How can one of the most explicit prophecies in Scripture of Jesus be uninspired, Wisdom 2:12-20?How can the RC claim that the apocrypha is also the word of God when it contains so many errors? We (Anglicans) read from the apocrypha (we have the same readings and gospel every Sunday morning as you do), but we do not establish church teaching from it.
Most objections such as this focus on the blatant “historical” inaccuracies of Tobit and Judith. What they fail to recognize is that these books are not meant to be history in the modern sense, but rather morality tales loosely based on historical events. The “errors” in them were deliberate in order to tip off the original audience who were more familiar with their own history than you or I.How can the RC claim that the apocrypha is also the word of God when it contains so many errors? We (Anglicans) read from the apocrypha (we have the same readings and gospel every Sunday morning as you do), but we do not establish church teaching from it.
In Tobit, Raphael lies to Tobit about who he is before going with Tobias on his trip. Does this teach that it is alright to lie or that angels lie?Most objections such as this focus on the blatant “historical” inaccuracies of Tobit and Judith. What they fail to recognize is that these books are not meant to be history in the modern sense, but rather morality tales loosely based on historical events. The “errors” in them were deliberate in order to tip off the original audience who were more familiar with their own history than you or I.
Here is an article that might help you:
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307bt.asp
Were there some other “errors” you had in mind? They can probably be explained similarly.
Oh Nella! I hope you don’t hit and run like you have on other threads (we ask questions and you disappear!)How can the RC claim that the apocrypha is also the word of God when it contains so many errors? We (Anglicans) read from the apocrypha (we have the same readings and gospel every Sunday morning as you do), but we do not establish church teaching from it.
Examples.How can the RC claim that the apocrypha is also the word of God when it contains so many errors? We (Anglicans) read from the apocrypha (we have the same readings and gospel every Sunday morning as you do), but we do not establish church teaching from it.
If you would have read the short article I provided the link to, you would have found this reply:In Tobit, Raphael lies to Tobit about who he is before going with Tobias on his trip. Does this teach that it is alright to lie or that angels lie?
The charges of historical error aren’t the only ones made against the book. Some critics object to the fact that the angel Raphael disguises himself and gives a supposedly false name for himself.
This is a complicated subject, since human names can never express the true names of angels but only an aspect of their celestial identity. In Tobit, the angel identifies himself as Raphael (“God Heals,” the most fundamental name he presents) and Azariah (“the Help of the Lord”). Both of these reflect an aspect of his mission and therefore can correctly be said to be names for him. We also know from other Scripture passages that angels do travel incognito (cf. Heb. 13:2). Even Jesus did so (cf. Luke 24:13–29).
Since in any protracted stay with someone—even overnight—the angels would have had to identify themselves as someone, they would have used human names (which would have included a lineage, given the patriarchal society of the Bible). They also would have given points of origin for themselves, as any traveler in the biblical world was certain to be asked, “Who are you, and where are you from?”
We also know that the group of angels to which Raphael belongs—the seven who stand before God (cf. 12:15)—is a real group of angels, for it is mentioned in Revelation 8:2.
What is done or implied elsewhere in Scripture about angels in disguise cannot be used to attack this example of it, especially since the angel does finally reveal his identity and mission to the characters (just as Jesus finally revealed his identity to the disciples on the road to Emmaus).
They are surely not the foundation of your faith, not soley anyway.The Scriptures are food for our faith, not the foundation of it.
Nella?Hello,
Examples.
certainly!Hello,
Examples.
Do you mean the deutero-canon? The “apocrypha” are non-canonical books, and Catholics do not recognize them as Scripture.How can the RC claim that the apocrypha is also the word of God when it contains so many errors?
If you are reading it in the Liturgy, you are giving it the authority of Scripture. Odd.We (Anglicans) read from the apocrypha (we have the same readings and gospel every Sunday morning as you do), but we do not establish church teaching from it.
"Modern research has shown that Nebuchadnezzar was the greatest monarch that Babylon, or perhaps the East generally, ever produced.certainly!
Divorce if your wife does not obey you Sirach 25:26
better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good. It is a woman who brings shame and disgrace. Sirach 42:14
The book of Judith: Tons of errors!: Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon and never ruled from Ninevah as said so in this book.
Baruch 6:2 says that the Jews would serve Babylon for seven generations. Jeremiah 25:11, 29:11 says 70 years
Pope Gregory the Great didn’t even believe that 1st Maccabees was inspired. If the RCC believes that it really is, then Pope Gregory was in error.
Raphael is an Angel. He isn’t human. The Ten Commandments apply only to humans. Raphael already chosen his path to serve the Lord.In Tobit, Raphael lies to Tobit about who he is before going with Tobias on his trip. Does this teach that it is alright to lie or that angels lie?
Do you think you can stop bashing Episcopalians anytime soon? This is getting ridiculous. You are mistaken when you include these things in all the communion.From what do Anglicans establish “church teaching”. It doesn’t appear to be from the Bible when it comes to female ordination, homosexual sex and relationships, divorce and remarriage, contraception, abortion, or any of the other many practices currently accepted *within *the Anglican Communion. In fact, it seems to be out of thin air-- which is why I left the Anglican Communion for the sure foundation of Rome 15 years ago.
How can the Protestant remove the Apocrypha Books in 1588 and not following what the majority of Christianity use prior to the Reformation?How can the RC claim that the apocrypha is also the word of God when it contains so many errors? We (Anglicans) read from the apocrypha (we have the same readings and gospel every Sunday morning as you do), but we do not establish church teaching from it.
Well said.1952 – [Feb.] Bedouin discover 30 fragments of other scrolls in Cave 2, including Jubilees & ben Sirach in the original Hebrew.
– De Vaux locates Cave 4 less than 200 yards from Khirbet Qumran. 15000 of fragments of 574 mss. found including Aramaic versions 1 Enoch & Tobit, a scroll of Samuel that was closer to the Greek Septuagint than the official Hebrew text & fragments of a copy of the Damascus Covenant, a text that had been discovered in 1896 in the geniza of old Cairo synagogue.
gnosis.org/library/dss/dss_timeline.htm
You do not think that divorcing your wife if she does not obey you is an error in teaching??How can the Protestant remove the Apocrypha Books in 1588 and not following what the majority of Christianity use prior to the Reformation?
The Eastern Orthodox accepted them and they do have more books than we do. They have 47 Books versus Catholic’s 46 Books in the OT.
Earlier Venacular translation of the Bible also have the Apocrypha Books.
I find no errors in the Apoycryphal Books which you refer to.
NOYou do not think that divorcing your wife if she does not obey you is an error in teaching??