Originally posted by jaywillThe so-called deutero-canonical books were accepted by the early Christians and used by the Church
CARM's Website Papers on Alleged[b] Missing Books from the Bible:
http://www.carm.org/lostbooks.htm
What do YOU hope to find in the "missing books of the Bible?"[/b]
for 1600 years, and judging by the quotations from Scripture attributed to Jesus, probably the text
used by Jesus and the Apostles themselves. Why they were excised is a theological absurdity. They
aren't missing, false Christians just fail to acknowledge them.
Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywillInteresting stuff. I've got a book (also by Bart Ehrman) called: Lost Scriptures - Books that did not make it into the bible that deals with the topic. Ehrman lists quite a few more than CARM's website, though. Like the Apocalypse of Peter, for example.
CARM's Website Papers on Alleged[b] Missing Books from the Bible:
http://www.carm.org/lostbooks.htm
What do YOU hope to find in the "missing books of the Bible?"[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioWhy do you stop at 1600 years? My bible at school had the deutero-canonical books in it.
The so-called deutero-canonical books were accepted by the early Christians and used by the Church for 1600 years, http://www.carm.org/lostbooks.htm
I find that many Christians do not know the history of the Bible and believe it to be all one book or at least somehow specifically singled out as the 'scriptures' and every word being the dictated word of God.
I guess the possibility of other books raises the ugly possibility that the ones that are included might be the wrong ones.
I found it interesting how many people got very upset by the book and movie "The Da Vinci Code" because it suggested that there were books that conflicted with the current Bible. If they felts secure about the Bible they would have simply dismissed it as a work of fiction.
Originally posted by jaywillthe thing is that the Bible is just a small portion of Israels once rather extensive library. Some of these books may be false, i don't know, but not all of them are. For instance, the book of Enoch is quoted in Jude, and the RCs have the maccabees in their Bible (and i believe is seen as being historically correct by the Cs).
CARM's Website Papers on Alleged[b] Missing Books from the Bible:
http://www.carm.org/lostbooks.htm
What do YOU hope to find in the "missing books of the Bible?"[/b]
Originally posted by geniusWhat do you mean by a book being false? Do you mean a book that has been fabricated at a later date? A book with 'false' content? A book which God didn't want in the Bible?
the thing is that the Bible is just a small portion of Israels once rather extensive library. Some of these books may be false, i don't know, but not all of them are. For instance, the book of Enoch is quoted in Jude, and the RCs have the maccabees in their Bible (and i believe is seen as being historically correct by the Cs).
And when you say 'historically correct' do you mean word for word or generally? I don't think that the Roman Catholics consider all the books of the standard bible to be entirely historically correct.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadfalse as in a fake book. not the musical type though-any of the things you mentioned. it was just a sweeping statement...
What do you mean by a book being false? Do you mean a book that has been fabricated at a later date? A book with 'false' content? A book which God didn't want in the Bible?
And when you say 'historically correct' do you mean word for word or generally? I don't think that the Roman Catholics consider all the books of the standard bible to be entirely historically correct.
and i have no idea what i meant by historically correct as i don't know much about it-i think i read somewhere that said it was considered so by the catholic church, but as for "word for word" or generally i have no idea. try wiki?
EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Maccabees says that "Because of the accuracy of the historical account...", so wiki says its accurate too...😛
Originally posted by jaywillWhat do YOU hope to find in the "missing books of the Bible?"
CARM's Website Papers on Alleged[b] Missing Books from the Bible:
http://www.carm.org/lostbooks.htm
What do YOU hope to find in the "missing books of the Bible?"[/b]
You will find something like this:
The Wisdom of Solomon
10 1 WISDOM IT WAS who kept guard over the first father of the human race, when he alone had yet been made; she saved him after his fall, 2 3 and gave him the strength to master all things. It was because a wicked man forsook her in his anger that he murdered his brother in a fit of rage
4 and so destroyed himself.
It simply says that our father "Adam" was saved from the first day he falls by the wisdom given to him.
Originally posted by jaywillThere are books not included, as a very early pope decided what was to be included. Apocrypha has several, the jewish community have others.
CARM's Website Papers on Alleged[b] Missing Books from the Bible:
http://www.carm.org/lostbooks.htm
What do YOU hope to find in the "missing books of the Bible?"[/b]
One in my mind gives Ezra a higher prominance than in the old testerment, given by god some challenges. p.s. hallo again
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'd hazard a guess he means that they are pseudepigrapha -- books ascribed to someone who is not actually the author.
What do you mean by a book being false? Do you mean a book that has been fabricated at a later date? A book with 'false' content? A book which God didn't want in the Bible?
And when you say 'historically correct' do you mean word for word or generally? I don't think that the Roman Catholics consider all the books of the standard bible to be entirely historically correct.
Originally posted by darvlayAre you actually reading what you write?
On a related topic, archaeologists have also recently discovered a first page to the Bible. It reads:
Dedicated to Katherine, my love.
The events and characters depicted in this work are fictitious and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.
The source you cite actually has been proven to be a later, less reliable copy of the inscription.
The shortest and roughest (and therefore probably the earliest and most accurate) version of this inscription used the diminutive nickname "Katey," rather than the more formal "Katherine."
Moreover, the so-called "disclaimer" as you reference it hinges upon the term "fictitious," which scholars now agree was a scribal emendation of "factious," which means given to bickering, bitching, and all-around infighting. Here's a link to an online dictionary (my favorite kind): http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/factious
The rest of the line ("Any resemblance" & etc.) is clearly a later insertion -- true, it is visible as marginalia in middle-8th-century copies, but the margins in earlier copies were completely filled with juvenile caricatures of naked women.
The author was originally probably explaining how much arguing and in-fighting the text would describe, and how much it would in turn cause.
Sheesh. You try to infer your own authority, and pawn yourself off as an expert, but it's all too easy for me to call you out.
Also: booya.
Originally posted by stokerDo you mean Pope Constintine?
There are books not included, as a very early pope decided what was to be included. Apocrypha has several, the jewish community have others.
One in my mind gives Ezra a higher prominance than in the old testerment, given by god some challenges. p.s. hallo again