Why Was the Apocrypha Removed from the Bible?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 бер 2023
- Explore the intriguing history of the Apocrypha's removal from the King James Bible with Pastor G on Biblical Elucidations! Uncover the secrets behind the Apocryphal books, their status in Catholic and Protestant traditions, and the pivotal role they played in shaping the divide between denominations.
🔍 Key Insights:
- Learn about the Apocrypha, a collection of 14 books placed between the Old and New Testaments.
- Understand the term "deuterocanonical" and its significance to Catholics.
- Delve into the history dating back to the Greek translation of the Old Testament.
- Explore the decision to remove the Apocrypha from the King James Bible in 1885 and its consequences.
- Discover the surprising presence of the Apocrypha in Bible.
Join Pastor G as he sheds light on this controversial and powerful source of contention between Christian denominations. Subscribe now for more biblical revelations and a deeper understanding of the Apocrypha's intricate history!
Book links:
📘Elucidations: amzn.to/2R1C8fR
📗God’s Garden: amzn.to/38R7KxF
My Website:
GCLmedia.org
#Apocrypha #KingJamesBible #BiblicalInsights
People will be surprised when they figure out that there are dozens of passages that Messiah and the apostles quoted from the Apocrypha.
Thank you so much...there are sooooo many!!! I have a series of videos coming that will present some of the most commonly overlooked!
@mcintosh6214 be careful with that. People are philosophers instead of relationship experts when it comes to God. They talk themselves and whoever will listen to them out of relationship with God and into leaning on their own understanding of scripture. You need the truth to sell lies. Those other books, although alluded to in the current 66 books of the Bible, are not inspired by The Holy Spirit. They contradict the established Word of God.
@@Whoo_Boy actually they do not, but let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.
@mcintosh6214 if they didn't they would be openly studied in every Protestant and Roman catholic church. The catholic church would even have them translated into Latin. But let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.
I was honestly expecting to hear some myths. But pleasantly surprised you were 100% correct and non-bias. Impressive!
Blessings, and thank you so much! I am a strong proponent of truth. I do my absolute best to remove all biases, assumptions, and presumptions from the content I present to believers and those non-believers who may frequent my content. Scripture says, "The truth shall make us free." This principle guides my work and underscores the importance of truth in promoting understanding and open dialogue among all who engage with my content.
@@gclmedia 1. No one has the right to add or subtract books from the Bible.
2. Nowhere in the New Testament is there a direct quotation from the canonical books of Joshua, Judges, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, Obadiah, Zephaniah, and Nahum; and the New Testament allusions to them are few in number.
3. Some of the deuterocanonical books are referenced in a way that shows the New Testament authors considered them to be inspired records of biblical events. For example, Hebrews 11:35 describes people in the Old Testament who “were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they may rise again to a better life.” These people are only described in 2 Maccabees 7, which describes brothers who accept torture instead of eating pork and violating Jewish law. Since the context of Hebrews 11 includes “the men of old [who] received divine approval” (v. 2), this means the books describing the Maccabean martyrs were part of the Old Testament that was used by the author of the Letter to the Hebrews.
4. The idea that the early Church viewed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture is even more evident in the writings of early Church fathers like Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Cyprian, and Origen. Moreover, these fathers cited these books as “Scripture” or “holy Scripture,”
@@dougy6237 You copied and pasted this at least 7 times. Stop spamming, dude :)
@@zacharyshort384 Yes, isn't it just terrible when a Catholic quotes history and scripture!. If we're not careful we might find out the truth and convert to Christ's Catholic Church!
@@dougy6237 That has zero to do with spamming unless you're suggesting spamming the "Good News" will do something other than turn people off; in which case, I have some *bad news* ;)
I just recently discovered many "deuterocanonical" books have many of the same scriptures that are in the New Testament. It's just luther wanted to remove them because his personal interpretation didn't agree. They confirm purgatory and he didn't agree with that and I believe thats why we have over 40,000 different Christian denominations now because of one rogue priest the Catholic church didn't sell indulgences rogue priests did that.He even wanted to remove the book of revelation, hebrews, james and jude. He was a book burner I'm almost done reading them and they aren't saying to do anything wrong they shouldn't of been removed but I'm Catholic so I consider them to be inspired. I was told by others that I shouldn't read them but now I know how wrong they were.The Catholic church decided the canon and compiled and put the bible together and the septuagint was read by christ and the apostles and if Christ didnt remove them then why did some rogue priest have a right to?? You owe your modern bibles to the holy spirit and the catholic church.
Thank you for sharing! I appreciate you. I have several videos that go further into the Deuterocanonical Books which I refer to as the Apocrypha being that I am Protestant and that my viewers at large are also, but I do accept these books as well as others as Scripture.
Check out the Apocrypha playlist:
ua-cam.com/play/PLDeCxlE5-BAPUfLvJDjCkmTXo-fXyL3h3.html&si=WD7_5dizgzRSNtVs
Just found your channel! Appreciate the insight! Now I need to watch your others.. I have the "Complete 54 Book Apocrypha 2022 Edition". Also, I use the Septuagint in conjunction with the Hebrew text during my studies. Together, I believe they yield greater insight than using one or the other alone. Something happened in the 1800s all over the world. Odd how prior to them, quality of life was unchanged for thousands of years but exploded afterwards. Bible versions exploded, the movement to rebuild Israel, etc.. The way we understood the bible was highly altered from that point on as well. I believe the removal of the Apocrypha highlights the delusion of the church and how much power others give authoritative figures in the church, when they effectively have none. That's truly a tragedy.
Thank you so much. There is so much more than meets the eye. I often say that the Bible is complex but not complicating; simple but not easy. We have to stay on the pursuit of Discover with consistency and persistence. And you are so right there was a major shift in the Church at that time.
The Ethiopian Bible did not remove them.
Good content, great information! This Really needs to be out in circulation more. My brother and I talked about this a lot. He finally got himself a copy to read with the apocrypha included to get himself a better picture of what has happened over the years.
You are a blessing! I appreciate you more than you know. Check out my Apocrypha Playlist (Updated Weekly) ua-cam.com/play/PLDeCxlE5-BAPUfLvJDjCkmTXo-fXyL3h3.html&si=tOP15raLwsgNVhkz
Email me
Catholic Bible has 73 books of undifferentiated authority, and one item in an appendix to the Old Testament, namely the Prayer of Manasseh. St Jerome queried some of the Old Testament books, but was overruled by the Pope. The Gutenberg Bible is an example of this Catholic Bible.
