24 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am from a protestant background being raised in the Baptist Church.
How does one become aware that something is inspired? Are you told by someone else? Do you know it intuitively? Do you just check whether it is in your Bible like galveston75?
So I first became aware of biblical inspiration from church teachings,
like 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is inspired by God..." So for Baptists
that means everything that is written in our Holy Bible. Other Jewish
writings, like the Apocrypha, were not considered inspired, but good
writings to help in the understanding of the inspired writings. You can
read more about biblical inspiration in the links below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration
http://biblical-inspiration.org/
P.S. Evidence of biblical inspiration
http://carm.org/evidence-biblical-inspiration
24 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you first became aware that the Bible was God inspired when you read something from the Bible saying it was God inspired. Presumably you have never considered for one moment that maybe....JUST MAYBE...that passage wasn't true
I am from a protestant background being raised in the Baptist Church.
So I first became aware of biblical inspiration from church teachings,
like 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is inspired by God..." So for Baptists
that means everything that is written in our Holy Bible. Other Jewish
writings, like the Apocrypha, were not considered inspired, but good ...[text shortened]... rg/
P.S. Evidence of biblical inspiration
http://carm.org/evidence-biblical-inspiration
wow 😞
24 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KIt is my understanding that the Apocrypha writings were written by Jews
[b]The so-called apocryphal books have been rejected by the Jews since day one. And one would have to wonder why neither Jesus nor any of the disciples, nor Paul, ever made a single mention of any of the writings.
Well, this is untrue. Unlike Christianity, Judaism has never had a biblical canon. There was never anything remotely like an ecclesiastic to think that this conflicts with Scripture. That's really just egging the Catholic on.[/b]
in Alexandria after the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek at
the direction of the greek King Ptolemy of Egypt. This Greek translation
of the Hebrew scriptures was called the Septuagint because it was the
work of 70 or 72 elders doing the translation. The greek speaking Jews
later attached these Apocrypha writings to the Septuagint. The Apocrypha
consists of the following books:
First Book of Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (or the Widom
of the Son of Sirach), Baruch, Epistle of Jeremy (Jeremiah), three additions
to Daniel (Song of Three Children, History of Susanna, and Bel and The
Dragon), Maccabees, and the Prayer of Manasseh.
P.S. I have a copy of the Septuagint with the Apocrypha in Greek and
English in my personal library.
24 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergBefore you jump to conclusions please at least read the evidence for
So you first became aware that the Bible was God inspired when you read something from the Bible saying it was God inspired. Presumably you have never considered for one moment that maybe....JUST MAYBE...that passage wasn't true
wow 😞
biblical inspiration that is supplied at the link I gave. I will repeat:
http://carm.org/evidence-biblical-inspiration
24 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsSo what did the writer in Timothy mean by "scripture"? Did he know what books your Bible would contain 2000 years later? Or since what he said was inspired, was it God sending that message, and to whom? Clearly not to the first readers of Timothy as they would have had a very different idea about what was or was not 'scripture'.
I am from a protestant background being raised in the Baptist Church.
So I first became aware of biblical inspiration from church teachings,
like 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is inspired by God..." So for Baptists
that means everything that is written in our Holy Bible.
Was he only addressing your denomination and not the Orthodox Christians?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
24 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsNo. The Apocrypha are unquestionably part of the Septuagint. That was the original motivation for canonising them. It is true that many Apocrypha do not have any earlier Hebraic version, which is why many Jews and Protestant Christians do not accept their canonicity. The point I was making above though is that at least some Jews did give them credence.
It is my understanding that the Apocrypha writings were written by Jews
in Alexandria after the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek at
the direction of the greek King Ptolemy of Egypt. This Greek translation
of the Hebrew scriptures was called the Septuagint because it was the
work of 70 or 72 elders doing the translation. The greek speaking J ...[text shortened]... I have a copy of the Septuagint with the Apocrypha in Greek and
English in my personal library.
25 Sep 11
Originally posted by stokerPersonally, I have not studied the Apocrypha, even though I have a copy.
im interested why you think
the apocrypha was not inspired by god when you quoted a passage saying all scripute is inspired by god how do you know that this was not
The reason for that is that I have taken the word of some scholars that
say these writings were not inspired. So I don't have a final decision on
the matter.
25 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadTimothy, obviously, was talking about the Jewish scripture at that time.
