Is the bible word perfect? (infaliable? is that the right word?)

[Quagmire]

OK so this post peaked my interest and I've done some amount of research.

According to my sources, the man who put the Septuagint together even said that they were not "books of the canon", but "books of the church".

Like Angellous said, you must be thinking of some other body of works. The history and dating of the Septuagint isn't universally agreed upon by any means, but all scholars agree it was the result of a group effort by a number of Jewish scholars (tradition puts them at 70, hence the Roman numeral LXX), which originally only contained the books of the Torah (the first 5 books of the OT and Tanach), the rest being added over the course of several generations.

There's no actual commentary about the Septuagint anywhere in the Septuagint. In any case if by "church" you mean the christian church, the Septuagint predates it by at least 150 years.

Additionally, do you know of any time that Jesus or any NT writers ever quoted from the Apocrypha?

See post 120 in this thread.

but I can think of many, many quotes from every other section of the OT.

Every book? Every prophet? I seriously doubt it. I wont ask you to list all the quotes with the corresponding books, but I will ask you how you came by this opinion.

Still, even more convincing is what Melito (2nd century bishop) said about AD 170:
"When I came to the east and reached the place where these things were preached and done, and learnt accurately the books of the Old Testament, I set down the facts and sent them to you. These are their names:..."

I'm just speculating here but inasmuch as Melito was a bishop ie, a high ranking official in the orthodox church, it shouldn't be surprising that his findings would agree with the concensus of other early orthodox church leaders--Ireaneus, Clement, Origen,..

Like I say I'm just speculating; I don't know much about the history of the OT as it pertains to the early orthodox church.

He goes on to list every Protestant OT book except Esther and none from the Apocrypha.

I actually found this interesting in that Esther is also the only OT book that isn't represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[Quagmire]

Still, I have to say, there seems to be strong evidence for my belief that the Protestant Canon are the books that Jesus considered the Old Testament.

I think calling one endorsment by one early orthodox bishop writing 150 years after the fact "strong" is a bit optimisitic.

What would be your best argument that the Apocrypha should be part of the Canon?

This is a completely different topic. We're not trying to determine if the Apocrypha should be included in the present day OT canon, we're trying to determine if these books were consider canonical by the first century Hebrews.

 

[kmkemp]

I think calling one endorsment by one early orthodox bishop writing 150 years after the fact "strong" is a bit optimisitic.

It should be noted that he was not the only one, but the earliest one (that I could find at least).

This is a completely different topic. We're not trying to determine if the Apocrypha should be included in the present day OT canon, we're trying to determine if these books were consider canonical by the first century Hebrews.

I think they are one in the same. If the Jews of Jesus' day considered them as divinely inspired, then we should as well imho.

Nonetheless, the Apocrypha being included in the Septuagint isn't really proof of much. Just because they were included doesn't mean, for example, that the Jews of the day considered them divinely inspired. I think the strongest evidence for what was considered divinely inspired are the NT quotes. So far, I know of only one quote from the whole of the Apocrypha, but there are many, many from the rest of every other section of the OT.

I'm not sure what you meant by asking me about every single book in the OT. I would have to go all the way through the NT to know for sure unless you know of a source that has counted them. I think that would be interesting. What I meant, however, is that every section (ie Torah, Prophets, etc) had been quoted extensively.

 

[Quagmire]

It should be noted that he was not the only one, but the earliest one (that I could find at least).

Unless you actually provide others, bringing them up is a mute point.

I think they are one in the same. If the Jews of Jesus' day considered them as divinely inspired, then we should as well imho.

I'm not sure what you're saying here; are you saying you see the fact that the modern church doesn't consider them canonical as proof that first century Jews didn't either?

If that's not your point I don't see the point of bringing it up.

Nonetheless, the Apocrypha being included in the Septuagint isn't really proof of much. Just because they were included doesn't mean, for example, that the Jews of the day considered them divinely inspired.

You're ignoring the evidence that they did; it's obvious from the gospels that both the common people and the religious authorities of first cent. Judea believed in theological concepts that are only found in the Apocrapha; (again) the belief in demonic possesion, the idea of Satan as God's enemy rather than His agent.

I think the strongest evidence for what was considered divinely inspired are the NT quotes. So far, I know of only one quote from the whole of the Apocrypha,

There are at least two in Jude alone (that's been pointed out in 3 posts in this thread allready, not counting this one.).

I'm not sure what you meant by asking me about every single book in the OT. I would have to go all the way through the NT to know for sure unless you know of a source that has counted them.