Martin Luther, on his own authority, moved seven books queried by St Jerome to a separate section, which he called the apocrypha, arguing that they were of lesser authority. The Protestant Bible Society in the 1820s deleted the "apocryphal" books to save money. Some modern Protestants claim that seven books were added to the Bible by the Council of Trent, as if the Gutenberg printers could see into the future.
Thank you for watching and engaging! You are spot on. I talk about this in some of my other videos on the “so-called”Apocrypha.
Not just the Pope every bishop that attended the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage.
He moved them because most of these books did not agree with his theology of Sola Fide and Purgatory. The Book of Maccabees contains passages that prove Purgatory. He also called the Book of James the "“epistle of straw". So that one got almost removed as well. The question is, where did he get the authority to demote these books. Is his understanding of the Christians' teaching superior to the previous councils?
@@maxellton He was to put it kindly a very prideful person.
Good evening David. You said; "Martin Luther, on his own authority, moved seven books queried by St Jerome to a separate section, which he called the apocrypha, arguing that they were of lesser authority"
Actually, David, Jerome did ALL of that. Luther merely followed Jerome's pattern.
~Jerome separated the Apocryphal books.
~Jerome called the the Apocrypha.
~Jerome said they were of lesser authority.
Very informative and easy to understand. Thanks for the brilliant explanation ❤
You are most welcome! Check out the entire playlist ua-cam.com/play/PLDeCxlE5-BAPUfLvJDjCkmTXo-fXyL3h3.html&si=Ingpb7bMcwJFTlEr
Lord, we thank You for the blessings of each day, including the gift of good health and financial provision. Help us to cherish these blessings and not take them for granted. Give us the courage to face any challenges that may come our way, knowing that You are with us always. May we live each day with gratitude and contentment, trusting in Your unfailing love and provision. Amen.
Well, the 7 books were put into a separate part of the bible by luther because they contradicted his heresies. Mainly 2nd maccabees. They were ultimately removed entirely by the British bible association, to reduce the cost of priniting bibles. They were in the torah read by Jesus, and are in the dead sea scrolls.
"the 7 books were put into a separate part of the bible by luther"
The Apocrypha was separated by Jerome in his Latin Bible in the 4th century.
___________________________
"by luther because they contradicted his heresies."
Luther never said anything about the Apocryphal books contradicting his heresies.
Luther stated that the Apocrypha was useful to be read by protestant Christians. But that it should not be used for doctrine.
The same reasons most CATHOLIC church fathers gave for not using the Apocrypha for doctrine.
@@mark9531 Jerome did not remove them. But he questioned them based on the fact that the Jews has removed them. He was following the lead of post-crusifixion Jews. By then, the Jews were no longer authorities over scripture 🤣🤣. And while he tried to move thrn, the church said "nah".
@@chukulan Good afternoon chukulan. You said; "He was following the lead of post-crusifixion Jews"
What did the crucifixion have to do with the canon of the OT. The canon of the OT had been completed for 400 years by the time of Christ.
The church did not determine the OT canon. The Jews had been copying the OT for 400 years.
_____________________________
Jerome did not follow anyone's lead. Whether Jews or the church. Jerome's OT did not include the Apocryphal books
Jerome separated the Apocryphal books and called them the Apocrypha
Luther doesn’t believe in prayers to the dead.
2nd Maccabees affirms prayer to dead.
Luther then removed from his own canon.
Tried to do the same thing to James be of faith without works being dead but didn’t get enough support as was blatantly wrong.
He tried to be a new pope if only he was a reformer not a betrayer.
@@Idishrkdmd Good afternoon ldishrkdmd. You said "Luther then removed from his own canon"
*_Every book of the Apocrypha_* was in Luther's 1534 German translation. Including I & 2 Macabees
There is not one difference between Luther's German Bible of 1534 and Jerome's Latin Bible of AD 401.
_____________________
"He tried to be a new pope if only he was a reformer not a betrayer."
He was a reformer in the pattern of Jerome. Luther was probably the second most brilliant theologian after Jerome.
Thank you for your concise and informative video. Really liked your insight and gentle delivery of your message.
You are most welcome. Thank you more!
1. No one has the right to add or subtract books from the Bible.
2. Nowhere in the New Testament is there a direct quotation from the canonical books of Joshua, Judges, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, Obadiah, Zephaniah, and Nahum; and the New Testament allusions to them are few in number.
3. Some of the deuterocanonical books are referenced in a way that shows the New Testament authors considered them to be inspired records of biblical events. For example, Hebrews 11:35 describes people in the Old Testament who “were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they may rise again to a better life.” These people are only described in 2 Maccabees 7, which describes brothers who accept torture instead of eating pork and violating Jewish law. Since the context of Hebrews 11 includes “the men of old [who] received divine approval” (v. 2), this means the books describing the Maccabean martyrs were part of the Old Testament that was used by the author of the Letter to the Hebrews.
4. The idea that the early Church viewed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture is even more evident in the writings of early Church fathers like Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Cyprian, and Origen. Moreover, these fathers cited these books as “Scripture” or “holy Scripture,”
I want to know more because there are so many references to these books in the Bible.
Blessings and thank you. I have several videos on this channel concerning the Apocrypha…but if you have something specific you’d like me to address please let me know. I’d be more than happy to create a video about it for you.
@gclmedia I do. Do you consider these books part of the word of God removed from the word of God or would you consider them unlawfully added and why?
They took it out for a reason because it reveals who the true children of Yi'sreal is. And who the wicked truly are, some of these so called church. Misleading millions upkn million. So people who rather listen to a pastor then open the book for themselves
ua-cam.com/video/ZzIsyuSXccY/v-deo.htmlsi=zsR-EW2126Wk8tOL
Based Protestant.
Bible > Church
Some Jewish communities considered the Deuterocanon inspired (like the Essenes), there was never a unified Jewish Canon Sadducees, zealots, pharisee's and seraphic jews had different canons what is more important to note is that the early Christians considered them to be inspired.
I have a teaching that delves into this that I haven’t uploaded yet. You are on point!
What are the scriptures does the new testament allude / or refer to to that are in the apocrypha?
