Genesis Redux

Momma Angel wrote:

jstark,

That's not telling me much. How do you know they are books left out of the Bible? Who said so? Where can I find proof?

Let me break it down:

These were in the KJV of the Bible in 1611.

They are not in your KJV.

They were removed.

-J

0 Replies

jstark,

Am I not making myself clear? All I have is your word for this right now. I need more than that. I am trying to read this stuff and take it into consideration. But, I'm not just taking your word for it.

0 Replies

Questioner wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
Questioner,

I believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. He was perfect. He had no sin. He was in a human body yes, but He did not have worldly desires.

Let me ask a question here. If, as some believe, this is all made up, why in the world didn't they write it so there wouldn't be all these questions?

I think I attempted to answer this awhile back, if not I'll give it a go here.

The greatest falsehood is the one that has enough of a ring of truth to it to be believable, but not enough truth to be shown as a falsehood.

There's not enough evidence anywhere to prove that everything written in the bible is true. BUT, there are plenty of instances where there is an unquantifiable unknown (read: god) that is the generic answer for all questions regarding the lack of evidence or proof.

Example #1 "Why, if God loves the world enough to send Jesus, his son, to die painfully . . . why then does he not love the world enough to remove disease? or stop wars? or (fill in the blank)?"

Answer #1 "It's God's will, and who are we to question god's will?"

Example #2 "How could the world have possibly been created in 7 days?"

Answer #2 "God is all powerful, he can do anything and make it look just as he intended it, fossil records and all."

The more people ask these questions, the more they are affirmed that God is all powerful, because WE obviously don't understand the reasoning. It has all the appareances of a cleverly-built con, yet it keeps so many people in power (Rome, megachurch officials, many small countries) that it will continue to be perpetuated.

This isn't all to say that this is the way it truly is, nor is a suggestion that you should drop your beliefs at once and move on to something else. It's merely an unbeliever's answer to your question.

BTW: I'm still awaiting your email.

Hi ?er,

Is it a 'cleverly-built con' just because you can't understand it?

It would seem fairly evident that if you or I could understand everything regarding a being called God, then that being could not really be God in the classic sense of an omnipotent, omniscient Being.

We can flatter ourselves that WE will be able to understand it, but it would seem that this is just self delusion.

You asked earlier when anyone had witnessed a 'miracle of Biblical proportions'.

I suppose the answer depends on your definition of what that is, but I can tell you from experience that I have seen answers to prayer that I had no control or influence over whatsoever. This has happened numerous times.

(It's not because God likes me more than you, I can tell you.)

This happens when you:

---Find out when and under what circumstances God says He will answer prayer.

---Be sure that you are meeting all of those conditions.

---Pray; asking God consistently and specifically.

But I can tell you that even after experiencing this many times, I cannot understand God. My brain goes TILT.

0 Replies

momma, he's not making it up. Try www.encarta.com, search on "apocrypha". It's not new, secret knowledge. The bible is mutable. The Catholic one isn't the protestant one isn't the Mormon one.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

jstark,

Am I not making myself clear? All I have is your word for this right now. I need more than that. I am trying to read this stuff and take it into consideration. But, I'm not just taking your word for it.

Wikipedia wrote:

The original printing of the King James Version included the "Apocrypha", so named in the text. This section includes the "deuterocanonical books" accepted as canonical by Roman Catholicism, but no longer considered Scripture under the Thirty-Nine Articles, the doctrinal confession of the Church of England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KJV

-J

0 Replies

jstark,

Ok. I looked up those books. Read some of it. Then, I went to gotquestions.org which I find a highly credible Christian site. This is what they had to say about those books:

Roman Catholics Bibles have several more books in the Old Testament than Christian Bibles. These books are referred to as the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books. The Apocrypha were written primarily in the time between the Old and New Testaments. The nation of Israel treated the Deuterocanonical books with respect, but never accepted them as true books of the Hebrew Bible. The early Christian church debated the status of the Apocrypha, but almost always rejected them from being included in the Bible. Probably the most conclusive argument against the Deuterocanonical books being included in the Bible is the fact that the New Testament nowhere quotes or alludes to any of the Apocryphal books.

The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books teach many things that are not true and are not historically accurate. The Roman Catholic church officially added the Apocrypha to their Bible after the Protestant Reformation because it supports some of the things that the Roman Catholic church believes and practices which are not in agreement with the Bible. Some of what the Apocrypha says is true and correct, but if you read it, you have to treat it as a fallible historical document, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.

http://www.gotquestions.org/apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html

0 Replies

And gotquestions is in touch with the word of god, while the catholic church which can claim direct descent from the apostles is not, because?

momma, I don't believe what either of them, or you believe,but that argument, which boils down to "it's not the word of god because it's not the word of god" is incredibly lame.

0 Replies

No one said you had to accept it, username. But there is no need to call my argument incredibly lame.

Can you tell me how the catholic church can claim direct descent from the apostles?

0 Replies

Especially because it's what just about every sect of Christianity says:we've got the direct pipeline. What we say is what god says, and when every single other sect disagrees with us, they're wrong, because we know because we're in touch with god. Sorry, but it's hard to distill any truth about it when you can't even agree among yourselves.

