If the Bible was first discovered in the Qumran caves near the Dead Sea...

[Twilight Hue]

The problem is you approached the problem in an awkward way, Yes, the scripture evolved with the evolution of the cultures, religious beliefs and scripture centering on Judaism and Christianity as they became religions with a relatively fixed scripture.The scripture evolve up until ~400 BCE? to 200 AD for Judaism, and ~200 to 400 AD for Christianity.

New perspectives on the Bible as evolved scripture began in the 18th and 19th Century. Our recent discoveries including the vast Sumerian, Babylonian, Canaanite and Ugarit cuneiform tablets have traced the roots of the Pentateuch back to the Sumerian culture.

My Approach is based on timelines and discovered artifacts.

Obviously later discoveries weren't known by people prior to the discoveries themselves.

This leaves the question as to what they had to go by earlier on. How they themselves discovered and acquired their information.

I found the Septuagint to be an incredibly useful example as it can be compared with the Dead Sea Scrolls for which I'm sure the Catholic church in medieval days weren't aware of.

By comparing the Septuagint with the Dead Sea Scrolls you can see any similarities, differences, add-ons or omissions to get a picture of how the Bible had morphed throughout the centuries.

It looks awkward because it's like a jigsaw puzzle. Bits and pieces scattered around everywhere, and still figuring how to put it together in order to get the whole picture.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How could you possibly know that my Catholic church is "unusual" in this regard?

The rest of you post is "interesting", but I'll just leave it at that.

Because the record--including the Reformation and the current record--as well as my experience, shows that Rome dislikes getting the Word into adherents--they tend to leave Rome.

I cited 9 reasonable, testable, verifiable reasons to reject the apocrypha. Rather than hand wave, feel free to pick apart one or two...

 

[BilliardsBall]

By this metric, the entire Bible is off.

No, I chose that metric because there the apocrypha is defunct, but the Bible is stellar. But be aware: Even if the Bible contains contradictions--which is does not--you are subject to its doctrines and its God IMHO. Not an excuse!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Rome's sword, trumped all. It is the winners who write the history books. It is the traditions of the nations/Gentiles fathers which are the "falsehood" (Jeremiah 16:19)

New American Standard Bible Jeremiah 16:19
O LORD, my strength and my stronghold, And my refuge in the day of distress, To You the nations will come From the ends of the earth and say, "Our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood, Futility and things of no profit."

Exactly, I was being facetious. But to "fight" Rome IMHO, we tell people off this forum that Jesus is salvation, not Rome's many works and practices.

 

[metis]

Because the record--including the Reformation and the current record--as well as my experience, shows that Rome dislikes getting the Word into adherents--they tend to leave Rome.

You are dealing with the past, not the present. Times change, and many of the things that used to be done no longer are, and that includes some of the Protestant practices as well, such as burning "witches" and "warlocks" and the genocide of Amerindians.

I cited 9 reasonable, testable, verifiable reasons to reject the apocrypha. Rather than hand wave, feel free to pick apart one or two...

Have you actually read them word for word? Not only have I read them but I also studied them, and there is literally nothing in them that goes against what's found in the other books. Matter of fact, in Luther's first Bible he put them in, located between the OT and NT, and I know that some largely Protestant Bibles in recent decades also did as such.

BTW, the Apocrypha weren't the only books that we controversial that are now in the Bible, such as the book of Hebrews and Revelation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The thing is, medieval Catholics never discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls.

It would suggest the Catholics had something else just as relevant for which they based the Bible on during the Middle Ages. They had to have had something to go by. Right?

What exactly did they have themselves to reproduce the complete Bible, since the Dead Sea Scrolls among other discoveries were basically unknown back in the Middle Ages?

Good point:

There were thousands of early fragments available, and copyists handled it/copied carefully, Jewish and Gentile, as if it was all the Word of God.

 

[metis]

But to "fight" Rome IMHO, we tell people off this forum that Jesus is salvation, not Rome's many works and practices.