Excellent question. On each Monday I will be doing what I’m calling Apocryphal Mondays. I will be delving into your question every week. But here is a video that I am sure will pique your interest. ua-cam.com/video/tE7fPPIOMRg/v-deo.htmlsi=Qe9-GEqx9q_18Vai
1. No one has the right to add or subtract books from the Bible.
2. Nowhere in the New Testament is there a direct quotation from the canonical books of Joshua, Judges, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, Obadiah, Zephaniah, and Nahum; and the New Testament allusions to them are few in number.
3. Some of the deuterocanonical books are referenced in a way that shows the New Testament authors considered them to be inspired records of biblical events. For example, Hebrews 11:35 describes people in the Old Testament who “were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they may rise again to a better life.” These people are only described in 2 Maccabees 7, which describes brothers who accept torture instead of eating pork and violating Jewish law. Since the context of Hebrews 11 includes “the men of old [who] received divine approval” (v. 2), this means the books describing the Maccabean martyrs were part of the Old Testament that was used by the author of the Letter to the Hebrews.
4. The idea that the early Church viewed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture is even more evident in the writings of early Church fathers like Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Cyprian, and Origen. Moreover, these fathers cited these books as “Scripture” or “holy Scripture,”
John 10:22 references the holiday of Hanukkah. Read 1 Maccabees 4.
Hebrews 11:35 references the Maccabean martyrs. Read 2 Maccabees 6 & 7.
Hebrews 13:2 references the angel Raphael in the book of Tobit.
Daniel 8 & 11 prophesy about Alexander defeating the Persians and his kingdom split in 4 parts, which was fulfilled in 1 Maccabees 1.
Go read the apocrypha for yourself . Also read the book of Enoch 👀
The apocrypha is definitely the bridge we need to cross over to clearly understand God's word...Isaiah 34:16
The Jews dismissed all apocryphal books and never included them in the Hebrew Bible. the first Christian’s and early fathers all rejected them. They contain fictional characters, geographical errors and contradictory to scripture. Jesus, all prophets, disciples, apostles and followers never recite and record any quote from any of these books as real scripture , there is a reason, they are not inspired by God but by man.
I have a family Bible which includes many apocryphal books.
They read very differently. They have merit for some of the flavor of the times in which they were written but add nothing to Theocratic understanding.
I do not need them to fully understand the canonical scriptures.
Who have the authority to change if it is the true word of GOD?
That means man wrote the whole bible .
فَوَيۡلٞ لِّلَّذِينَ يَكۡتُبُونَ ٱلۡكِتَٰبَ بِأَيۡدِيهِمۡ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَٰذَا مِنۡ عِندِ ٱللَّهِ لِيَشۡتَرُواْ بِهِۦ ثَمَنٗا قَلِيلٗاۖ فَوَيۡلٞ لَّهُم مِّمَّا كَتَبَتۡ أَيۡدِيهِمۡ وَوَيۡلٞ لَّهُم مِّمَّا يَكۡسِبُونَ ﴾
[ البقرة: 79]
﴿ ترجمة: فويل للذين يكتبون الكتاب بأيديهم ثم يقولون هذا من عند الله ليشتروا ﴾
Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allah," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby....
@@user-oi3xg3xy6j Allah Hu Makr
It was put in by man, removed by man. God had nothing to do with it.
Great video! Heard you loud and clear
Yay! Thank you! I appreciate you. Be sure to stay connected.
@@gclmedia Will do
The fact that any book is quoted in the New Testament does not by itself mean that the quoted book is necessarily inspired and part of the canon of scripture. The same would be true of books that are quoted in the Old Testament.
1. No one has the right to add or subtract books from the Bible.
2. Nowhere in the New Testament is there a direct quotation from the canonical books of Joshua, Judges, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, Obadiah, Zephaniah, and Nahum; and the New Testament allusions to them are few in number.
3. Some of the deuterocanonical books are referenced in a way that shows the New Testament authors considered them to be inspired records of biblical events. For example, Hebrews 11:35 describes people in the Old Testament who “were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they may rise again to a better life.” These people are only described in 2 Maccabees 7, which describes brothers who accept torture instead of eating pork and violating Jewish law. Since the context of Hebrews 11 includes “the men of old [who] received divine approval” (v. 2), this means the books describing the Maccabean martyrs were part of the Old Testament that was used by the author of the Letter to the Hebrews.
4. The idea that the early Church viewed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture is even more evident in the writings of early Church fathers like Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Cyprian, and Origen. Moreover, these fathers cited these books as “Scripture” or “holy Scripture,”
Thank you for the video
I don't think it should have been ever removed,it has a great historical value, now if that happened today, people took out books of the Bible, what would people think
There was just as much of an uproar then as well. It's just not talked about often. Research the KJV- Only Movement and the Apocrypha Controversy.
Beautifully done 🙏🏾
Thank you 🙌
So i got the apogrpyha. Should i take it as inspired the holy spirit or not? An if so then explain in words i can understand.
John 16:13
@@gclmediait shouldn't be. It teaches that we can pay for the sins of the dead. An that fallen angels had sex with women. Wich is just ridiculous.
Multiple early church councils declared the Apocryphal books to be divine canonical scripture in the 300’s AD.
@@dustygatrell-ru7tg it said angels had sex with women?
@@dustygatrell-ru7tggenesis ch 6
A better question: Why was the Apocrypha added?
The Apocrypha wasn't added. It was removed.
I can respect an articulate unpretentious pastor for change; Godspeed sir
I like your calm cheerful demeanor. Makes such a divisive topic fun to learn about 😅
If you are talking about the NT apocryphal books I don’t think they were ever put in widely. Most of the books were excepted for years by tradition and when the NT was formally compiled those were the books that were accepted. Books like revelation had the most trouble getting into the official NT cannon.
Well, he's not talking about New Testament apocrypha.
Good information but background music is so louder.
Who had the authority to remove them ?
No one
Martin Luther almost removed the book of James. So who has an authority to remove? If decide to remove book of colossians, would you immediately follow suite or test it first?
@@TatureBud lol he did remove it. Just wasn't successful in getting many to follow. He was a brave and also very interesting person. Good response nonetheless.
@@jeremymoffet9034 Good afternoon Jeremy. You said; "he did remove it"
Luther's 1534 German Bible contained all 27 books of the NT, all 39 books of the OT, and all books of the Apocrypha.
@@mark9531 Fair point...I should have said, more accurately that he rejected it and believed it to be impossible to reconcile it with other books of the Bible (mostly Paul in my opinion). He even called it an "epistle of straw". He rejected other works as well.
