are there books left out of the bible?

[puritan lad]

The Apocryphal books were rejected by the ancient Hebrews, and never referred to by Christ. There is a possible reference to an apocryphal book in Jude (the dispute over the body of Moses), but such a reference is hardly proof for inspiration any more than references to the Book of the Wars of the LORD (Numbers 21:14), or the book of Jashar (2 Samuel 1:18).

The ultimate proof of the uninspired nature of the Apocrypha are the multitude of gross historical errors, such as multiple references to Nebuchadnezzar being "king of the Assyrians" and ruling from Nineveh in the book of Judith.

[Byblos]

The Apocryphal books were rejected by the ancient Hebrews,

They are included in the LXX which was used by many Jews of the time and which was extensively quoted from by Jesus.

and never referred to by Christ.

If you want to use this argument then there are many other books not referred to by Christ which are still part of the Bible; perhaps they should be removed as well.

There is a possible reference to an apocryphal book in Jude (the dispute over the body of Moses), but such a reference is hardly proof for inspiration any more than references to the Book of the Wars of the LORD (Numbers 21:14), or the book of Jashar (2 Samuel 1:18).

Nor a non-reference is proof of non-inspiration.

The ultimate proof of the uninspired nature of the Apocrypha are the multitude of gross historical errors, such as multiple references to Nebuchadnezzar being "king of the Assyrians" and ruling from Nineveh in the book of Judith.

Ultimate proof? Based on whose standards?

And welcome back PL .

[puritan lad]

Thanks Byblos,

The standard, for one, would be the true prophets of God in the Old Testament, who correctly identified Nebuchadnezzar as the king of Babylon

2 Kings 24:1
2 Chronicles 36:6
Ezra 2:1
Nehemiah 7:6
Esther 2:6
Jeremiah 21:1
Ezekiel 26:7
Daniel 1:1

Now either the writer of Judith was mistaken, or else the rest of these prophets were wrong.

This is just one of many historical errors in the Apocrypha.

[puritan lad]

Another goodie...

"This, then, is how matters turned out with Nicanor. And from that time the city has been in the possession of the Hebrews. So I too will here end my story. If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do. For just as it is harmful to drink wine alone, or, again, to drink water alone, while wine mixed with water is sweet and delicious and enhances one's enjoyment, so also the style of the story delights the ears of those who read the work. And here will be the end." (2 Maccabees 15:37-40)

"The best I could do"??? Sounds like a human writing to me, certainly not like a Word inspired by the Living God?

[Byblos]

Thanks Byblos,

The standard, for one, would be the true prophets of God in the Old Testament, who correctly identified Nebuchadnezzar as the king of Babylon

2 Kings 24:1
2 Chronicles 36:6
Ezra 2:1
Nehemiah 7:6
Esther 2:6
Jeremiah 21:1
Ezekiel 26:7
Daniel 1:1

Now either the writer of Judith was mistaken, or else the rest of these prophets were wrong.

This is just one of many historical errors in the Apocrypha.

The writer of Judith certainly was not mistaken. Perhaps the error was in the translation. Here's a link that explains which Nebuchadnezzar exactly it was that 'Judith' was most likely referring to.

I believe many other objections are addressed there as well.

[Byblos]

Another goodie...

"This, then, is how matters turned out with Nicanor. And from that time the city has been in the possession of the Hebrews. So I too will here end my story. If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do. For just as it is harmful to drink wine alone, or, again, to drink water alone, while wine mixed with water is sweet and delicious and enhances one's enjoyment, so also the style of the story delights the ears of those who read the work. And here will be the end." (2 Maccabees 15:37-40)

"The best I could do"??? Sounds like a human writing to me, certainly not like a Word inspired by the Living God?

So it's not inspired because the writer recognized he was human?

[puritan lad]

Byblos,

With all due respect, this sounds like you want the Apocrypha to be considered as inspired, as opposed to supporting any basis why it should be. I could accept the "error in translation", if it were from Hebrew or Aramaic to Greek, and there were other manuscripts besides the Alexandrian text that actually included the Apocrypha. The problem is that there are no Hebrew manuscripts that ever included the Apocrypha as part of the canon. The LXX is the only one, and it is already in Greek. How can there be a translation error when there is no translation?

Besides, even in the unlikely event that one could produce an ancient Hebrew manuscript with the Apocrypha, this translation error would be pretty major. The two words Babylon (בּבל bâbel) and Assyria (אשּׁוּר ash-shoor') are hardly similar enough to warrant such an error, especially that many times.

You may well write it off as a copiest error, and that would be acceptable if there was only one occurance. But the error occurs 3 times in the first chapter alone (4 if you include the reference to the city of Nineveh, which didn't even exist in Nebuchadnezzar's day.)

In regards to the Maccabee passage, it's not that the writer recognized that He was human (I'm pretty sure Moses recognized this as well), it's the wording of this "inspired" piece in contrast with the nature of inspired prophecy. When prophecy is truly inspired, it is inerrant, infallible, and authoritative. Anything less than that resulted in death for the prophet.

"I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.'" (Deuteronomy 18:18-20)

The same is true regarding New Testament prophecy (2 Peter 1:19-21). Throughout the inspired passages, we constantly see these characteristics. And no where do we see God's prophets placing their writings before their audience, apologizing for either the contents or the structure in case they are poorly written. This type of "inspired prophecy" may meet the standards of modern day charismatics, but not that of God's Word. So it's not that the writer was human, but as the Westminster divines correctly observed, the writings themselves are of human origin, and nothing more.