Yeah, I allready said that;

I wont ask you to list all the quotes with the corresponding books, but I will ask you where you came by this opinion

I think that would be interesting. What I meant, however, is that every section (ie Torah, Prophets, etc) had been quoted extensively.

The fact that every catagory, each containing several books, is represented doesn't carry much wieght since each book of the Apocrapha could just as easily fit into the same catagories.

See what I'm saying?

 

[kmkemp]

Unless you actually provide others, bringing them up is a mute point.

Eusebius quote Origen as affirming most of the books of our present OT canon (including Estehr), but no book of the Apocrypha is affirmed as canonical, and the books of Maccabees are explicityly said to be "outside of these [canonical books]."

Similarly, in AD 367, when the great church leader Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, wrote his Paschal Letter, he listed all the books of our present NT canon and all the books of our present OT canon except Esther. He also mentioned some books of the Apocrypha such as the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Judith, and Tobit, and said these are "not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness."

Quotes from "Systematic Theology" by Wayne Grudem.

I'm not sure what you're saying here; are you saying you see the fact that the modern church doesn't consider them canonical as proof that first century Jews didn't either?

If that's not your point I don't see the point of bringing it up.

My point is that our goal should be to have the same beliefs as them, since they had the best perspective and because Jesus thought that whatever they were using was correct.

You're ignoring the evidence that they did; it's obvious from the gospels that both the common people and the religious authorities of first cent. Judea believed in theological concepts that are only found in the Apocrapha; (again) the belief in demonic possesion, the idea of Satan as God's enemy rather than His agent.

I don't think they needed the Apocrypha to see that demonic possession occurred. They were witnesses. According to the NT, possessions weren't even all that rare if we just look at Jesus' ministry. As far as Satan, their beliefs could just have easily been formed by the common thought of the day (dualism etc). I'm not saying that the Apocrypha didn't have an influence on them, I'm simply saying that they didn't consider it part of the canon.

There are at least two in Jude alone (that's been pointed out in 3 posts in this thread allready, not counting this one.).

I'm sorry if I missed one, but I only remember hearing one quote from Jude and no quotes from anywhere else. Care to point those others out so I can research them?

The fact that every catagory, each containing several books, is represented doesn't carry much wieght since each book of the Apocrapha could just as easily fit into the same catagories.

See what I'm saying?

No, not really. The Jews called those books "the writings". They classified them separately for a reason. Otherwise, why didn't they take some of the books from the Apocrypha and put them in one of the other sections?

Still, even if I were to believe that their classification didn't mean anything, we still only have one quote from any of their books which would not give validity to the rest of the Apocrypha if we are not longer using references to the group of books as our measure of validity. I think it would be a much harder time for you to argue that each individual book of the Apocrypha was canonical and much easier for me to argue that at least the majority were not.

 

[kmkemp]

Unless you actually provide others, bringing them up is a mute point.

Eusebius quote Origen as affirming most of the books of our present OT canon (including Estehr), but no book of the Apocrypha is affirmed as canonical, and the books of Maccabees are explicityly said to be "outside of these [canonical books]."

Similarly, in AD 367, when the great church leader Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, wrote his Paschal Letter, he listed all the books of our present NT canon and all the books of our present OT canon except Esther. He also mentioned some books of the Apocrypha such as the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Judith, and Tobit, and said these are "not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness."

Quotes from "Systematic Theology" by Wayne Grudem.

I'm not sure what you're saying here; are you saying you see the fact that the modern church doesn't consider them canonical as proof that first century Jews didn't either?

If that's not your point I don't see the point of bringing it up.

My point is that our goal should be to have the same beliefs as them, since they had the best perspective and because Jesus thought that whatever they were using was correct.

You're ignoring the evidence that they did; it's obvious from the gospels that both the common people and the religious authorities of first cent. Judea believed in theological concepts that are only found in the Apocrapha; (again) the belief in demonic possesion, the idea of Satan as God's enemy rather than His agent.

I don't think they needed the Apocrypha to see that demonic possession occurred. They were witnesses. According to the NT, possessions weren't even all that rare if we just look at Jesus' ministry. As far as Satan, their beliefs could just have easily been formed by the common thought of the day (dualism etc). I'm not saying that the Apocrypha didn't have an influence on them, I'm simply saying that they didn't consider it part of the canon.

There are at least two in Jude alone (that's been pointed out in 3 posts in this thread allready, not counting this one.).

I'm sorry if I missed one, but I only remember hearing one quote from Jude and no quotes from anywhere else. Care to point those others out so I can research them?

The fact that every catagory, each containing several books, is represented doesn't carry much wieght since each book of the Apocrapha could just as easily fit into the same catagories.

See what I'm saying?