@gclmedia
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
2 Timothy 3:16
If the “apocrypha” books are not “canon” but the Bible talks about some of the books that have events that are not in the Bible then it contradicts 2 Timothy 3:16. I always point out to Jude verse 14 where that prophecy of Enoch is not found anywhere in the KJ version of the Bible but it’s found in the book of Jasher.
Great post and straight to the point.
King James ordered the Geneva
Bible illegal which contains those apocryphal books and was still popular after his version came out because it contained annotations questioning the bishop’s power and his own. Just found out today. God bless you.
Thank you so much. Understanding historical context enriches our appreciation for the diverse biblical traditions and helps us to understand things that are not part of the western culture. Keep doing what you are doing, exploring! May God bless your journey!
2 Timothy 3:16 doesnt seem to have the meaning you think it does. Trent Horn explores this God Breathing word.
ua-cam.com/video/BxqtRAOAXYU/v-deo.html
Does Timothy also condone slavery? And leviticus gives a detailed description on just how to beat slaves,I believe.
Rather than spending time researching why the apocrypha was or was not part of the Bible, spend that time reading the Bible and the apocrypha.
Thank you so much. It is interesting that you would say that. 🤔
I assume reading them would be an essential part of the research.
@@MatthewAbhisheg I don’t understand your comment.
The apocrypha is reading the “Bible.” But yea people need to test all things. Also I love how we can prove someone removed text and in revelation it warns of what happens to those who add or take away from the scriptures. So study why the reformers removed it, and you find out their lies and hidden stuff was just men in error back then thinking they had the authority
You nailed it.
I love the apocrypha book
THANK YOU FINALLY THE EXPLANATION I WAS LOOKING FOR
Well, thank you so much! You’ve made my day! 🤗 Be sure to check out my other videos on the Apocrypha…the insights get deeper and greater.
The Lost Books:
ua-cam.com/users/shortso0m_qTPGKZc?si=N-fO6xY4X79xypHc
Martin Luther’s Apocrypha
ua-cam.com/video/ZzIsyuSXccY/v-deo.htmlsi=qbw74vT5OQ62_0W8
Who REMOVED the Apocrypha
ua-cam.com/users/shortso-JyExR1fxQ?si=qI0C_4jcKwcF2UGm
Disputed Books
ua-cam.com/users/shorts2D16wlzmbSc?si=7ZSi5zECSGOyYkoS
No disrespect to the content provider, but on a broader level, the truth may not always be what we are "looking for". Seek first the Kingdom of God and not just your own truth.
Interesting. Thanks so much for your video. I wonder if there is an NKJV with Apocrypha or if the Apocrypha would have to be purchased separately.
Blessings! And thank you. I have not encountered an NKJV version of the Apocrypha. I have it separately. Here is a link to a few resources including the Apocrypha amzn.to/3PVb8yz
Check out the orthodox study Bible
Old Testament newly translated from the Greek text of the Septuagint, including the Deuterocanon
New Testament from the New King James Version
KJV 1611 Editions which is the 1st editions of the year 1611, never been revised by Protestants, will have them between the O.T. and the N.T. ..... You can still buy that edition .... usually in a Large White Beautiful Hard copy Book ...
NKJV"s will not have them
Excellent, informative video to the point! Thx!
Thank you so much. I do my best to be accurate yet as short and concise as possible. Believe me when I say it is not easy to do being that I create theological content.
Great explanation. Easy to understand and to the point.
Well said loved the way you plant this seed ❤
Thank you!
I got the Bible with the other books from my Pastor Jennings store and originally the Bible is called the Holy Scriptures Samuel:218 talks about the book of Jasher
Matthew 9:36 vs Judith 11:19., matthew 22:25 vs Tobit 3:8
Nice!
The Ethiopian Bible is the oldest original Bible that was written and still to this day holds the apocrypha within it unchanged by man taking away from Gods word 🫠
the Catholic Bible has the original biblical canon of AD 382. Luther removed seven book (and tried to remove another four) because they disagreed with his new theology.
Blessings and thank so much for engaging! If you have the opportunity please take a look at this video
👉🏾Did Martin Luther Remove the Apocrypha?
ua-cam.com/video/ZzIsyuSXccY/v-deo.html
@@gclmedia Luther removed the 7 deutero-canonical books. He also removed James Jude Hebrews and Revelation, though some of his co-religionists pressured him to reinstate the 4 NT books. Facts
Not true. He simply repositioned them to be between the Old and New Testaments. He specifically wrote that they were good for reading, despite his views on their canonicity.
@AppleOfThineEye The Bible consists of two sections: the Old Testament and the New Testament. A third section, created by some guy in the 16th century, is not part of the Bible.
@@fantasia55 Assuming you're talking about the Apocrypha, no, that is also not true. It was written, at the absolute latest, in the fourth century, as Augustine wrote about it.
You are free to debate the canonicity; saying it was written in the 16th century, however, is simply false.
This is why I don’t understand the Protestant church anymore because I can’t believe King James had us only reading 66 books 😭
I was shocked when I converted to Catholicism and they had 72 then I was introduced to the Orthodox Bible ❤️
Thank you for your content it’s 🔥
I appreciate you! Thank you for taking the time to watch and comment.
what's that beat playing?
It's a Custom beat created for my video and audio teachings! Do you like it?
@@gclmediano it’s ass
No one should be able to decide for you. Search your heart. If the Bible is vague maybe the Apocrypha will be of great assistance. It sure was to me. ❤Test everything. Nothing in the Bible is vague. May the Holy spirit guide us all on this journey of discovery and may it be to the glory of the Most Hight. ❤
John 1:1,3 vs wisdom of solomon 9:1
The problem for Protestants is that Luther and other 16th century "reformers" had absolutely no authority to determine what was scripture and what was not....including the 7 deuterocanonical books. It established the REAL "tradition of men"...unauthorized men. The Catholic Church had that authority from Christ....biblically AND historically. You can add reason and common sense as well. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty.
Yes, that's the Catholic position. For the Reformers, since the Apocrypha was not part of the Jewish Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), they questioned its canonical status. The Hebrew Bible was solidified in its current form sometime around the first century AD. This canon does not include the Apocryphal books, which were written primarily in Greek and not in Hebrew (with a few possible exceptions). The Reformers recognized the Jewish community's role in preserving the Hebrew Scriptures. This acknowledgment, however, was more about recognizing the historical and linguistic authenticity of the texts rather than assigning ecclesiastical authority to the Jewish community.
