The old testament

  • Thread starter Thread starter Godhead
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Godhead said:
Take the apocrypha for example. It used to be included in scripture but has been snipped out by the church. How could any of the apocrypha be fulfilled, when the bible is the authority of the law and prophets, after it was discontinued in the inclusion of the bible?
Click to expand...
what apocrypha? which books, by which prophets?
are you referring to the deuterocanonical books, which were never abandoned by the Church? or are you referring to various books that were never included in the canon of scripture in the first place because they were not recognized as being divinely inspired. I can call myself a prophet and write my own book, that does not give my words the authority of inspiration.
 
Godhead said:
Yes, the apocrypha was origninally included in the King James Bible. And no they are not used by Catholicism any more. If they were, then they would be read from in church; which they are not. Yes, I know they are included in Catholic bibles. So how does not reading from them fulfill the law and the prophets. No, I never heard any catholic church read from them.
Click to expand...
still waiting, which books, don’t use the word apocrypha if you don’t know what you mean by the word. You are simply wrong. The deuterocanonicals are included in all CAtholic bibles and are read during the liturgical cycle.
 
Godhead said:
What about the gnostic texts? Whose use of allegories trumps anything written in accepted scripture? I know that these men came after the prophets; but in scripture the use of allegories as a source of truth is evident even in Genesis; for Genesis is an allegory.
Click to expand...
Gnostic texts are neither authentic prophetic books in the Jewish canonical tradition, nor are they Christian books, and have absolutely no relevance in this discussion, which you base on the prophets. Genesis is not an allegory. by what authority do you make that statement.
You initiate a discussion presumably about Jewish prophetic books, yet drag in Gnosticism, which has no relevance. Please educate yourself before initiating such a discussion.

OP obviously has no interest in sincere discussion of the topic of formation of the canon so I suggest we leave him to enjoy his ignorance.
 
Godhead said:
Wrong. look it up. The apocrypha was too included in the original translation of the king james bible in 1611
Never heard any of the apocrypha read aloud at mass. Not in my entire life.
Click to expand...
Sorry, kid, but you’re dead wrong on this one. I am a lector and do the readings about twice a month, and we read from the 7 deuterocanonicals quite often. For instance, we often read from the Book of Wisdom around Pentecost, because the Book of Wisdom is all about the Holy Spirit.

I would bet that you’ve heard the deutero’s read in mass, but didn’t know they were deutero’s.

And yes, the 7 books were in the original KJV, then in a later edition they were moved to an appendix at the back, then later still were dropped altogether. In order to get them now, you must buy a Catholic bible.

Paul
 
PaulDupre said:
Sorry, kid, but you’re dead wrong on this one. I am a lector and do the readings about twice a month, and we read from the 7 deuterocanonicals quite often. For instance, we often read from the Book of Wisdom around Pentecost, because the Book of Wisdom is all about the Holy Spirit.

I would bet that you’ve heard the deutero’s read in mass, but didn’t know they were deutero’s.

And yes, the 7 books were in the original KJV, then in a later edition they were moved to an appendix at the back, then later still were dropped altogether. In order to get them now, you must buy a Catholic bible.

Paul
Click to expand...
No I’m not. The apocrypha was in fact included in the original translation of the King James bible in 1611. etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html
Believe me I saw it with my own eyes. Believe it or not but I know how to read.
 
Godhead said:
BELIEVE THE LIE. CALL ME A FOOL. WE WILL SEE WHO IS THE FOOL IN THE END, AS NIETZSCHE SAID, HE WHO LAUGHS LAST LAUGHS BEST.
Click to expand...
I will not so foolish to do that! To judge someone so harshly is wrong and condemned. And in the end we who are in Heaven will not be laughing at those who are not, we will be sorry for those who chose eternal damnation, but will accept your choice. Also seeing how Nietzsche lost his mind in the end I prefer not to listen to his “wise words”.
 
Godhead said:
No I’m not. The apocrypha was in fact included in the original translation of the King James bible in 1611. etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html
Believe me I saw it with my own eyes. Believe it or not but I know how to read.
Click to expand...
So what is your point? People have already agreed with you that the books were included in the original KJB. They have told how they were removed at a later time. Nobody disagrees with you on that.
 
Godhead said:
No I’m not. The apocrypha was in fact included in the original translation of the King James bible in 1611. etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html
Believe me I saw it with my own eyes. Believe it or not but I know how to read.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that what I said? What ticks people off about you is that you don’t read the responses to your posts. Please give your fellow travelers here the respect of reading and comprehending their posts before you answer.

Also, you are using the wrong word. You keep saying “apocrypha” when you mean “deuterocanonicals” (that’s greek for “The second canon”).

The real apocrypha (like “The shepherd of Hermes” or “The Gospel of Thomas” - which was not written by Thomas) were never included in the bible. The Deuterocanonical books, by contrast, were in the Greek Septuagint version of the OT at the time of Jesus and His apostles. This is the version of the OT that Jesus used. There are several clear allusions to these books in the NT.

Protestants use the word “apocrypha” to refer to both the true apocrypha and the deuterocanonicals. So if you do the same thing, you are identifying yourself as a Protestant. Is that what you wish to do?

God love you,
Paul
 
Godhead said:
AS NIETZSCHE SAID, HE WHO LAUGHS LAST LAUGHS BEST.
Click to expand...
Who Said…
“He who laughs last laughs best.”