So what did the writer in Timothy mean by "scripture"? Did he know what books your Bible would contain 2000 years later? Or since what he said was inspired, was it God sending that message, and to whom? Clearly not to the first readers of Timothy as they would have had a very different idea about what was or was not 'scripture'.
Was he only addressing your denomination and not the Orthodox Christians?
Since I was raised and taught in the protestant churches, I accept the
protestant scholarship on this matter because I have no reason not to.
Timothy was addressing the Christians at that time.
25 Sep 11
Originally posted by Conrau KJust by looking at my copy of the Septuagint with the Apocrypha without
No. The Apocrypha are unquestionably part of the Septuagint. That was the original motivation for canonising them. It is true that many Apocrypha do not have any earlier Hebraic version, which is why many Jews and Protestant Christians do not accept their canonicity. The point I was making above though is that at least some Jews did give them credence.
reading the scholars opinions on the matter, it appears just like they said
to have been appended to the Septuagint. However, without personal
study, I could not say for sure that they are not also inspired writings.
My gut feeling at this point is to agree with the protestant scholars that
they are not inspired but simply just important background information.
25 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsmy thinking is read it for yourself then if you debunk it at least you belive that.
Personally, I have not studied the Apocrypha, even though I have a copy.
The reason for that is that I have taken the word of some scholars that
say these writings were not inspired. So I don't have a final decision on
the matter.
tho why any one could disagree with the wisdom of solomon, other parts are questionable or more thought is needed. but your words : so i dont have a final decision on the matter: seems to be of concern to me do you follow doctine or do you follow your belief?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
25 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsWell, your copy of the Septuagint is not an exact replica of the oriignal. It has been edited and arranged by scholars. The Septuaginst would not have been bound in a book with the Apocrypha listed at the back. Like any other literary work, the Septuagint would have been a collection of scrolls. There would not have been punctuation or spaces between letters, unlike in your copy.
Just by looking at my copy of the Septuagint with the Apocrypha without
reading the scholars opinions on the matter, it appears just like they said
to have been appended to the Septuagint. However, without personal
study, I could not say for sure that they are not also inspired writings.
My gut feeling at this point is to agree with the protestant scholars that
they are not inspired but simply just important background information.
26 Sep 11
Originally posted by stokerMy belief came about by considering many things, including church doctrine.
my thinking is read it for yourself then if you debunk it at least you belive that.
tho why any one could disagree with the wisdom of solomon, other parts are questionable or more thought is needed. but your words : so i dont have a final decision on the matter: seems to be of concern to me do you follow doctine or do you follow your belief?
I am not a speed reader like one of my sons, so I am somewhat lazy about
reading and studying everything. I sometimes rely on the opinion of the
scholars, who have taken the time to study such matters. I have studied
enough to know Jesus was crucified on wednesday and not friday as the
Roman Catholic Church teaches and that Jesus was born at the time of the
Passover in the spring rather than on December 25 in winter. Other things
like, the Apocrypha, which I consider of little importance to my future
salvation through my belief and faith in Jesus the Christ, I have not spent
much effort on.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
26 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThe Catholic Church does not teach that Jesus was born on the 25th of December nor that Jesus was crucified on a Friday (although I believe that Catholics are right to commemorate Jesus' crucifixion on a Friday -- the evidence against is very flimsy.) I don't know where you get this stuff from.
My belief came about by considering many things, including church doctrine.
I am not a speed reader like one of my sons, so I am somewhat lazy about
reading and studying everything. I sometimes rely on the opinion of the
scholars, who have taken the time to study such matters. I have studied
enough to know Jesus was crucified on wednesday and not frida ...[text shortened]... re
salvation through my belief and faith in Jesus the Christ, I have not spent
much effort on.
26 Sep 11
Originally posted by Conrau KThe Roman Catholic Church started the tradition to celebrate Christ's
The Catholic Church does not teach that Jesus was born on the 25th of December nor that Jesus was crucified on a Friday (although I believe that Catholics are right to commemorate Jesus' crucifixion on a Friday -- the evidence against is very flimsy.) I don't know where you get this stuff from.
birthday with the winter solstice, which at that time was December 25.
By some strange coincidence this was an important pagan feast that
celebrated the birth of their sun god.
The evidence from the gospels, with or without Jewish sources, is
absolute in determining that Wednesday was the day of the crucifixion.
The evidence in support of a Friday crucifixion is what is flimsy. I
get my source from the Holy Bible not from the Roman Catholic Church
as you apparently do. The Roman Catholic Church has become an
apostate church as 2 Timothy 3 predicted.