@@ntlearning Yes, and you give the false Protestant position, which is problematic for several reasons beyond the very cogent one I gave. Luther had no authority to change the canon, no matter what his excuses were because of his conjured up theology that misunderstood Paul, or any other Protestant after those books had been in the Christian (Catholic) bible for over a thousand years. . The Deuterocanonicals were part of the LXX, the Septuagint, and biblical scholars know it was cited widely by the apostles. About 90% of the references in the NT about the OT came from the Septuagint. In the first century, there was no closed canon of the Hebrew bible. Judaism was NOT some monolithic body that had agreed on a Hebrew bible. So Luther's excuses are nonsense, especially after the revelations after discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 that Luther knew nothing about...the Essenes kept scrolls including some of the apocryphal books before the time of Christ. What Jews finally decided upon much later is immaterial. Protestants used the Masoretic texts which came long after the CC had canonized the OT in the 4th century with Pope Damasus and the Council of Rome. That decision never changed in the CC and was infallibly declared by the Council of Trent over a 1000 years later with no change in response to Luther's nonsense. No one knows for sure when the first attempts were made by the Jews to close their canon. It doesn't matter....the CC had the authority from Jesus...He promised to send the Spirit of Truth to guide the chosen leaders of the Church He founded into all truth (Gospel of John) and to be with it always. That includes canonizing the bible which should be an inconvenient truth to Protestants, but they either ignore or twist biblical passages to support their flawed theology...the promise of Jesus DID NOT APPLY to the 16th century schisms and traditions of men who made up their own religions and picked and chose what books of the bible they wanted. The Church Jesus founded did not need to follow the old covenant and what Jews thought anyway...they had no belief in the New Testament. The CC had the biblical authority, not Luther or Calvin or the Jews or any other human, to say what was scripture. The CHURCH of the NT bible had that authority. The bible called it the "pillar and foundation for the truth." Not Luther, not bickering Protestants, not Jews.
@@richardkramer4076 Thanks for the cut and paste. Keep it shorter because people don't read long threads.
But we are not talking about the NT. We are talking about the OT.
It was the Jewish Church and their tradition that we are grafted from. The Jewish Fathers rejected those books because they believed them not to be true Hebraic Canon.
They don't care about Catholics and Protestants. And the Hebrew Tanakh came out before the Bible was codified.
The Church should not be so proud. Peter to decide the NT, and Moses to decide the OT. Jewish Church and Christian Church = One Tree. Interestingly, Saint Athanasius had the Protestant Canon. That's quite funny.
@@ntlearning I didn't cut and paste a single word. It was all from memory. Of course, it's convenient to blame the length of my response, because it refutes your claims.
You pretend the "Jewish fathers" were all in agreement...that is flat wrong The Sadducees believed the Torah, but not what all the other Jewish sects like the Pharisees believed for example. Temples kept various scrolls, not a Hebrew bible. No one can point to a definitive closing of the Hebrew canon until the 9th century. The rest is just speculation. Jamnia is myth. The Dead Sea Scrolls are an inconvenient truth for Luther and you.
You have yet to give a good rebuttal to my claims, while I have addressed yours. You just can't wiggle out of the big problem for Protestants...they had NO AUTHORITY to change the canon that had been in place for a 1000 years. Jews have no authority to be deciding a Christian canon....nor does Martin Luther. The bible makes clear WHO has the authority, and it is not 16th century schismatics, regardless of how much you ignore the truth. Chew on truth for a while.
I have a video coming soon that deals with the ideas you mentioned. Stay tuned!
Here's one of the reasons they removed the Apocrypha : 2 Esdras 6:54-59
54 And after these, Adam also, whom thou madest lord of all thy creatures: of him come we all, and the people also whom thou hast chosen.
55 All this have I spoken before thee, O Lord, because thou madest the world for our sakes
56 As for the other people, which also come of Adam, thou hast said that they are nothing, but be like unto spittle: and hast likened the abundance of them unto a drop that falleth from a vessel.
57 And now, O Lord, behold, these heathen, which have ever been reputed as nothing, have begun to be lords over us, and to devour us.
58 But we thy people, whom thou hast called thy firstborn, thy only begotten, and thy fervent lover, are given into their hands.
59 If the world now be made for our sakes, why do we not possess an inheritance with the world? how long shall this endure?
Keep crying aloud!!! Good job brother!!
Thank you for your kindness and words of encouragement! I appreciate you!
A much better guide on this topic is with Gary Michuta on his yt channel the Apocrypha Apocalypse. He goes through a detailed explanation how the non-catholics removed these inspired books from their bibles in stages. He also shows how Jeromes early doubts were transformed and how the Dead Sea Scrolls actually show Jeromes doubts were unfounded and the Pope was right to insist the deutero-canons were indeed inspired.
love this guy
I love you back! And I appreciate you more than you know.
Acts 23:3
Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?
Galatians 4:16
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
Jude 1:9
Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
Umur dah tua krepot tapi masih tak nak bertaubat.....
kenapa tidak?
As a Catholic, I actually appreciate how basic the information was here. Anyone who listens to this will have a decent understanding of the reasons they were removed in later editions of the KJB
They most certainly are part of the canon, they are still in the Orthodox (eastern and oriental) bibles as well!
Thank you so much for engaging. I appreciate you. And yes, indeed, they sure are.
If it the new testament quoted from it, then what more proof do you want? Did the Holy Spirit have a hand in the writing of those books? Does any of those books go against what is viewed as truly inspired books? If there is no contradiction or heresies, then why go after it?
Good day brother do you know what does it mean of Apocrypha? Incase you do not know its Hidden away! Not only Apocrypha they removed alot of scriptures but anyway as what the scripture say in Luke 12:2 For there is nothing covered,that shall not be revealed;neither hid,that shall not be known.Abbah bless you brother...
Thank u paster i believe those books the apocryha all scripture is given by God amen ❤
They contain some very intriguing insights. I love making those connections that can only be found in the Apocrypha.