[Byblos]

And it sounds to me like the LXX is being summarily dismissed only because it was written in Greek and not Hebrew when it existed before either the Vulgate or the Masoretic text, was widely used by the Jews of the time, especially Jesus and the apostles, and most importantly, that there was no mention of any Christian objection of any kind to the inclusion of the so-called apocrypha in it until 1,500 years later. Sorry but I err on the side of history on that one (at a minimum).

[Byblos]

The two words Babylon (בּבל bâbel) and Assyria (אשּׁוּר ash-shoor') are hardly similar enough to warrant such an error, especially that many times.

Addressing this issue in particular, the link I provided does not contend in any way that Babylon was mistranslated as Assyria. It contends that indeed there was a different person altogether (who was a leader in Assyria) mistakenly translated as Nebuchadnezzar (of Babylon). Judith is referring to an entirely different person/battle/area.

[puritan lad]

And it sounds to me like the LXX is being summarily dismissed only because it was written in Greek and not Hebrew

Not so. But that does cause a problem for any so called "errors in translation" in the Apocrypha, since there was no translation.

when it existed before either the Vulgate or the Masoretic text,

So did the Eluma Enish

was widely used by the Jews of the time,

Most Jews used the Palenstinian Canon, for The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews (Romans 3:2)

especially Jesus and the apostles,

But no use of the Apocrypha

and most importantly, that there was no mention of any Christian objection of any kind to the inclusion of the so-called apocrypha in it until 1,500 years later.

Not so. There has always been plenty of objection to these books. In fact, Philo, an Alexandrian, rejected them early on. The Roman church itself did not universally accept these books as inspired until the Council of Trent. These points, however, require more research than I'm willing to push for at this time.

To summarize, the books of the Apocrypha are rejected as inspired because...

1.) They contradict the rest of Scripture.
2.) The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews, not the Greeks.
3.) They are full of errors, as previously noted. They aren't even good history books, much less authoritative on Spiritual things.
4.) They testify themselves to be mere human writings, perhaps even "poorly written" ones. In fact, not once does the Lord speak, or even claim to speak, in these books.
5.) They were never included in what is the modern concept of a "canon" until the 15th Century.

[Byblos]

As always my intention is not to debate these points, they've been debated for far too long. Only to clarify or to show another point of view:

Long before Trent or the reformation (source):

"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

"It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

[puritan lad]

It is no surprise that a few papal councils accept the Apocrypha, but it does not refute my statement that "The Roman church itself did not universally accept these books as inspired until the Council of Trent." Surely you know that Augustine and Jerome rejected them. Gregory the Great did not accept, at the very least, the book of Macabees as inspired. There are many others church leaders who, throughout the centuries, rejected these books, including Roman leaders.

Of course, the Roman church could have been mistaken at these various points, but surely you cannot accept that.

Here is a very good article showing that Christ and His Apostles accepted only those books written by the prophets as authoritative. Since the Apocrypha was not written by any of the prophets, they are not authoritative, and thus not inspired.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetic ... ticle2.htm

[Byblos]

It is no surprise that a few papal councils accept the Apocrypha, but it does not refute my statement that "The Roman church itself did not universally accept these books as inspired until the Council of Trent." Surely you know that Augustine and Jerome rejected them. Gregory the Great did not accept, at the very least, the book of Macabees as inspired. There are many others church leaders who, throughout the centuries, rejected these books, including Roman leaders.

Of course, the Roman church could have been mistaken at these various points, but surely you cannot accept that.

Here is a very good article showing that Christ and His Apostles accepted only those books written by the prophets as authoritative. Since the Apocrypha was not written by any of the prophets, they are not authoritative, and thus not inspired.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetic ... ticle2.htm

Of course it refutes it as 3 distinct councils made specific canon pronouncements as to what was or was not accepted as canon, way before you claim it occurred. And I wouldn't be so dismissive of those councils if I were you considering It was those same councils that gave us the books of the New Testament. I wonder why the same authority is accepted for the NT yet rejected for the OT (and accepted from those who rejected Christ).

As for Augustine, you couldn't be more wrong:

"The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).

"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place" (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).

[puritan lad]

The first quote is new to me. But it does contradict what he wrote elsewhere concerning Maccabees. The second quote shows that Augustine did not put the book of Maccabees on par with the Old Testament Scriptures in terms of authority. Add to this...

"For by consulting the Gospel we learn that Christ is the Truth. From this time, when the temple was rebuilt, down to the time of Aristobulus, the Jews had not kings but princes; and the reckoning of their dates is found, not in the Holy Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, among which are also the books of the Maccabees. These are held as canonical, not by the Jews, but by the Church, on account of the extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs, who, before Christ had come in the flesh, contended for the law of God even unto death, and endured most grievous and horrible evils" [NPNF1, Vol. 2, Augustin, City of God, Book XVIII. 36]

In any case, the Jewish Canon was established long before any of these Roman Councils. Christ and the Apostles only recognized the words of the prophets as authoritative, as can be seen by many passages. The church was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, none of which wrote the Apocrypha.

My objections to these books have been clearly stated, and the debate is no small matter (Rev. 22:18-19). I'm willing to let the reader decide based on what I have presented.

[Byblos]

I'm willing to let the reader decide based on what I have presented.

As am I. Thank you PL, it is always a pleasure talking to you.