That's nonsense because the Catholic Church does teach that salvation comes from Jesus and God, not just from "works and practices". Why are you inventing or parroting this when it's so easy nowadays to look up?

 

[metis]

There were thousands of early fragments available, and copyists handled it/copied carefully, Jewish and Gentile, as if it was all the Word of God.

Working with the DSS is a joint project that also includes Catholics, and the minor adjustments that had to be made in the scriptures are also found in today's Catholic Bibles, and I have two of them, the NAB and the RSV Catholic Bible.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, I chose that metric because there the apocrypha is defunct, but the Bible is stellar. But be aware: Even if the Bible contains contradictions--which is does not--you are subject to its doctrines and its God IMHO. Not an excuse!

Givin that the Dead Sea Scrolls and other biblical artifacts were not discovered yet and regarded as completely unknown, what did people prior to those discoveries have to go by if not the Septuagint of which the Apocrypha was a part of?

 

[shunyadragon]

M
Obviously later discoveries weren't known by people prior to the discoveries themselves.

This leaves the question as to what they had to go by earlier on. How they themselves discovered and acquired their information.

I found the Septuagint to be an incredibly useful example as it can be compared with the Dead Sea Scrolls for which I'm sure the Catholic church in medieval days weren't aware of.

There really is no problem of being aware of the ancient texts that evolved into the Pentateuch and the other texts of Old Testament. The Septuagint was known as early as at least the 2nd century, and versions of the Pentateuch were known earlier than the Dead Sea Scrolls, likely at least the 4th century BCE. Going back to the exile period of the Hebrews in Babylonia the Hebrews had direct access to the cuneiform tablets that contained similar texts as Genesis and other parts of the Pentateuch and the Psalms.

By comparing the Septuagint with the Dead Sea Scrolls you can see any similarities, differences, add-on's or omissions to get a picture of how the Bible had morphed throughout the centuries.

It looks awkward because it's like a jigsaw puzzle. Bits and pieces scattered around everywhere, and still figuring how to put it together in order to get the whole picture.

The bits and pieces found do indicate the scripture available not only at the time but the evolving scripture over time. The actual differences between the Dead Sea scrolls is not significant, but does indicate the evolving nature of scripture.

Most ancient religions view their scriptures as set, complete, unchanged for the most part, and specific to authorship in history, but the reality worldwide is all the scriptures of the religions morphed and evolved over time.

In my view this fits the view of scripture, the Baha'i Faith, that scripture and Revelation evolves over time and the fallible human influence is abundantly apparent. This dynamic nature of Revelation and knowledge is more nature to the evolving history of our world. Ancient religions reflect a more tribal exclusive perspective of their scripture and beliefs particularly in relation to those who believe, this impacts the relationship between religions and belief systems today. As religions evolve the scope of relationships evolve beyond the ancient tribal view.

 

[2ndpillar]

Exactly, I was being facetious. But to "fight" Rome IMHO, we tell people off this forum that Jesus is salvation, not Rome's many works and practices.

The name Yeshua, means YHWY saves. It is YHWY who saves. Yeshua, is just the "Branch", the "arm of the LORD" . It is the "branch" from Jesse's roots which will "bear fruit". It is the "beast" of Revelation 13:3, Julius Caesar, who is called a god. And when he is worshipped, the "dragon is worshipped" (Revelation 13:4). The Roman church is worshipping the "beast's" god, Sol Invictus, and his sister, Astarte/Easter.

New American Standard Bible (Isaiah 4:2)
In that day the Branch of the LORD will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth will be the pride and the adornment of the survivors of Israel.

Isaiah 11:1
A shoot will spring up from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are dealing with the past, not the present. Times change, and many of the things that used to be done no longer are, and that includes some of the Protestant practices as well, such as burning "witches" and "warlocks" and the genocide of Amerindians.
Have you actually read them word for word? Not only have I read them but I also studied them, and there is literally nothing in them that goes against what's found in the other books. Matter of fact, in Luther's first Bible he put them in, located between the OT and NT, and I know that some largely Protestant Bibles in recent decades also did as such.