The King James Bible was created for King James VI, who had to approve of the final edit. It's his own idiotic mistranslation of the writings he found "acceptable", with everything else thrown out and excluded if he didn't like what it said. The entire version is his own personally preferred false translation, and it deliberately excludes various legit writings such as the Book of Enoch. Enoch was transfigured into Heaven without experiencing death, and Jesus Christ actually quoted him in the New Testament, proving that Enoch's writings were inspired by Heavenly experience and approved by Almighty God. And yet King James dismissed his writings as "heresy" and "fantasy". People who won't read the Book of Enoch are scared of the incredible account of the Fallen Angels and refuse to accept how really WEIRD this earth was before the flood, to the point where some pastors will get physically angry with you if you attempt to make THEM read it. When Jesus said "search the scriptures", he meant ALL of them. The Book of Enoch, Jubiliees, the Book of Giants, .... EVERYTHING.
The King James Bible is probably the worst, most incomplete, inaccurate garbage ever.
@barryhowell8992
It's absolutely Astounding how many "believers" if you will, don't understand that.
KJV, is definitively the worst translation.
But how many people Actually Read the texts they "believe"?
What bible would include the apocrypha, both testaments, and not be king james version
ESV makes a Bible like that.
The Apocrypha is valid
If you look in the Old Testament and Daniel chapter 2 he talks about 4 powerful empires in this specific order Babylon,Medo-Persia ,Greece and Roman Empire .
Daniel lived served the Babylonians and the Medo -Persians if we continue from the book of Daniel all the way to the book of Malachi we don’t see the Greek Empire . Why is it that out of now her in the new Testament it skips to the ruling of the Roman’s .
The reason being is because this apocrypha books bridges the New Testament and the Old Testament
And if you look into it it covers the Greek empire they’re valid and inspired with God and completes the timeline of the Kingdoms in Daniel 2
Luther and his followers were apparently prophets that they could just remove bible books like that
Blessings and thank you for engaging. Check out this video if you have an opportunity. ua-cam.com/video/ZzIsyuSXccY/v-deo.htmlsi=PQ6YDAm0sLgHM9Ni
Simple answer. One man with no authority decided he didn't want to be Catholic anymore. Then, another, and another, and here we are. And the Roman Catholic Church still stands firm. You can all argue and protest from now until the end, and His Church will still be there.
I have my heart set on purchasing the Ethiopian Bible. 🥰
As another story goes, the Geneva Bible of 1560, was the bible before KJV came out with his, also had the Apocrypha & the Protestants was not happy with KJV creating his own Bible, they made it to where the Geneva Bible was against the law to have so Protestants fled to here for religious freedom. Really hard to not question why these things happen. Extremely suspect. I believe people are further away from the true teachings of God & since they plan for another religious reset (not the first), pretty sure it'll take people even further, until they realize to go within. God existed way before books!!
When Ezra complied the Canon, the apocrypha were not written.
They came later.....What we call the Old testament was complied by Ezra in Babylon.
Matthew 23:35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
Abel was the first person to be killed, and Zechariah was the last prophet to be killed..... Righteous Abel... Genesis to Zechariah. Scripture..... Which was what Jesus and the apostles read from.
It was what was complied by Ezra that are called scriptures.
The apocrypha are just later books and writings.
Bel and the dragon...
Like Bel and the DRAGON...
Actually, there are some things that need to be stated:
1. There only 7 deuterocanonical books (what he calls apocryphal) in the Catholic Bible. I’m not sure where he is getting 14.
2. Protestants removed these books from their inspired canon during The Reformation. Church councils in the late 4th Century and 15th Century list these books as inspired. These books, however, clearly articulate Catholic (and historic Christian) beliefs that Protestants disagree with, so Luther removed them.
3. Early Protestant Bibles still continued to include these books but in a different section. Many of these books stopped being included over time due to Bible-printing costs.
Thank you for your engagement! I appreciate you taking the time to engage with this content and your input. May I offer some insights into the points you've raised?
1. The term "Deuterocanonical" identifies a subset of books within the broader Apocrypha. The seven books you are referring to -Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and First and Second Maccabees-are consistently recognized as Deuterocanonical. It's important to take note that the designation "Deuterocanonical" is used within certain traditions, particularly in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox contexts. The total count of books in the Apocrypha can vary based on which texts are included or excluded, but “ALL” the books commonly referred to as Apocrypha are part of the Deuterocanonical books. This term highlights their recognition as canonical by some traditions while not universally accepted by others.
2. While it's true that Martin Luther had concerns about certain books in the Apocrypha, the statement oversimplifies the historical context. Luther “DID NOT” remove these books from the canon; instead, he relocated them within the Bible, between the Old and New Testaments, emphasizing a distinction in authority. The process of defining the canon was not uniform across church history, and various Christian traditions held different views on the status of these books. The late 4th Century councils, such as the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, did discuss canonical lists, but there wasn't a universal consensus among all Christian communities. Additionally, the 15th Century reference likely pertains to the Council of Florence, which sought to address church unity but did not establish a binding canon. The assertion that Luther removed these books due to disagreements with Catholic beliefs oversimplifies the historical and theological factors involved. Luther's concerns were nuanced and related to specific doctrines, not a wholesale rejection. Check out my video titled Luther’s Apocrypha ua-cam.com/video/ZzIsyuSXccY/v-deo.htmlsi=0yZEQ8MPISQMos7_
3. You are correct! Early Protestant Bibles continued to include these books, albeit “often” placed in a separate section (most commonly between the Old and New Testaments). However, over time, many of these books gradually ceased to be included, a shift attributed in part to decisions made by “The Publishers and Printers”. Check out my YT Short ua-cam.com/users/shortso-JyExR1fxQ?si=zVRgSa98-y9rwz6o
Much Love!!!
Good morning Ike. You said; "I’m not sure where he is getting 14"
That is a good question. The 7 whole books of the Apocrypha are *Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and I Maccabees and II Maccabees.*
________________________
The other 7 books of the Apocrypha are actually *extensions* or additions to other books of the Old Testament
~ *I Esdras* [Additions to the book of Ezra]
~ *II Esdras* [Additions to the book of Nehemiah]
~ *The Rest of Esther* [107 verses added to Esther]
~ *The Song of the Three Children* [Addition to the book of Daniel]
~ *The Stories Susanna* [Addition to the book of Daniel]
~ *Bell and Dragon* Daniel [Addition to the book of Daniel]
~ *The Prayer of Manasseh* [Addition to he book of II Chronicles]
"deuterocanonical books (what he calls apocryphal)"
I hope you don't mind if I make couple more clarifications. These books were called Apocrypha by Jerome as a section in his Latin Vulgate. Where he segregated the Apocryphal books from the rest of the Canon of Scripture.
