Ark encounter

[RickD]

Yes crochet,

We all know that Catholics do rely on God's word. It's just that they've added a few books to His word. Or, did we delete a few books?

You deleted them, on the authority of non-Christians...

Thanks for clearing that up. I certainly don't want to come under the condemnation of the Catholic Church.

[Storyteller]

Byblos, for what its worth. I think you understand Gods Word pretty well. Specially for a catholic

[RickD]

Byblos, for what its worth. I think you understand Gods Word pretty well. Specially for a catholic

Ouch!

[Storyteller]

Nah, he knows how much I respect him.

And his faith.

All joking aside, we all know hes a great advert for Catholicism.

[crochet1949]

I'd found an article put out by Gracethrufaith entitled "Why Aren't the Books of the Apocrypha in all Bibles. The article is from 2013 so I doubt if it's still around. But it says that The Apocrypha is normally made up of 14 books which are found in Greek and Latin translations but never in the Hebrew Old Testament. When Jerome translated the Old Testament into Latin he refused to include them within the body of the book and established a separate section he named The Apocrypha.
That they were written after the Canon of the Hebrew Bible was complete -- about 425 B.C. Those 'hidden, or secret' books "due to their doubtful authenticity the word has come to mean 'fraudulent, or forged' by some scholars.
There is a list of 8 reasons why The Apocrypha was removed from the Protestant Bible at the time of the Reformation.
1-the Apocrypha was never in the Hebrew Canon.
2- Neither Jesus Christ, nor any of the New Testament writers, ever quoted from It (Jude mentioned Enoch, but he was not the author of the books that bear his name.)
3-Josephus (well-known historian from the Biblical era) excluded them from his list of sacred scripture, He felt they were lacing authenticity or validity in essence or origins.

Will share the rest of the list if anyone is interested.

There's another article "What criteria were used to determine the canon of Scripture" from 2012. biblicaltraining.org.

Haven't looked this information up in a few years -- these articles are from researching on another Forum.

[hughfarey]

I'd found an article put out by Gracethrufaith entitled "Why Aren't the Books of the Apocrypha in all Bibles. The article is from 2013 so I doubt if it's still around.

It's still there. And it's still somewhat simplistic in its information, particularly in its attempt to characterise the Hebrew Canon, but it's roughly right.

[crochet1949]

hugh -- so you're okay with the information presented in that article?

[Byblos]

1-the Apocrypha was never in the Hebrew Canon.

The canon used at the time was the septuagent which was referenced by Jesus and the apostles extensively and it most certainly includes the deuterocanonical books.

2- Neither Jesus Christ, nor any of the New Testament writers, ever quoted from It (Jude mentioned Enoch, but he was not the author of the books that bear his name.)

There are many references I can quote but if the criterion to reject them is lack of explicit reference then perhaps it would be prudent to also toss out
Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs as they are not explicitly referenced.

3-Josephus (well-known historian from the Biblical era) excluded them from his list of sacred scripture, He felt they were lacing authenticity or validity in essence or origins.

He also had a vested interest in denying Jesus as the messiah.

[Byblos]

hugh -- so you're okay with the information presented in that article?

If he is I am authorized to revoke his membership.

[crochet1949]

I'll continue with the last 4 items in the list--
4 - during the first four centuries there was no mention made of the Apocrypha in any catalogue or canonical book. The were believed to be slipped in during the 5th century. There are a reputed to e 263 quotations and 370 allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to the Apocryphal writings.
5 -- The books of the A. were never asserted to be divinely inspired or to possess divine authority in their contents.

6-- No prophets were connected with these writings. Each book of the Old Testament was written by a man who was a prophet.
7 -- These books are replete with historical, geographical and chronological errors. In order to accept he Apocrypha one would have to reject the Old Testament narratives.
8 -- The Apocryphal doctrines and practices are contrary to the Canon of Scripture.

At the very end of the next paragraph " These books weren't written by the people whose names are mentioned in their titles, and they are neither theologically nor historically accurate. You should test the things they say against other reliable sources before accepting them as valid."

[hughfarey]

Thanks, Byblos!! I should have been clearer. The reasons given are more or less the reasons why those books are rejected by some protestant sects. That's roughly right. Each reason by itself is either untrue, irrelevant or meaningless, which is why the Apochrypha are canonical to Catholics.

1) Is untrue.
2) Is irrelevant.
3) Is irrelevant.
4) Is untrue.
5) Is untrue.
6) Is meaningless.
7) Is meaningless.
Is untrue.

The references to the Hebrew canon suggest that even after the establishment of the Christian Church, the principal authority for what was or was not inspired by God was the Jewish Religion, to which Protestants had perforce to submit after they rejected Rome. Appealing to a sychophantic Jewish historian for religious authority is particularly egregious, I feel.

[crochet1949]

There was enough concern about the Apocryphal books that they are Not included in the 'Protestant' Bible.

So - we have the Ark encounter - - Which is part of God's Word because He put it in His Word for mankind to read about. The only human beings 'saved' in the ark - that was provided for them by God - were Noah and his grown family. Everything else was destroyed by the flood. And Noah and his family started people over again. And the animals that God chose to save to start animal life over again. And then He gave us the rainbow as a promise to never destroy the earth with another flood like That again.

[PaulSacramento]

The canons we have now (the catholic and the protestant one) are perfectly fine.
There aren't any additions or omissions that impact ANY vital doctrine.
The oldest codex we have is the Sinaiticus and that one even included the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas.

The portion of the codex held by the British Library consists of 346½ folios, 694 pages (38.1 cm x 34.5 cm), constituting over half of the original work. Of these folios, 199 belong to the Old Testament, including the apocrypha (deuterocanonical), and 147½ belong to the New Testament, along with two other books, the Epistle of Barnabas and part of The Shepherd of Hermas. The apocryphal books present in the surviving part of the Septuagint are 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach.[15][16] The books of the New Testament are arranged in this order: the four Gospels, the epistles of Paul (Hebrews follows 2 Thess.), the Acts of the Apostles,[n 2] the General Epistles, and the Book of Revelation. The fact that some parts of the codex are preserved in good condition, while others are in very poor condition, implies they were separated and stored in several places.[17]

The reality is that there are apocryphal books and letters that were held in high enough esteem to be quoted by the Apostles ( Jude and Peter quote 1Enoch) and included in codex's like the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

[crochet1949]

Where is the teaching about purgatory found?

[hughfarey]

One of the commonest prayers throughout Christendom is:

"Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them. May they rest in peace."

The doctrine of purgatory may be derived from this prayer alone, but for further exposition and biblical justification, refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Paras 1030-1032).