No, not really. The Jews called those books "the writings". They classified them separately for a reason. Otherwise, why didn't they take some of the books from the Apocrypha and put them in one of the other sections?

Still, even if I were to believe that their classification didn't mean anything, we still only have one quote from any of their books which would not give validity to the rest of the Apocrypha if we are not longer using references to the group of books as our measure of validity. I think it would be a much harder time for you to argue that each individual book of the Apocrypha was canonical and much easier for me to argue that at least the majority were not.

 

[kmkemp]

Unless you actually provide others, bringing them up is a mute point.

Eusebius quote Origen as affirming most of the books of our present OT canon (including Estehr), but no book of the Apocrypha is affirmed as canonical, and the books of Maccabees are explicityly said to be "outside of these [canonical books]."

Similarly, in AD 367, when the great church leader Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, wrote his Paschal Letter, he listed all the books of our present NT canon and all the books of our present OT canon except Esther. He also mentioned some books of the Apocrypha such as the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Judith, and Tobit, and said these are "not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness."

Quotes from "Systematic Theology" by Wayne Grudem.

I'm not sure what you're saying here; are you saying you see the fact that the modern church doesn't consider them canonical as proof that first century Jews didn't either?

If that's not your point I don't see the point of bringing it up.

My point is that our goal should be to have the same beliefs as them, since they had the best perspective and because Jesus thought that whatever they were using was correct.

You're ignoring the evidence that they did; it's obvious from the gospels that both the common people and the religious authorities of first cent. Judea believed in theological concepts that are only found in the Apocrapha; (again) the belief in demonic possesion, the idea of Satan as God's enemy rather than His agent.

I don't think they needed the Apocrypha to see that demonic possession occurred. They were witnesses. According to the NT, possessions weren't even all that rare if we just look at Jesus' ministry. As far as Satan, their beliefs could just have easily been formed by the common thought of the day (dualism etc). I'm not saying that the Apocrypha didn't have an influence on them, I'm simply saying that they didn't consider it part of the canon.

There are at least two in Jude alone (that's been pointed out in 3 posts in this thread allready, not counting this one.).

I'm sorry if I missed one, but I only remember hearing one quote from Jude and no quotes from anywhere else. Care to point those others out so I can research them?

The fact that every catagory, each containing several books, is represented doesn't carry much wieght since each book of the Apocrapha could just as easily fit into the same catagories.

See what I'm saying?

No, not really. The Jews called those books "the writings". They classified them separately for a reason. Otherwise, why didn't they take some of the books from the Apocrypha and put them in one of the other sections?

Still, even if I were to believe that their classification didn't mean anything, we still only have one quote from any of their books which would not give validity to the rest of the Apocrypha if we are not longer using references to the group of books as our measure of validity. I think it would be a much harder time for you to argue that each individual book of the Apocrypha was canonical and much easier for me to argue that at least the majority were not.

 

[Quagmire]

just a quick reply (since I'm supposed to be working right now)

My point is that our goal should be to have the same beliefs as them, since they had the best perspective and because Jesus thought that whatever they were using was correct.

That may be. it's still a seperate topic.

I'm sorry if I missed one, but I only remember hearing one quote from Jude and no quotes from anywhere else. Care to point those others out so I can research them?

See post #120 in this thread (edit: oops, didn't realise I hadn't posted the actual quotes, just mentioned their existence. Sorry, I'll try to find those for you later.)

Here are some more;


( note: Macc=Maccabees, Sir=Sirach, Wis= The Book of Wisdom, Tob.=Tobit)


1. Heb 11:35, "...Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might find a better resurrection." 2Macc 7:1-29

2. Jn 10:22, "Now there took place at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication..." This found in 1Macc 4:52-59.

3. Jn 14:23, "...If anyone love Me, he will keep My word..." This is in Sir 2:18.

4. Rom 9:21, " is not the potter master of his clay..." Found in Wis 15:7

5. 1Pet 1:6-7, "...gold which is tried by fire..." See Wis 3:5-6

6. 1Cor 10:9-10, "...perished by serpents and destroyed by the destroyer." Almost perfectly matched in Judith 8:24-25.

7. , "...when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame..." Similar to Tob 4:17.

8. Mt 13:43, "Then the just will shine forth..." Found in Wis 3:7.

9. Mt 27:42, "...if He is the King of Israel, let Him come down now from the cross..." Similar to Wis 2:18-20.
10. Mk 14:61-62, "...are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One: And Jesus said to him, I AM." similair to Wisdom 2:13.