All early church fathers referred to these books as *Apocryphal*
________________________
There has always been and there always will be questions as to the canonicity and inspiration of these books. Dating all the way back to Origen, Jerome, Clement, Athanasius, Ruffinus, Hilary, Gregory of Nazianzus, Melito, and Cyril of Jerusalem all had strong opinions as to the inspiration and canonicity of the Apocrypha.
Early church fathers considered these books as ecclesiastical, enlightening, to be read and taught. But there has always been a distinction between these books and the inspired canon of scripture.
"Protestants removed these books from their inspired canon during The Reformation" "Early Protestant Bibles still continued to include these books but in a different section"
These books were never listed as part of the inspired canon. These books have always been separated from the canon of scripture (Until the English Douay-Rheims)
Jerome separated these books from the inspired canon with a heading called *Apocrypha* in the Latin Vulgate. Jerome also wrote a clear disclaimer that these books, though enlightening, and should be read, were not part of the inspired canon of scripture.
"Many of these books stopped being included over time due to Bible-printing costs."
That is correct. All English Bibles, even into the Reformation, contained the Apocrypha. Often following Jerome's pattern of separating them from inspired canon and writing a clear disclaimer as to their canonicity.
The Apocrypha remained in the KJV, by law and copyright, until 1884. As you stated, it was removed for cost. And also to reduce the 17"x12"x5" 1600 page size of the KJV.
Yes it should be included. We have it in the Catholic Bible
You did not say why these book were removed or why they are considered uninspired by God, you just told us they removed them.
Although, I do believe that I did. Forgive me! Please accept my apology. Here is the reason why 👉🏾 ua-cam.com/video/o-JyExR1fxQ/v-deo.htmlsi=C4oHjtg7RjQumy0o
Good morning souououo. You said; "You did not say why these book were removed"
The primary reason any major publication of the Bible removed the Apocrypha was not for any ecclesiastical reason. It was simply a matter of economics.
The King James Bible was a 17"x 13" x 5" thick. It was 1600 page a lectern Bible which weighed 30 pounds and was chained to the pulpit.
_________________________________
It included the apocrypha, The Book of Common Prayers, and many pages of calendars, bible reading and prayer schedules, genealogies of the patriarchs, kings, holy days, veneration of the saints, maps, etc.
When Congress gave Robert Aitken the copyright to print the 1611 King James Bible in the US, he took everything out of the KJV except the 66 books. This made the Bible affordable and the size it is now.
"why they are considered uninspired by God"
A distinction must be made between why they were removed (which I stated in my last comment. And why they were not considered inspired.
Here is the quick reason they are NOT considered inspired:
~There was a 400 year silence when God ceased to speak to His people, Israel, and the New Testament.
~If God was not speaking to Israel, He was not inspiring his people to write more scripture, after the book of Malachi
~None of the characters in the Apocryphal books claimed to be prophets, who would have written scripture
~The Characters in the Apocryphal books recount their prayers to God. *But none ever claim that God, the Holy Spirit, or angels spoke back to them*
This is the essence of inspiration. And what is lacking in the Apocryphal books
Where can I buy a bible like this
They are not hard to find. If you have older family members it is likely that you have access to one and are just not aware. Purchasing them takes a little more effort: flea markets, garage sales, estate sales, Facebook marketplace, etc. These Bibles contrary to popular beliefs are not rare. The Bible is the MOST printed book in the world. It only gets harder to find them as you get closer to the creation of the printing press. After that, it is just a matter of how much you are willing to invest?!
Church of Scotland 1829. It wasn’t supposed to be removed.
It was never recognized as apart of the scriptures by the apostles, that's why it's not apart of the real churches bible
God had them in the Bible for a reason.Who are we to decide to remove them?They will have to answer to God on judgment day.
Pharisees didn't like the apocrypha and puritans definitely were on the same page with the Pharisees. Martin Luther knew Jesus quoted the Septuagint and hence respected Deutero canonical books.
Wisdom of solomon chapter 10. Mother God. Her name substituted as "wisdom".
Nice lantern bro
Because it gave information that the leaders of the religious world didnt want the masses to have access too. You controll a people lore or history and you control their minds.
Thank you! And if god is within, there is no need for a preacher,priest, rabbi,etc.
On the contrary it is my opinion that the bible came from the so called apocryphal books.
All of the Churches that were actually established b y Christ and the Apostles 2,000 years ago include the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon as scrpture. Who has the authority to reject them? churches established in rebellion against the Church established by Christ or the rebels? Ir really comes down to that.
ua-cam.com/video/ZzIsyuSXccY/v-deo.htmlsi=3C7_OV4koYDgToQp
There are explicit prophesies of Jesus in the deuterocanon.
Indeed!
The apocrypha was never "removed" from the Bible. It never was part of it. It was added by the catholic church in the year 1546, just one year after it was declared that church tradition was granted equal authority to the Bible, almost as if those two were connected. The reason they were not part of the Bible is becasue they are not God-breathed. They are the writings of fallible men. While these books were quoted from in the Bible by people, that doesn't make them God-breathed. The apostles and the like quote things that the original audience would be familar with to illustrate a point. The Bible is supposed to be a compilation of every document known to man that is God-breathed. Putting the writings of man mixed in with it shows the catholic church's low opinion of God's word that they think they can just add to it on a whim. They claim that their man-made tradition is equal to what the Bible says, that man's word is equal to God's word. Even more egregiously, they don't even beleive that. They say they do, but it's even worse. They believe that their tradition is of greater authority than the Bible. When the catholic church and the Bible contradict each other, which is chosen to listen to? You guessed it. Every single time. The catholic church was not the church Jesus founded, despite the claims of catholics. In order to be the church Jesus founded, it must first be a church, and it lacks the biblical requirements to be considered one. That's another thing. Catholic teaching says that only the church has the authority to interpret scripture, and that we can only understand the Bible through the church. The problem with that (one of many problems) is that the Bible tells us what a church is supposed to look like. 1 and 2 Timothy is full of requirements on how to run a church, requirements that the catholic church ignores. We can only know what a church is from the Bible, not the other way around. "But the church came before the Bible" some may say. Dishonest. That's arguing as if the Bible was enturely written in 300 AD. The Bible was compiled later, but the documents that made it up were made far before that. Jesus quoted many of these, so don't try and pretend that catholics font know that. "Jesus said build a church, not write a book. Nowhere in scripture does it say that scripture is the sole infallible rule of faitb in those exact words!" More dishonest catholic rhetoric. It's the same thing that Muslims do, when they say that Jesus isn't God because nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say,the exact words "I am God, worship me."