It’s in the song traditionally sung at the beginning of the Friday night Shabbat meal, Eishet Chayil, “A Woman of Valor,” which is actually a quotation from the end of Proverbs 31:25. The precise quote: v’tishchak l’yom acharon, “…and she will laugh on the last day.” The commentaries explain that the Jewish homemaker described in admiring terms in the verses that are sung will rejoice in the knowledge that all of her self-sacrifice in raising a family will earn her eternal reward in the world to come. Nor will she laugh only at the end of her days, since the knowledge of her task’s importance fills her present days with joy as well. This may be discerned in the phrase, l’yom acharon. B’yom acharon would have meant that she will laugh on the last day. L’yom acharon translates literally to the last day, meaning that the knowledge of her ultimate reward will carry her in joy all of her life right up to and including the last day.
I got that from e-geress.org/wsi/wsi_2.htm. Definitely not Nietzsche. Also, 1) all caps on the Internet is a sign of very bad manners, and 2) the Apocrypha was included in the Authorized Version because of its spiritual value, not b/c of its canonicity. IIRC, the translators of the KJV said that in the preface. Now, will you please address other posters’ arguments rather than being silly? You’re giving teenagers a bad name.
 
😊 It won’t let me edit my post so I’m adding that this was definitely not written in a spirit of charity. Sorry.
 
😊 Sorry. Above not made in spirit of charity, but rather of sourness. Gomen nasai.
 
Godhead said:
Wrong. look it up. The apocrypha was too included in the original translation of the king james bible in 1611
Click to expand...
LOL thanks for responding to a point I never made! :rolleyes:

The part I bolded of your quote (if you were clever enough to catch that) said the Deuterocanonicals are never used in the Mass readings. I gave hard evidence that this is false. You’re only staying off that subject because you were irrefutably proven wrong. It’s okay though, nobody is paying attention to your little sideshow anyway.
Never heard any of the apocrypha read aloud at mass. Not in my entire life.
Click to expand...
Well how special.
 
Godhead said:
Wrong. At least I’m smart enough to know that the story of creation was an allegory, unlike fools who know nothing of scriptural history–saying that Adam and Eve were real people, when anyone who knows anything knows that the original Hebrew words were man and woman. GO AHEAD I DARE YOU TO CHALLENGE ME AND TELL ME I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WHAT I SPEAK OF. I DARE YOU. ONLY A FOOL BELIEVES THAT THERE WAS REALLY A TALKING SERPENT THAT TEMPTED ADAM AND EVE. ANYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT HISTORICAL SYMBOLISM WOULD KNOW THAT THE SERPENT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A SYMBOL OF WISDOM. ONLY A FOOL WOULD BELIEVE THAT THE EARTH WAS CREATED IN SEVEN DAYS. GO AHEAD TELL ME I DON’T KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT. THERE NEVER WAS REALLY ANY TREE IN THE MIDST OF ANY GARDEN AND THERE WAS NEVER REALLY ANY COMMAND TO NOT EAT FROM THE TREE. MAN CAME ACROSS THE SERPENT OR WISDOM AND THAT IS WHAT OPENED HIS EYES TO GOOD AND EVIL. BELIEVE THE LIE. O SERPENT REPRESENTS THE DEVIL? BELIEVE THE LIE. CALL ME A FOOL. WE WILL SEE WHO IS THE FOOL IN THE END, AS NIETZSCHE SAID, HE WHO LAUGHS LAST LAUGHS BEST.
Click to expand...
Hi, please let your mommy know there’s something wrong with your computer’s “Caps Lock” key… She will appreciate that you told her. Thanks a bunch! 🙂
 
PaulDupre said:
Sorry, kid, but you’re dead wrong on this one. I am a lector and do the readings about twice a month, and we read from the 7 deuterocanonicals quite often. For instance, we often read from the Book of Wisdom around Pentecost, because the Book of Wisdom is all about the Holy Spirit.

I would bet that you’ve heard the deutero’s read in mass, but didn’t know they were deutero’s.

And yes, the 7 books were in the original KJV, then in a later edition they were moved to an appendix at the back, then later still were dropped altogether. In order to get them now, you must buy a Catholic bible.

Paul
Click to expand...
I think he’s referring to certain writings that have totally been left out of the canon and aren’t included in the Bible under any description. For example the Gospel of Thomas and the Dead Sea Scrolls which he mentioned earlier.
 
LilyM said:
I think he’s referring to certain writings that have totally been left out of the canon and aren’t included in the Bible under any description. For example the Gospel of Thomas and the Dead Sea Scrolls which he mentioned earlier.
Click to expand...
No, because he mentioned the books being in the original KJV… (which nobody denied in the first place :rolleyes: ) I think all his incessant squawking really IS about the Deutero’s.
 
exoflare said:
No, because he mentioned the books being in the original KJV… (which nobody denied in the first place :rolleyes: ) I think all his incessant squawking really IS about the Deutero’s.
Click to expand...
Oh well, if that’s the case then he’s just totally off his meds 🙂
 
Godhead said:
No I’m not. The apocrypha was in fact included in the original translation of the King James bible in 1611. etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html
Believe me I saw it with my own eyes. Believe it or not but I know how to read.
Click to expand...
Don’t know about your reading, but your hearing doesn’t seem to be too good, if you’ve never heard them. The Book of Wisdom (aka Sirach) for one is quite frequently read from in Catholic masses.

In case you hadn’t noticed, GH, you do happen to be on a Catholic forum. We accept and always have accepted, and read from, the Deuterocanonicals - all the books that you saw there in the KJB.

You don’t appear to know the differences between Catholic doctrine and teaching and those of other Christian groups - for example the Anglicans who produced and then removed some books from the KJB.

And no we Catholics DON’T take a super-literalist, or even a particularly literalist, view of Genesis (or at least it’s not required in Catholic teaching). We don’t, for example, believe that the devil is literally a snake. But we do believe that he literally exists and has some sort of hand in all evil that goes on in the world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top