11. Lk 2:37, "...as a widow...She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer." Found in Judith 8:4-6.

12. Lk 24:4, "...two men stood by them in dazzling raiment." Found in 2Macc 3:26.

13. Jn 16:15, "All things that the Father has are mine." Found in Wis 2:13.

14. Rom 10:6, "...Who will go up into heaven..." Found in Bar 3:29.

15. Rom 11:33, "...How inscrutable are His judgments and how unsearchable are His ways." Found in Judith 8:14.

16. 1Cor 10:20, "...they sacrifice to demons, not to God..." Found in Bar 4:7.

17. 1Jn 3:17, "If someone who has worldly means sees a brother in need and refuses him compassion, how can the love of GOD remain in him?" Found in Tob 4:7.

 

[kmkemp]

Here are some more;


( note: Macc=Maccabees, Sir=Sirach, Wis= The Book of Wisdom, Tob.=Tobit)


1. Heb 11:35, "...Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might find a better resurrection." 2Macc 7:1-29

2. Jn 10:22, "Now there took place at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication..." This found in 1Macc 4:52-59.

3. Jn 14:23, "...If anyone love Me, he will keep My word..." This is in Sir 2:18.

4. Rom 9:21, " is not the potter master of his clay..." Found in Wis 15:7

5. 1Pet 1:6-7, "...gold which is tried by fire..." See Wis 3:5-6

6. 1Cor 10:9-10, "...perished by serpents and destroyed by the destroyer." Almost perfectly matched in Judith 8:24-25.

7. , "...when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame..." Similar to Tob 4:17.

8. Mt 13:43, "Then the just will shine forth..." Found in Wis 3:7.

9. Mt 27:42, "...if He is the King of Israel, let Him come down now from the cross..." Similar to Wis 2:18-20.
10. Mk 14:61-62, "...are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One: And Jesus said to him, I AM." similair to Wisdom 2:13.

11. Lk 2:37, "...as a widow...She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer." Found in Judith 8:4-6.

12. Lk 24:4, "...two men stood by them in dazzling raiment." Found in 2Macc 3:26.

13. Jn 16:15, "All things that the Father has are mine." Found in Wis 2:13.

14. Rom 10:6, "...Who will go up into heaven..." Found in Bar 3:29.

15. Rom 11:33, "...How inscrutable are His judgments and how unsearchable are His ways." Found in Judith 8:14.

16. 1Cor 10:20, "...they sacrifice to demons, not to God..." Found in Bar 4:7.

17. 1Jn 3:17, "If someone who has worldly means sees a brother in need and refuses him compassion, how can the love of GOD remain in him?" Found in Tob 4:7.

Many of these are definitely not direct references to the Apocrypha since there are other similar references elsewhere in the Bible as well. Furthermore, macc is a historical document describing events that supposedly took place only a few generations before Christ (if I'm not mistaken, very possible). These events being referenced does nothing to show their divine inspiration. They are simply referring to factual events that they had known to have taken place.

Besides that, no one is saying that some parts of the Apocrypha don't agree with the rest of the Bible. These are far from direct references.

One example:
Judith 8:14
For ye cannot find the depth of the heart of man, neither can
ye perceive the things that he thinketh: then how can ye search
out God, that hath made all these things, and know his mind, or
comprehend his purpose? Nay, my brethren, provoke not the Lord
our God to anger.

This was referenced at number 17. At best, that is a loose paraphrase.

Another example:
" 16. 1Cor 10:20, "...they sacrifice to demons, not to God..." Found in Bar 4:7."
There are other instances where people sacrificed to false Gods (demons). You choose to use a reference where it also occurred from the Apocrypha, but it is really only wishful thinking to connect the two.

I could go through this list and do it for all of them, but it would be a terribly long post. I checked out about 10 of them and didn't find any direct references so...

 

[Quagmire]

Many of these are definitely not direct references to the Apocrypha since there are other similar references elsewhere in the Bible as well.

Yes, but many of them are.

Furthermore, macc is a historical document describing events that supposedly took place only a few generations before Christ (if I'm not mistaken, very possible). These events being referenced does nothing to show their divine inspiration.

(oh-my-God) We're not trying to determine if they were devinely inspired; we're trying to determine if the first cent. Jews considerred them inspired. Anyway possible we could stay on topic? Just to see what that feels like?

They are simply referring to factual events that they had known to have taken place.

But they're not referenced, they're plagerized. If you look at the surrounding text you can see that the borrowed lines, whoever they're specifically mean't to refer to, are lumped in with references to characters from canonical OT texts.

Besides that, no one is saying that some parts of the Apocrypha don't agree with the rest of the Bible. These are far from direct references.