BTW, the Apocrypha weren't the only books that we controversial that are now in the Bible, such as the book of Hebrews and Revelation.

Times change--but Roman doctrine hasn't--salvation is by works, antithetical to every Protestant sect, ever.

Yes, I've read the apocrypha (not every apocryphal work) and was a Bachelor's of Religion emphasizing these studies.

I'm aware of controversy over Hebrews, Revelation, James. THEY do not foul afoul of these areas, which the apocrypha (and official Roman doctrine) both do. Refute these if you feel you'd like to, instead of giving me more rhetorical "but the Bible is bad, too...":

1) Aren't accepted by the Jewish people

2) Aren't accepted by more than 99% of groups that began new church movements, via Bible study and study of non-canon books

3) Do not say, as the Bible says over 6,000 times in the OT alone, "This is the Word of God", indeed, they say things like "Here's wisdom my grandfather told me"

4) Contain teachings that contradict the Bible

5) Contain impious or "dirty" passages that are more sexual or violent in nature than the Bible

6) Were reluctantly placed in some movements to keep the peace, while adding footnotes like "of unknown origin/veracity"

7) Contain self-contradictory teachings, like Person A disagrees with Person B in the same apocrypha

8) Shows lack of character: Daniel tricking people instead of being an honest witness, the child Jesus puts a fellow child to death, etc.

9) Do not withstand any type of codes/gematria analysis

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's nonsense because the Catholic Church does teach that salvation comes from Jesus and God, not just from "works and practices". Why are you inventing or parroting this when it's so easy nowadays to look up?

Because it's true! Rome sort of teaches now to the sheep that "salvation BEGINS trusting Jesus, and must be EARNED/KEPT/MAINTAINED by works." Since the Council of Trent has never been revoked, it's worth exploring excommunicable offenses THAT ARE EASY NOWADAYS TO LOOK UP. There's a handy list on wikipedia, including DOZENS of SPECIFIC statements that only heretics to Rome, anathema (UNSAVED ACCORDING TO ROME, DEMONIC) believe in faith justification, etc.

List of excommunicable offences from the Council of Trent - Wikipedia

READ IT. EASY TO LOOK UP NOWADAYS.

The list is abominable, unbiblical, shocking--and completely in accordance with teaching of the Index of the Holy See (imprimatur, modern teachings that UPHOLD the nonsense of Trent).

By way of history, Trent was counter-reformation. See the problem yet?

IMHO Jesus Saves.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Givin that the Dead Sea Scrolls and other biblical artifacts were not discovered yet and regarded as completely unknown, what did people prior to those discoveries have to go by if not the Septuagint of which the Apocrypha was a part of?

At the time, the scriptures were extant outside the scrolls--the Essenes were simply living monastically and copying existing, known, beloved texts.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The name Yeshua, means YHWY saves. It is YHWY who saves. Yeshua, is just the "Branch", the "arm of the LORD" . It is the "branch" from Jesse's roots which will "bear fruit". It is the "beast" of Revelation 13:3, Julius Caesar, who is called a god. And when he is worshipped, the "dragon is worshipped" (Revelation 13:4). The Roman church is worshipping the "beast's" god, Sol Invictus, and his sister, Astarte/Easter.

New American Standard Bible (Isaiah 4:2)
In that day the Branch of the LORD will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth will be the pride and the adornment of the survivors of Israel.

Isaiah 11:1
A shoot will spring up from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit.

IMHO, telling Catholic they worship Astarte (even if they do) is less fruitful than comparing the born again gospel of trust to Rome's "gospel" of works, works, works, works.

Be careful YOU are in the right gospel IMHO.

 

[2ndpillar]

IMHO, telling Catholic they worship Astarte (even if they do) is less fruitful than comparing the born again gospel of trust to Rome's "gospel" of works, works, works, works.

Be careful YOU are in the right gospel IMHO.