0 Replies

I'm not calling your argument lam, momma, I'm calling gotquestions' argument lame. The catholic church claims that (You know the argument, Jesus said he'd build his church onthe rock, Peter (Petrus=the rock) and the popes claim continuous succession from him. That's how they claim it; you guys started from a schismatic four hundred years ago.

0 Replies

username wrote:

Especially because it's what just about every sect of Christianity says:we've got the direct pipeline. What we say is what god says, and when every single other sect disagrees with us, they're wrong, because we know because we're in touch with god. Sorry, but it's hard to distill any truth about it when you can't even agree among yourselves.

Well, you made the statement so I figured you had some reference.

I looked up more of those books:

"What is the book of Enoch and should it be in the Bible?"

The Biblical book of Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch in verses 14-15, "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." Does that mean the book of Enoch is inspired by God and should be in the Bible?

This is not the only Biblical quote from a non-Biblical source. The Apostle Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but that does not mean we should give any additional authority to Epimenides' writings. The same is true with Jude verse 14. Jude quoting from Enoch 1:9 does not indicate the entire book is inspired, or even true. All it means is that particular verse is true. It is interesting to note that no scholars believe the Book of Enoch to have truly been written by the Enoch in the Bible. As you said, Enoch was seven generations from Adam, prior to the Flood (Genesis 5:1-24). Evidently, though, this particular quote was genuinely something that Enoch prophesied - or the Bible would not attribute it to him, "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men" (Jude 14). This saying of Enoch was evidently handed down by tradition, and eventually recorded in the Book of Enoch.

I believe we should treat the Book of Enoch (and the other books like it) in the same manner we do the apocrypha. Some of what the Apocrypha says is true and correct, but at the same time, much of it is false and historically inaccurate. If you read these books, you have to treat them as interesting but fallible historical documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

jstark,

Ok. I looked up those books. Read some of it. Then, I went to gotquestions.org which I find a highly credible Christian site. This is what they had to say about those books:

[snip]

http://www.gotquestions.org/apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html

MA,

I don't see how any of that is relevant to them being in the original KJV of the Bible, then being removed. The point is King James saw them fit for print. So in his Bible, they were there. Now they are gone.

-J

0 Replies

And here's some more on 'the missing books.'

"What are the lost books of the Bible?"

Answer: There are no lost books of the Bible or books that were taken out of the Bible. There are many legends and rumors of "lost books" but there is no truth whatsoever to these stories. Every book that God intended and inspired to be in the Bible is in the Bible. There are literally hundreds of religious books that were written in the same time period as the books of the Bible. Some of these books contain true accounts of things that genuinely occurred (1 Maccabees for example). Some of them contain good spiritual teaching (the wisdom of Solomon for example). However, these books are not inspired by God. If we read any of these books, the Apocrypha as an example, we have to treat them as fallible historical books, not as the inspired, inerrant Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The gospel of Thomas, for example, was a book written in the 3rd or 4th century A.D. as a forgery, claiming to have been written by the Apostle Thomas. It was not written by Thomas. The early church fathers almost universally rejected the gospel of Thomas as being heretical. It contains many false and heretical things that Jesus supposedly said and did. None of it (or at best very little of it) is true. The Epistle of Barnabas was not written by the Biblical Barnabas, but by an imposter. The same can be said of the gospel of Philip, the apocalypse of Peter, the book of Enoch, etc. The Bible is the complete Word of God. Why would God allow a book that He inspired to not be included in the Bible for 2000+ years?

0 Replies

jstark,

I have asked you a couple of times now. Where can I find proof of that, other than your word? I am looking at all this stuff you post and I am doing research on my own. But, where can I go to find those books in the KJV in the first place?

0 Replies

The Catholics say they've got the straight goods. You say you've got the straight goods. Jerry Falwell says he's got the straight goods. Osama binLaden says he's got the straight goods. The Dalai Lama says he's got the straight goods (he may). When so many people think they've got the truth, and they all are at each others rhetorical throats, I kind of think none of them have the truth.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

And here's some more on 'the missing books.'

"What are the lost books of the Bible?"

MA,

These books were never lost. They were removed. They have always been with us. They were in the KJV, so clearly they are not lost.

-J

0 Replies

And one more time, jstark, please tell me where I can find the KJV with these books in it?

0 Replies

momma, it would seem clear that you've got to look at one of the early editions of the KJV. Try the rare books room of a major library.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

jstark,

I have asked you a couple of times now. Where can I find proof of that, other than your word? I am looking at all this stuff you post and I am doing research on my own. But, where can I go to find those books in the KJV in the first place?

Well, I have them in paper back on my desk here. They are all over the web, for example a Google search of "King James Apocrypha" turned them up here (they are near the bottom):

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html

-J

0 Replies

Finally! Thank you. But, I am afraid that I agree with what gotquestions.org says about them. Also, I just spoke with a Minister and asked him about these books. He says he agrees with the answers found about this issue on gotquetions.org.

But, I am going to read these.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know