One example:
Judith 8:14
For ye cannot find the depth of the heart of man, neither can
ye perceive the things that he thinketh: then how can ye search
out God, that hath made all these things, and know his mind, or
comprehend his purpose? Nay, my brethren, provoke not the Lord
our God to anger.

This was referenced at number 17. At best, that is a loose paraphrase.

How does showing me that a line from Judith that I didn't submit correlates with a line in another OT book disqualify the comparrison that I did submit?

It's sort of like trying to prove that there are palm trees in Michigan by showing me a picture of Miami.

Another example:
" 16. 1Cor 10:20, "...they sacrifice to demons, not to God..." Found in Bar 4:7."

Why not choose one of the more specific references? Granted, many of the examples I gave are fragmentary and vague, but many are not.

There are other instances where people sacrificed to false Gods (demons).

The termonolgy here is the real issue. The liturary metamorphisis of "false gods" to "demons" took place in the Apocrapha. The word "demon" isn't even used in the canonical OT.

You choose to use a reference where it also occurred from the Apocrypha, but it is really only wishful thinking to connect the two.

No, I used a reference that occors exclusively in the Apocrapha (that is if you discount your own wishful thinking).

I could go through this list and do it for all of them, but it would be a terribly long post.

Gee, I wish you would have let me know ahead of time that it was going to be this kind of debate, ie, the kind where one participant takes the time to find, collect, cross reference and submit his evidence and the other guy can just make it go away it with "Well, I could refute it if I wanted to".

I would have thrown some hobbits and unicorns in the mix just to make it interesting.

I checked out about 10 of them and didn't find any direct references so...

What does the statement, "I didn't find any direct references" mean exactly?

Anyway, here's those quotes from Jude I was talking about (allthough I think Angellous already gave these a cpl pages back);

Jude 9: Yet Michael, the archangel, when contending with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring railing accusations against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you".--this is an almost direct quote from the Apocraphal text The War of the sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness. There isn't anything even remotely related anywhere in the canonical OT.

Jude 14: And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousand of His saints, 15: to execute judgement upon all and to punish all who are ungodly..." ---from the Book of Enoch.

 

[kmkemp]

I hope you didn't get the idea that I was simply dismissing the verses you posted. I didn't have enough time to go through all of them, but I wanted to point out what I had found from the ones I had went through. I'll go through them point by point tomorrow. All I was trying to say is that, from the ones that I read, each of them could be dismissed by either:

1) they were part of a historical event that was in recent history (ie they were fairly common knowledge) to the Jews. The event being recorded in a text of the Apocrypha doesn't prove anything. Even Jews that didn't read the Apocrypha probably knew about them. Remember, this is a time of great oral tradition.

2) Vague statements that could easily have been paraphrases from other parts of the Bible as well. Also vague statements that were such a stretch that they might not have been referring to any part of the bible, whatsoever.

Still, I haven't looked at all of them. I'll do it tomorrow. Thanks for posting them.

 

[BruceDLimber]

How about another option omitted from the poll?

Perfect as originally revealed but since tampered with and at least slightly altered.

Bruce

 

[sojourner]

My point is that our goal should be to have the same beliefs as them, since they had the best perspective and because Jesus thought that whatever they were using was correct.

Who is "them?" The early Christians? Why should "their" perspective be any better than "our" perspective? Because they were earlier?

In order to see a Monet or Serrat properly, one has to stand far away from the painting. If one stands too close, the shapes and colors blur into an incomprehensible mass. Sometimes distance is a good thing. When Thomas, who had lived with Jesus, doubted his resurrection, Jesus said, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

Maybe "our" perspective is "better" than "their" perspective. That's the problem I have with Restoration theology -- the concept that earlier is necessarily better. If the Church is an organic body, it should grow and develop over time. The Church moves through time and is not a museum that captures and holds things "as they now are."

That's why the Bible is not "word perfect."

 

[Scuba Pete]

Who is "them?" The early Christians? Why should "their" perspective be any better than "our" perspective? Because they were earlier?

Have you ever played the rumor game? Start by whispering a short, short story into your neighbor's ear and end with "Pass it down". By the time you get to the last person (more than 15) the story is pretty much incomprehensible. I would rather get my news from an EYE WITNESS than via hearsay.

Sometimes distance is a good thing. When Thomas, who had lived with Jesus, doubted his resurrection, Jesus said, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

Sometimes distance IS a good thing. But not always.

Maybe "our" perspective is "better" than "their" perspective. That's the problem I have with Restoration theology -- the concept that earlier is necessarily better. If the Church is an organic body, it should grow and develop over time. The Church moves through time and is not a museum that captures and holds things "as they now are."

