• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Book of Enoch?

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
doppelgänger;1048469 said:
To what are you referring? The guy who posts as a member of RF?
Why Not? Or me. Or you. Or (God forbid!) Angellous! (sinister music fanfare heard here, and the faint whinnying of horses):D
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Why Not? Or me. Or you. Or (God forbid!) Angellous! (sinister music fanfare heard here, and the faint whinnying of horses):D

You do anyway. The contents of the Canon have to be given meaning by the reader. So it's your own scripture you are reading anyway. :yes:

"All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." -Paul Simon, "The Boxer"

"You can find in a text whatever you bring, if you will stand between it and the mirror of your imagination. You may not see your ears, but they will be there." - Mark Twain, "A Fable."

I'd include both of the above in my New Revised Canonical Bible, BTW.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
doppelgänger;1048475 said:
Wait a minute . . . let's not get carried away here . . . :eek:

I'm just finishing the Fourth Book of the Musings of Daddy.

If you want to put it in your book, fine with me.:yes:
 

McBell

Unbound
Why the good old trustworthy 66 book King James Bible, written in King James English just like Jesus talked.
What I find interesting is the the very first "release" of the KJV was more than a measly 66 books...

I'm just finishing the Fourth Book of the Musings of Daddy.

If you want to put it in your book, fine with me.:yes:
Do you declare within your writings to be inspired and/or writing for God?
If not, then they cannot be included...
 

Francine

Well-Known Member
What I find interesting is the the very first "release" of the KJV was more than a measly 66 books...

That was 1611. Thirty-three years later Parliament said those extra books could not be used in the Church of England liturgy. They've been considered Papist clap-trap ever since.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
That was 1611. Thirty-three years later Parliament said those extra books could not be used in the Church of England liturgy. They've been considered Papist clap-trap ever since.

Can you please provide evidence for this?
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
I think we should make a new Bible and include many of the unincluded books.

I think so too. I still think scrutany is the key. I looked at the list of books at the site you provided and although some were good but they were written well after some of the other original gospels. But I think you might be on to something.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
And the Didache...



ummmm....the Didache:drool:.....I have a video that this guy did. He went to Jarusalem and in one of the Christian churches they allowed him to view a book that was written by James the brother of Yeshua.......We should include that one too
 

stribb

New Member
well you have to understand what the purpose of the bible is. The author of jude obviously didn't have a copy our fine niv's or nlt's or kjv's, so how did they get by? Yes the bible is God's word, but it's purpose is not to be God's word. To take the role of a reductionist I'd like to place the Bible into a box. The purpose of the Bible is to inform Jew and Gentile that God has showed infinite love and kindness to them, but this love and kindness doesn't come unconditionally; rather you must"take up your cross and follow Jesus". The rest of the content is there to help man along in his walk.
Therefore I conclude to myself that the reason that any absent book is not present is because it doesn't meet that criteria. That may have been unclear so please ask questions if it was.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
That was 1611. Thirty-three years later Parliament said those extra books could not be used in the Church of England liturgy. They've been considered Papist clap-trap ever since.

Why is it that all of the books were deemed scripture then were modified? If they were inspired by God from the get go why the change? Intresting.....
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Why is it that all of the books were deemed scripture then were modified? If they were inspired by God from the get go why the change? Intresting.....

They've been modified since the beginning. All of the scholars who handled the text knew this.
 
Top