The Roman church doesn't have a gospel of "works, works, works", it has a gospel of tithes tithes, tithes. A little tithing, and we will forgive a little sin. A lot of tithing, and we will forgive a lot of sin. Rome's over all gospel of your sins are forgiven, if you just believe us, comes from their Roman citizen, the Pharisee Paul. Of course as the false prophet, one would be well to stay clear of that false gospel of grace/cross.

 

[metis]

Times change--but Roman doctrine hasn't--salvation is by works, antithetical to every Protestant sect, ever.

Absolutely false as the believe in what Jesus taught is how we approach this, and Jesus taught that we must live in the truth of the gospel through our beliefs and actions, per the Sermon On the Mount and other teachings, such as with the Parable of the Sheep & Goats (Matthew 25). To just believe some things about Jesus, is not acceptable. IOW, we don't believe in "rocking-chair religion" whereas all one has to do is to sit around with some p.c. thoughts.

3) Do not say, as the Bible says over 6,000 times in the OT alone, "This is the Word of God", indeed, they say things like "Here's wisdom my grandfather told me"

" The Word of God" is said at the end of every single scripture reading in the Catholic Church, and never once in attending mass for over 50 years did I ever here the priest say "Here's wisdom my grandfather told me", or even anything like that.

4) Contain teachings that contradict the Bible

Each denomination tends to claim much the same about other denominations.

5) Contain impious or "dirty" passages that are more sexual or violent in nature than the Bible

Apparently you never read the Songs of Solomon in your Bible.

Anyhow, I do not know who told you the lies about what the Catholic Church teaches that you mention in your post above, but if it's the church you now attend I would suggest you find one that doesn't lie to you.



Correction: at the end of each scriptural reading in a Catholic church, the prayer is "The Word of the Lord" followed by the congregation's "Thanks be to God".

 

[metis]

IMHO, telling Catholic they worship Astarte...

We don't.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The Roman church doesn't have a gospel of "works, works, works", it has a gospel of tithes tithes, tithes. A little tithing, and we will forgive a little sin. A lot of tithing, and we will forgive a lot of sin. Rome's over all gospel of your sins are forgiven, if you just believe us, comes from their Roman citizen, the Pharisee Paul. Of course as the false prophet, one would be well to stay clear of that false gospel of grace/cross.

While Rome still has indulgences, have you read official doctrinal imprimatur materials? I have, and Rome's gospel is opposed to Paul's gospel, Paul's gospel being the SAME as the other 11 NT writers.

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Absolutely false as the believe in what Jesus taught is how we approach this, and Jesus taught that we must live in the truth of the gospel through our beliefs and actions, per the Sermon On the Mount and other teachings, such as with the Parable of the Sheep & Goats (Matthew 25). To just believe some things about Jesus, is not acceptable. IOW, we don't believe in "rocking-chair religion" whereas all one has to do is to sit around with some p.c. thoughts.

" The Word of God" is said at the end of every single scripture reading in the Catholic Church, and never once in attending mass for over 50 years did I ever here the priest say "Here's wisdom my grandfather told me", or even anything like that.

Each denomination tends to claim much the same about other denominations.

Apparently you never read the Songs of Solomon in your Bible.

Anyhow, I do not know who told you the lies about what the Catholic Church teaches that you mention in your post above, but if it's the church you now attend I would suggest you find one that doesn't lie to you.



Correction: at the end of each scriptural reading in a Catholic church, the prayer is "The Word of the Lord" followed by the congregation's "Thanks be to God".

Your post agrees with me. I believe the gospel is "trust Jesus" and as you state above:

"Jesus taught that we must live in the truth of the gospel through our beliefs and actions..."

...that is to say, works are important for salvation. Biblically speaking, they are not, and when a Roman Catholic goes to their priest to say the Bible they read tells them so, the priest eventually/invariably says, "You are reading the Bible too much/God put me here to interpret it FOR you," something you haven't yet heard from a priest because you follow their gospel of Roman works.