As an organic body, I find that there are issues when the head is cut off. Merely trying to replace it with an earthly head only creates a Frankenstein like faith. Restorationists merely go back to the first body of Christ with the Spiritual Head still intact and in control.

 

[sojourner]

Have you ever played the rumor game? Start by whispering a short, short story into your neighbor's ear and end with "Pass it down". By the time you get to the last person (more than 15) the story is pretty much incomprehensible. I would rather get my news from an EYE WITNESS than via hearsay. Sometimes distance IS a good thing. But not always. As an organic body, I find that there are issues when the head is cut off. Merely trying to replace it with an earthly head only creates a Frankenstein like faith. Restorationists merely go back to the first body of Christ with the Spiritual Head still intact and in control.

So, it's your claim, then, that historic bodies, such as the Orthodox, do not claim Christ as their head? While it's commendable to want to "get back to the roots," I'm not convinced that's possible, since we don't really know what the roots looked like.

 

[kmkemp]

So, it's your claim, then, that historic bodies, such as the Orthodox, do not claim Christ as their head? While it's commendable to want to "get back to the roots," I'm not convinced that's possible, since we don't really know what the roots looked like.

We have some information. I would guess that is better than making it up from nothing.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

We have some information. I would guess that is better than making it up from nothing.

The "some info" that we have is so scant that most people are making up stuff from 'just about nothing.'

That's where I come in.

 

[kmkemp]

( note: Macc=Maccabees, Sir=Sirach, Wis= The Book of Wisdom, Tob.=Tobit)

1. Heb 11:35, "...Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might find a better resurrection." 2Macc 7:1-29
A reference to the events that had taken place very recently, also recorded in the Apocrypha. This is a matter of oral tradition and not necessarily divine authority.

2. Jn 10:22, "Now there took place at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication..." This found in 1Macc 4:52-59.
Again, the restoration of the temple is a historic event known to have taken place that was also in the Apocrypha. The Feast of Dedication was in celebration of this event. This is not a matter of divine authority.

3. Jn 14:23, "...If anyone love Me, he will keep My word..." This is in Sir 2:18.
This is a very vague reference. This isn't necessarily in reference to any Bible verse at all.

4. Rom 9:21, " is not the potter master of his clay..." Found in Wis 15:7
Wis 15:7
For the potter, tempering soft earth, fashioneth every vessel
with much labour for our service: yea, of the same clay he
maketh both the vessels that serve for clean uses, and likewise
also all such as serve to the contrary: but what is the use of
either sort, the potter himself is the judge.
The same idea seems to be in use in both passages, but the word 'master' isn't even mentioned in Wis 15:7. This is a very weak link at best.

5. 1Pet 1:6-7, "...gold which is tried by fire..." See Wis 3:5-6
Another vague reference that might or might not be a reference.

6. 1Cor 10:9-10, "...perished by serpents and destroyed by the destroyer." Almost perfectly matched in Judith 8:24-25.
Jdt 8:24
Now therefore, O brethren, let us shew an example to our
brethren, because their hearts depend upon us, and the
sanctuary, and the house, and the altar, rest upon us.
Jdt 8:25
Moreover let us give thanks to the Lord our God, which trieth
us, even as he did our fathers.
I'm guessing you posted the wrong reference here. I don't see anything like that.

7. , "...when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame..." Similar to Tob 4:17.
Tob 4:17
Pour out thy bread on the burial of the just, but give
nothing to the wicked.
Not even close.

8. Mt 13:43, "Then the just will shine forth..." Found in Wis 3:7.
Wis 3:7
And in the time of their visitation they shall shine, and run
to and fro like sparks among the stubble.
There are many verses about standing out and "shining". Still, even if this was not the case, this is very vague.

9. Mt 27:42, "...if He is the King of Israel, let Him come down now from the cross..." Similar to Wis 2:18-20.
Wis 2:18
For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and
deliver him from the hand of his enemies.
Wis 2:19
Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we
may know his meekness, and prove his patience.
Wis 2:20
Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own
saying he shall be respected.
So it speaks about the same thing that Isaiah did. Perhaps the thief had been reading the Apocrypha. There are many times that God delivered His people in the OT. Why would the thief not think that He would do likewise for Jesus? Even if he knew nothing of the Bible, it seems logical to equate God with power. And after all, why would Jesus not deliver Himself if He was capable? Doesn't seem like there is a connection to me, even though they are basically the same concept, there are alternate explanations that seem more logical.

