@rajk999 saidApparently, you care since your still harping on the topic. I thought it odd between two and four there turns out to be five, which you choose to ignore. You can say what you will about this; I really don't care.
Who cares. There are just two issues here.
1. What bible did the Apostles and early Christians use?
2. Was the Maccabees included and how many books were there?
Answers
1. the Septuagint
2. Yes, 4
Here are the books:
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
Kings I
Kings II
Kings III
Kings IV
Chronicles I
Chronicles II
Ezra ...[text shortened]...
Naum
Ambacum
Sophonias
Aggaeus
Zacharias
Malachias
http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/Genesis/index.htm
@kellyjay saidThank you for clarifying.
I looked it up and found this. 🙂
The books of 3 and 4 Maccabees – What are they?
https://www.compellingtruth.org/third-fourth-Maccabees.html
Most agree 4 Maccabees was written prior to AD 70. It is listed as canon in the Georgian Orthodox Bible. The other Maccabees, 5 Maccabees, is also known as the Arabic 2 Maccabees, and was written much later. Most Protestant chur ...[text shortened]... ns do not consider any of the five Maccabees books to be canon, or part of the inspired Word of God.
The further books of the Maccabees are not in main stream publications, but have existed, I stand corrected.
@medullah saidYou have, several times since the start of your recent posting bout in here, adopted a somewhat pompous position and complained about the personal attacks in this forum.
@divegeester
Which passage (no pun intended) do you want to take issue with?
Or was this a question to everyone else but not me?
I've pointed out to you your hypocrisy when you have just attacked rajk999.
So I'm asking you in a pointed way:
How’s all that puffed up complaining you were doing coming along; you know, about the personal attacks in here..?
You can dodge the question again if you like...
@divegeester
When Jesus said that the Pharisees were hypocrites it wasn't a personal attack, but a statement of fact.
When I use English slang (naughty me) to describe him as having a very high opinion of himself it wasn't a personal attack, it's a statement of fact.
I didn't call him names, I just called him for what he is; somebody with a distinct lack of humility.
Now if you are going to snipe at me, and I know of no more proficient an exponent of that practice than yourself, I suggest that you pick something with a little more solid a foundation, rather than scraping the barrel and getting your fingers full of splinters.
@medullah saidYou comparing of your name-calling of Rajk999; “being up his his own ass” was it? to the words of Jesus Christ is interesting and noted.
@divegeester
When Jesus said that the Pharisees were hypocrites it wasn't a personal attack, but a statement of fact.
When I use English slang (naughty me) to describe him as having a very high opinion of himself it wasn't a personal attack, it's a statement of fact.
I didn't call him names, I just called him for what he is; somebody with a distinct lack of humilit ...[text shortened]... more solid a foundation, rather than scraping the barrel and getting your fingers full of splinters.
So what specific comments by which posters were you referring to when you categorised this forum as being full of personal attacks?
You know full well the sky in Rajk's world is a totally different colour to everybody else's. He doesn't have to be self righteous and talk down to people but he chooses to.
This isn't really about Rajk though, he's a convenient excuse for your disingenuous indignation. Do you seriously think I give a monkey's at this point about what you do and don't note?
I'm afraid that you are getting boring. Go and snipe at somebody that doesn't mind you acting like a great peevish tart, or grow a pair and we can have a proper discussion.
@medullah saidThe lame-brains are easy to spot. They focus on people rather than on the issue, they are easily offended, they make incorrect statements, they do not do the research before opening their mouth. Make an effort to change.
You know full well the sky in Rajk's world is a totally different colour to everybody else's. He doesn't have to be self righteous and talk down to people but he chooses to.
This isn't really about Rajk though, he's a convenient excuse for your disingenuous indignation. Do you seriously think I give a monkey's at this point about what you do and don't note?
I'm afra ...[text shortened]... esn't mind you acting like a great peevish tart, or grow a pair and we can have a proper discussion.
@kellyjay said5-8 came much later, and there is disagreement whether they belong with the other 4.
Apparently, you care since your still harping on the topic. I thought it odd between two and four there turns out to be five, which you choose to ignore. You can say what you will about this; I really don't care.
I have a link about it, but it will have to wait for later. I have little time these days, work has hit the busy season and I'm now doing 12.5 hour workdays.
@suzianne saidThank you suzianne, everything I always wanted to know about them and some was answered in what I posted. Don't put yourself out please, thank you for your kind offer.
5-8 came much later, and there is disagreement whether they belong with the other 4.
I have a link about it, but it will have to wait for later. I have little time these days, work has hit the busy season and I'm now doing 12.5 hour workdays.
@divegeester saidWhy should anyone ask you anything nicely, ever, you brambly James Blunt?
As a matter of fact yes I do; and if you ask me nicely I will you why...
@caesar-salad saidOf course now I recognize that "twisted James Blunt" would have been better for the double-entendre. 😉
Why should anyone ask you anything nicely, ever, you brambly James Blunt?
@caesar-salad saidIf you ask me nicely, I’ll tell you who I think you previous RHP incarnation was.
Why should anyone ask you anything nicely, ever, you brambly James Blunt?
@caesar-salad saidYou seem upset with me for some reason.
Of course now I recognize that "twisted James Blunt" would have been better for the double-entendre. 😉