are hopefully guided by the Holy Spirit in shepherding the flock. Canons are for the laiety. Scholars routeenly use non-canonical material because they have the skill to evaluate it safely. Most of what we have and pastor from is authentic, valid, non-canonical material. It is called loosly the Tradition of the Church. The “Didache” or “Teachings of the Fathers” is one outstanding example. It is a first or second century book of Church Order and unimpeachable in it’s authority. The Magesterium of the Church is it’s teaching authority and it does not rely upon Scripture alone or any canon of Scripture. The real issue is rejecting the Church and relying only on the Bible, not what books are in the Bible. It’s like puting all your faith and hope in the compas and rejecting the sails, rudder and hull! How long can you tred water?

 

[mark_a]

you’re point?

The Church’s bible is a library of truths, not necessarily a book of facts to be proven.

 

[steve_b]

I think it interesting that you believe there has been no research in this area in 96 years. I do not think a high school history term paper would accept the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia on the LXX as being a recent source.

Has new research changed the number of books that the Catholic Church accepts? No

Has new research changed the number of books, OT and NT, in Jerome’s Vulgate translation which he took from the LXX? No

 

[sambos671]

I think it’s time to ask just what the canon, or should I say canons are, as there have been and are many. A canon is simply a list of books of scripture which are held to be authentic. That is, a person without extencive formal training in ancient writings may safely believe what is in them. (I should note however that canons seldom take into consideration the fact that there are frequently differing versions of canonical books.) History and theology are chock-a-block with ancient manuscripts, most of which have their adhearants. We’ve all encountered sensationalist popular books about this “newly discovered” Gospel which the church supposidly repressed for some nefarious reason or other. A few are rejected as outright frauds. Some are rejected because they contradict the perpoderance of accepted writings. The Masorites who established what we inherited as the Old Testament Canon refused to consider any book available at that moment only in Greek, not Hebrew. There are authentic manuscripts which came to light after the canon was set. Technically, the Lutheran Church has no closed canon, though most Lutherans don’t know it! Even the rejected books often contain passages held to be authentic. A canon is a scholarly decision, not inspired except in that the scholars are hopefully guided by the Holy Spirit in shepherding the flock. Canons are for the laiety. Scholars routeenly use non-canonical material because they have the skill to evaluate it safely. Most of what we have and pastor from is authentic, valid, non-canonical material. It is called loosly the Tradition of the Church. The “Didache” or “Teachings of the Fathers” is one outstanding example. It is a first or second century book of Church Order and unimpeachable in it’s authority. The Magesterium of the Church is it’s teaching authority and it does not rely upon Scripture alone or any canon of Scripture. The real issue is rejecting the Church and relying only on the Bible, not what books are in the Bible. It’s like puting all your faith and hope in the compas and rejecting the sails, rudder and hull! How long can you tred water?

So what makes your canon better than Marcion’s or the Tanakh better than the Catholic or the Orthodox?

 

[sambos671]

The Church’s bible is a library of truths, not necessarily a book of facts to be proven.

I understand what you are saying. But your point is misplaced since I wasn’t arguing that aspect. I was arguing that the DC or the Apocrypha were historically, geographicaly, inaccurate. So you point is kind of misplaced. Now if you want to talk about that aspect then say so.

 

[The_Preacher]

So what makes your canon better than Marcion’s or the Tanakh better than the Catholic or the Orthodox?

Nothing, except that the Tanakh leaves out someone very near and dear to all of us. Personally I don’t use one. I’m a very, very minor part of the Magesterium, reasonably qualified after twenty years of study to evaluate sources. As to the Catholic Canon, it’s defenceably inclusive, and the King James was after all political, not theological of purpose. In fact, it was written solely to solidify King James’ stance against the Holy See. The arguement here really isn’t about theology at all. It’s about socieo-political identity. I study it, but frankly I think The Preacher had it right when he wrote: “Vanity of Vanities, all is vanity and chasing after wind.” Ecclesiastes, Chapter One.

 

[The_Preacher]

I understand what you are saying. But your point is misplaced since I wasn’t arguing that aspect. I was arguing that the DC or the Apocrypha were historically, geographicaly, inaccurate. So you point is kind of misplaced. Now if you want to talk about that aspect then say so.

If ever you find yourself in Milwaukee, Tolkien’s library and papers are in the basement of the Marquette University Library. Don’t know how the ended up there.

 

[sambos671]

If ever you find yourself in Milwaukee, Tolkien’s library and papers are in the basement of the Marquette University Library. Don’t know how the ended up there.

Thanks.

 

[mark_a]

I understand what you are saying. But your point is misplaced since I wasn’t arguing that aspect. I was arguing that the DC or the Apocrypha were historically, geographicaly, inaccurate. So you point is kind of misplaced. Now if you want to talk about that aspect then say so.

My bad.

 

[SIA]

There are no errors in the Deutrocanonical Books.

You are gravely mistaken my friend. There are many many errors in the apocrypha.

 

[CWBetts]

You are gravely mistaken my friend. There are many many errors in the apocrypha.

Up to your samr old tricks, eh SIA? Simplistic statements, NO EVIDENCE

 

[SIA]

Up to your samr old tricks, eh SIA? Simplistic statements, NO EVIDENCE

No evidence?

Sirach 25:26 Divorce if your wife does not obey you.

The Book of Judith: Nebachudnezzar was king of babylon, he did not rule from Ninevah. He was not king of Assyrians. A city with towers called Bethulia on a plain near Dothan able to resist 132,000 soldiers has never been found.

 

[The_Preacher]

No evidence?

Sirach 25:26 Divorce if your wife does not obey you.

The Book of Judith: Nebachudnezzar was king of babylon, he did not rule from Ninevah. He was not king of Assyrians. A city with towers called Bethulia on a plain near Dothan able to resist 132,000 soldiers has never been found.

Our Lord ascribes that error to Moses, made for the sake of the hardness of heart of the people. Matt. 19 And what is error? That is for the Magesterium of the Holy See to determine. Jesus said so when he invested the Office of the Keys in Peter and his successors. Have fun!

 

[Joe_Keenan]

Augustine is quoted as saying a non literal understanding of Genesis was key to his conversion. Regarding the Canon of Scripture, since it didn’t exist until the Church declared it in the late 4th century, I’d say I’ll go with what She says.

 

[SIA]

Our Lord ascribes that error to Moses, made for the sake of the hardness of heart of the people. Matt. 19 And what is error? That is for the Magesterium of the Holy See to determine. Jesus said so when he invested the Office of the Keys in Peter and his successors. Have fun!

Give me a break.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Give me a break.

The Preacher is correct.