10. Mk 14:61-62, "...are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One: And Jesus said to him, I AM." similair to Wisdom 2:13.
It is also similar to many other passages. In fact, the name I AM is not referenced here in Wisdom 2:13 but is at other places in the OT. An interesting Trinity statement as well. =)

11. Lk 2:37, "...as a widow...She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer." Found in Judith 8:4-6.
This seems to be a solid link. I'll have to do more research to find out if this was common practice or if there are any other examples elsewhere.

12. Lk 24:4, "...two men stood by them in dazzling raiment." Found in 2Macc 3:26.
2Mac 3:26
Moreover two other young men appeared before him, notable in
strength, excellent in beauty, and comely in apparel, who stood
by him on either side; and scourged him continually, and gave
him many sore stripes.
This is really not even close. They don't even use the same words to describe the two men. I could likewise say that any other verse involving two men that had any beautiful characteristics was also a reference.

13. Jn 16:15, "All things that the Father has are mine." Found in Wis 2:13.
Wis 2:13
He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth
himself the child of the Lord.
Again, I think you posted the wrong verse possibly.

14. Rom 10:6, "...Who will go up into heaven..." Found in Bar 3:29.
.......

15. Rom 11:33, "...How inscrutable are His judgments and how unsearchable are His ways." Found in Judith 8:14.
Jdt 8:14
For ye cannot find the depth of the heart of man, neither can
ye perceive the things that he thinketh: then how can ye search
out God, that hath made all these things, and know his mind, or
comprehend his purpose? Nay, my brethren, provoke not the Lord
our God to anger.
Eh, possibly a loose reference here. Still, the same terms aren't even used. I'm skeptical.

16. 1Cor 10:20, "...they sacrifice to demons, not to God..." Found in Bar 4:7.
There are many instances where people sacrificed to demons (false Gods).

17. 1Jn 3:17, "If someone who has worldly means sees a brother in need and refuses him compassion, how can the love of GOD remain in him?" Found in Tob 4:7.
Tob 4:7
Give alms of thy substance; and when thou givest alms, let
not thine eye be envious, neither turn thy face from any poor,
and the face of God shall not be turned away from thee.
Again, this was a common theme in the Bible and not even the same wording is used here to indicate a reference is being made.

As promised.

 

[Quagmire]

1. Heb 11:35, "...Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might find a better resurrection." 2Macc 7:1-29

A reference to the events that had taken place very recently, also recorded in the Apocrypha. This is a matter of oral tradition and not necessarily divine authority.

See my last post.

2. Jn 10:22, "Now there took place at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication..." This found in 1Macc 4:52-59.
Again, the restoration of the temple is a historic event known to have taken place that was also in the Apocrypha. The Feast of Dedication was in celebration of this event. This is not a matter of divine authority.

The same explanaiton for the last comparrison apllies to this.

3. Jn 14:23, "...If anyone love Me, he will keep My word..." This is in Sir 2:18.
This is a very vague reference. This isn't necessarily in reference to any Bible verse at all.[

Sirach 2:18 "Those who love Him keep his ways". Yes this is vague, as I allready acknowledged many of these are.

Kmkemp][/b]
4. Rom 9:21, " is not the potter master of his clay..." Found in Wis 15:7
Wis 15:7
For the potter, tempering soft earth, fashioneth every vessel
with much labour for our service: yea, of the same clay he
maketh both the vessels that serve for clean uses, and likewise
also all such as serve to the contrary: but what is the use of
either sort, the potter himself is the judge.
The same idea seems to be in use in both passages, but the word 'master' isn't even mentioned in Wis 15:7. This is a very weak link at best..

Roman's 9:21; "Does not the potter have authority over the clay to make from the same lump one vessal for an honourable use, another for a dishonourable use?"

You can't disqualify all these (almost verbatim) similarities by pointing out one slight difference in wording.

Kmkemp][/b]
5. 1Pet 1:6-7, "...gold which is tried by fire..." See Wis 3:5-6
Another vague reference that might or might not be a reference..

1 Peter 1:7 ...gold which has been purified by fire..."
Wis 3:5; ...as gold in the furnace He proved them..."

Yes, as I said, some of these are vague and fragmentary. You seem to be ignoring my qualifier in order to exploit a weakness which I've allready acknowledged.

Kmkemp][/b]
6. 1Cor 10:9-10, "...perished by serpents and destroyed by the destroyer." Almost perfectly matched in Judith 8:24-25.
Jdt 8:24
Now therefore, O brethren, let us shew an example to our
brethren, because their hearts depend upon us, and the
sanctuary, and the house, and the altar, rest upon us.
Jdt 8:25
Moreover let us give thanks to the Lord our God, which trieth
us, even as he did our fathers.
I'm guessing you posted the wrong reference here. I don't see anything like that..

