Should the Apocrypha be included in the bible?

**gilgal** · 10-05-2010, 08:21 AM

The Forbidden Book has a chapter in it's video that mentions the King James Apocrypha almost at the end:
http://www.archive.org/details/cpm_films

**basilfo** · 10-05-2010, 06:49 PM

This is a very serious question folks. And the proper way to frame the question, to be historically accurate is: On what grounds do we Protestants remove 7 books of the Bible (the Apocrypha) that the Christian Church considered Canonical until several hundred years ago?

What would we say about a group of believers who today decided that Esther, Philemon, and Nahum were not going to be part of their Bible? How would our objection to removing those 3 differ from Catholic's objection to our removal of the 7 "we" cut out?

These are not trick questions. I really want to know.

Peace to you,
Dave

**gilgal** · 10-05-2010, 07:01 PM

The Forbidden Book:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwMQTEVSobg

Within these series (I posted the first one) is the Apocrypha. When I first saw this at my church the Apocryphal section was edited out. The last part of this clip shows the arguments and evidence. I still have to study but , decide for yourselves.

**basilfo** · 10-05-2010, 07:14 PM

Thanks Gilgal. I'll watch it.

**Richard Amiel McGough** · 10-05-2010, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by basilfo

This is a very serious question folks. And the proper way to frame the question, to be historically accurate is: On what grounds do we Protestants remove 7 books of the Bible (the Apocrypha) that the Christian Church considered Canonical until several hundred years ago?

What would we say about a group of believers who today decided that Esther, Philemon, and Nahum were not going to be part of their Bible? How would our objection to removing those 3 differ from Catholic's objection to our removal of the 7 "we" cut out?

These are not trick questions. I really want to know.

Peace to you,
Dave

To begin - are you aware of these two historical facts?

1) Jerome, the 5th century translator of the Vulgate, distinguished between the 22 books (39 by our count) of the "Palestinian" (Jewish OT) canon, and considered only them to be canonical? He included the Apocrypha only because he was forced to do so.

2) The RCC never made any official declaration of the extent of the canon until the Council of Trent in the 16th century, and they did this in response to the Protestants. They included the Apocrypha because they were using it in their polemics against the Protestants who rejected the Apocrypha.

Therefore, it is not, in my estimation, actually correct to say that the Protestants removed those books. An alternate way to state their actions is that they simply adhered to the ancient OT canon accepted by Jerome and which is the only canon accepted by the Jews to whom it was originally given:

Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Of course, the RCC apologists will argue that the OT canon was not restricted to the 22 (39) books until after Christ, and therefore should be rejected because it is the canon established by the Jews who rejected Christ. But that depends upon their argument that the canon was not established until after Christ, and many Protestants disagree on that point. So now the argument descends into the realm of the unknowable past, and every man is free to believe whatever he wants, which means that Protestants will be Protestants and Catholics Catholics, and the argument will go in circles forever.

The Bible Wheel solves this issue but no one cares, and so neither do I. Let the religious folks remain what they are. It does not matter. They are all wrong anyway.

Richard

**Rose** · 10-05-2010, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by basilfo

This is a very serious question folks. And the proper way to frame the question, to be historically accurate is: On what grounds do we Protestants remove 7 books of the Bible (the Apocrypha) that the Christian Church considered Canonical until several hundred years ago?

What would we say about a group of believers who today decided that Esther, Philemon, and Nahum were not going to be part of their Bible? How would our objection to removing those 3 differ from Catholic's objection to our removal of the 7 "we" cut out?

These are not trick questions. I really want to know.

Peace to you,
Dave

Hi Dave,

Yes, it is indeed a very serious question, but since "the eggs have already been scrambled" it seems the best approach is one of finding common ground. If Protestants and Catholics can build bridges upon what they share, which is the bulk of Scripture (66 books) then I think there may be some hope....otherwise there can be no resolution, neither group is going to concede to the other.

Blessings,
Rose

**Richard Amiel McGough** · 10-05-2010, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by Rose

Hi Dave,

Yes, it is indeed a very serious question, but since "the eggs have already been scrambled" it seems the best approach is one of finding common ground. If Protestants and Catholics can build bridges upon what they share, which is the bulk of Scripture (66 books) then I think there may be some hope....otherwise there can be no resolution, neither group is going to concede to the other.

Blessings,
Rose

I tried that tactic with the Roman Catholics over on the Catholic Answers forum but they would have NOTHING to do with it because the 66 book canon is INFALLIBLY DECLARED TO BE WRONG by the Magisterium. That's why they had to DELETE the Bible Wheel thread. The evidence was too strong and they could not refute a word of it and they knew that proof of the 66 book canon would destroy their cult. They, like all other doctrinaire religionists, want NOTHING to do with truth. The only thing they care about is the DOMINATION of their own cult. Fine - let them be lost in their own little world until it finally crumbles down around them. I have better things to do with my time than trying to force the willfully blind to open their eyes.

Richard

**gilgal** · 10-05-2010, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by RAM

I tried that tactic with the Roman Catholics over on the Catholic Answers forum but they would have NOTHING to do with it because the 66 book canon is INFALLIBLY DECLARED TO BE WRONG by the Magisterium. That's why they had to DELETE the Bible Wheel thread. The evidence was too strong and they could not refute a word of it and they knew that proof of the 66 book canon would destroy their cult. They, like all other doctrinaire religionists, want NOTHING to do with truth. The only thing they care about is the DOMINATION of their own cult. Fine - let them be lost in their own little world until it finally crumbles down around them. I have better things to do with my time than trying to force the willfully blind to open their eyes.

Richard

I wonder if the Apocryphal books show any innerwheel patterns as the 66 books?

**Richard Amiel McGough** · 10-05-2010, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by gilgal

I wonder if the Apocryphal books show any innerwheel patterns as the 66 books?

Don't know ... but then again, I don't think the Inner Wheel patterns are evident in all the 66 books, so it's probably not a good criterion.

But if they did, then that would put evidence for the idea that they are part of an "extended" canon perhaps, but still the primary canon of 66 books would remain uniquely marked by their unity on the Wheel. And that would be enough to cause the Catholics to reject the Wheel ... they're faith is so weak they can not admit any evidence that might even appear to contradict their religious supremacy.

Richard

**gilgal** · 10-05-2010, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by RAM

Don't know ... but then again, I don't think the Inner Wheel patterns are evident in all the 66 books, so it's probably not a good criterion.

But if they did, then that would put evidence for the idea that they are part of an "extended" canon perhaps, but still the primary canon of 66 books would remain uniquely marked by their unity on the Wheel. And that would be enough to cause the Catholics to reject the Wheel ... they're faith is so weak they can not admit any evidence that might even appear to contradict their religious supremacy.

Richard

Agreed. Because they always put their trust in the priesthood to interpret the bible.

On the one hand the 66 is the gemetria of Gilgal/wheel the chapters of Isaiah and the Protestant Canon books of Scriptures.

On the other hand I see more emphasis on demonology than before. It seems to fill the gap between the OT and NT. In the OT we hardly find Satan mentioned nor Demon possession. In the NT we have many demon possessions and the Pharisaical method of casting out demons and Jesus' method. In the Apocrypha there's Daniel and Bel and the Dragon and Tobit.

But are the stories real or fables? What's the purpose of these stories? Does it teach us something solid?