Actually, you posted the wrong passage. Here's the correct one.

Judith 8:25; ...were destroyed by the destroyer and perished by serpents.

Kmkemp][/b]
7. , "...when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame..." Similar to Tob 4:17.
Tob 4:17
Pour out thy bread on the burial of the just, but give
nothing to the wicked.
Not even close..

You posted Tob. 4:18 by mistake.

Here's Tob. 4:17; "Eat thy bread with the hungry and the needy, and with thy garments cover the naked."

Kmkemp][/b]
8. Mt 13:43, "Then the just will shine forth..." Found in Wis 3:7.
Wis 3:7
And in the time of their visitation they shall shine, and run
to and fro like sparks among the stubble.
There are many verses about standing out and "shining". Still, even if this was not the case, this is very vague..

Looks like you and I are using different translations. the one I'm using says;
Wis. 3:7; " The just shall shine..."

Kmkemp][/b]
9. Mt 27:42, "...if He is the King of Israel, let Him come down now from the cross..." Similar to Wis 2:18-20.
Wis 2:18
For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and
deliver him from the hand of his enemies.
Wis 2:19
Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we
may know his meekness, and prove his patience.
Wis 2:20
Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own
saying he shall be respected.
So it speaks about the same thing that Isaiah did. Perhaps the thief had been reading the Apocrypha. There are many times that God delivered His people in the OT. Why would the thief not think that He would do likewise for Jesus? Even if he knew nothing of the Bible, it seems logical to equate God with power. And after all, why would Jesus not deliver Himself if He was capable? Doesn't seem like there is a connection to me, even though they are basically the same concept, there are alternate explanations that seem more logical..

Sorry but, IMO, to compare the similarities between the "prophecys" in Isaiah and the passion narrative, to the correlations between the narrative and Wis.2:18-2:20 (as well as other parts of the same chapter)is pointless.

The similarities between Isaiah and the narrative are speculative. The similarities between the narrative and these (and other) verses from Wisdom are, IMO, obvious.

I would go as far as to say it's quite possible that the authors of the Gospels used these verses from Wisdom as a template for the narritive, which would explain why they never mention the actual book itself;

1. The plagerism is too obvious.
2. Wisdom makes it clear that the author is speaking in reference to any righteous man, thus it couldn't be interpreted as prophecy pertaining to any one man.

Kmkemp][/b]
10. Mk 14:61-62, "...are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One: And Jesus said to him, I AM." similair to Wisdom 2:13.
It is also similar to many other passages. In fact, the name I AM is not referenced here in Wisdom 2:13 but is at other places in the OT. An interesting Trinity statement as well. =).

Wisdom 2:13; "He boasteth that he has knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God".

I don't know which OT passages you could be refering to. The term "Son of God" is used a few times in the OT, but never in this context.

Kmkemp][/b]
11. Lk 2:37, "...as a widow...She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer." Found in Judith 8:4-6.
This seems to be a solid link. I'll have to do more research to find out if this was common practice or if there are any other examples elsewhere..

Kmkemp][/b]
12. Lk 24:4, "...two men stood by them in dazzling raiment." Found in 2Macc 3:26.
2Mac 3:26
Moreover two other young men appeared before him, notable in
strength, excellent in beauty, and comely in apparel, who stood
by him on either side; and scourged him continually, and gave
him many sore stripes.
This is really not even close. They don't even use the same words to describe the two men. I could likewise say that any other verse involving two men that had any beautiful characteristics was also a reference..

My version says Macc. 3:26, "Two other young men, young and strong, bright and glorious."

Admittedly this comparison is a reach.

13. Jn 16:15, "All things that the Father has are mine." Found in Wis 2:13.
Wis 2:13
He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth
himself the child of the Lord.
Again, I think you posted the wrong verse possibly..

You're right. I posted Wis. 2:13 twice somehow. Guess we can throw this one out.







__________________

 

[Quagmire]

I'll get to the rest later.

For the moment, just a little aside; I have to admit that, getting back to what we're discussing; "did the first cent. Jews consider the books of the Apocrapha sacred" in as much as the examples I gave weren't acknowledged as quotes by the NT authors who used them, they can't reasonably be used as evidence that that the authors considerred them sacred.

They can, however, be considerred proof against the infallibility of the NT itself (which was the original topic of this thread) by virtue of the fact that it seems fairly obvious that the NT authors used to them to express certain ideologies that were specific to the apocraphal books, some that even run counter to the canonical books of the OT (I'll also get to those later).


Also Kmkemp; do me a favor; if you're going to answer a post point by point please don't include your answers inside the other person's quote. It creates a real mess for anyone who tries to respond to it.