Let me share with you the gospel, since many catholics have never heard it before.
ua-cam.com/video/P4SWiZO91hU/v-deo.htmlsi=WGBTSKpZODOK2Heh
You know, when a catholic converts to a protestant, they talk all about core Christians doctrine tbey mever heard before. Scripture's authority being derived from its God-breathed nature, the imputed righteousness of Christ, what it means to have peace with God and the God-given tests we can use to have assurance of that, among others. Meanwhile, when a catholic converts to a protestant, all you hear is "the church the church the church" and then they strawman reformed theology, which indicates that they either had no idea what they were talking about pre-conversion, or are lying post-conversion. The contrast is night and day. The former conversion leads beliefs in a God-centered direction, and the latter a man-centered direction. I pray that this steers you in the correct direction.
All 81 books should be consolidated as their stories are interwoven together. Books in the Apocrypha didn't fit the white man's so-called spiritual narrative when he became spiritual enlightened and decided to evangelize his people; however, today the books in the Apocrypha fits very well spiritually when read in conjunction with the rest of the 66 books of the Bible. The stories told in the books of the Apocrypha are just as spiritual and dynamic as any book in the Bible I read, and that is why I read them all once a year. God preserved them for a reason - for His people specifically.
There’s a reason why the KJV is used by Catholics…Look up the history and King James and his proclivities. The KJV was a state sanctioned bible by the states sanctioned Anglican Church that is basically England version of the Catholic Church. The Bible of the reformers and the Bible the founders of America used was the Geneva. The Geneva was truly the Bible of the reformers and true Protestants of those eras. The Geneva was the common mans study bible which king James did not like..much like the Roman church felt about Tyndale and Wycliffe and Luther.
Thank you for your engagement, and I appreciate your interest. However, it's important to address some inaccuracies in your comment. The King James Version (KJV) was commissioned by King James I for the Church of England, not as a state-sanctioned Bible for Catholics. The Geneva Bible, while popular among Protestants, had its controversies. The KJV aimed to be acceptable to both High Church Anglicans and Puritans.
While the Geneva Bible was favored by some reformers, the KJV was commissioned to be a more inclusive and widely accepted translation within the English-speaking world.
Lastly, the authorized Catholic translation has been the Douay-Rheims Bible since its publication between 1582 and 1610. This translation was a response to the Protestant Reformation and the popularity of the Geneva Bible (1560).
Seen but can't be unseen like genesis with a space is genes is; 🧬 is, and then it's a book on creation.
Jesus spoke of this when he was talking about genetics when in Matthew he said they will see but they will not perceive and they will hear but they will not understand.
In one Corinthians this is kind of reinforced because it's arguing facts versus feelings. Faith versus science. 😅 The Bible seems to always play out in cycles, small to bigger
I have no reason to be against Bibles that include the Apocrypha.
I will say this however, if I attend a church and the pastor uses a passage from the Apocrypha as the sermon text, I most certainly will not be staying too long at that church. Sermon texts should only come from the Old or New Testament. You can quote from the Apocrypha as long as the passage that you are using lines up to the New Testament.
The Apocrypha is not part of God's inspired writings so therefore it is not fit to have is not part of God's inspired writings so therefore it is not fit to be used as a main text for sermon.
This statement is not Holy Writ. It is merely my own personal opinion.
Revelation 22:19
There's not accurate information with enough context of history to judge this fairly
Blessings! I can’t quite make out what you are trying to say.
@@gclmediaby the way, thank you so much for your zeal. I make professional videos also. Maybe it's God's will for us to communicate in private and collaborate someday
Removed so the publishers could save money on paper & ink - that's your modern Bible.
You know, if you were really going to answer the question, Why Was the Apocrypha Removed from the Bible, you might have the word "because" in your rant.
The Apocrypha was ADDED to the scriptures during the reformation by the Roman Catholic Church. It was written in the years after Christ's crucifixion but was not considered scripture by the Jews and was not part of the canon.
That’s interesting! I’ve seen the now-called Apocrypha in the Wycliffe Bible (1382 AD), that’s at least 135 years before the reformation. I’ve also seen it with my own eyes… in a 1275 AD Latin Vulgate (400 AD)! The council of Trent wasn’t until 1545. 🤷🏿♂️
As I stated in my posting it was written in the years following Christ's crucifixion, from about 100 to 300 ad or thereabouts. The word apocrypha means "writings or reports not considered genuine and or to hide away.”@@gclmedia
No removed because man is wicked! Just too many ideas! For the wicked But it’s your responsibility to learn what you want!
Inspired?
It's an account of history. Why would it need need to be inspired . It's. Historical account. As is the whole Bible
The enemy removed them and the only one that’s dodgy is the gospel of Thomas. It was taken out by the enemy, Rome. Modern Christian’s are so knee deep in heresy they might as well be pagans
Do you mean the Roman Catholic Church? The church that can trace its history all the way back to the apostles? The church who still teaches today the same thing that the apostles pot back then? The same church who codified the Bible and kept it around for 2000 years so that we could have it today? the church to mission and teaching this always to help us to know and trust the Lord more deeply every day?
The gospel of Thomas (a Gnostic work) was never part of any Christian canon.
The gospel of Thomas (a Gnostic work) was never part of any Christian canon.
The Catholic church added them in the conceil of Trent... Protestants removed them once again.
@@PatrickSteilEsaú took the books out the very people god hates took the book out it didn’t fit their doctrine which is why they took it out for example 2nd edras 56
Summary the other nation means absolutely nothing to god only Israel but that wouldn’t fit their teaching that everyone can and will be saved which is a false teaching so the enemy took it out so therefore you need to read the apocryphal books if you want the truth again they are enemies in the Bible so ofc they took it out
This is not quite right.
Firstly the KJV was never the "definitive Protestant bible" because it only exists in English.
Secondly, after Martin Luther decided to collect together the books considered non-canoncical, which are still scattered through Catholic bibles, and after the KJV was printed in this 2 tier fashion, bibles in English and other lanagues continued to include the apocrypha section.
Then, in the 19th century, purely for reasons of print economy, the American Bible Society and the British Bible Society decided to stop including the apocypha, which they considered to be little used.
Who have the authority to change if it is the true word of GOD?
That means man wrote the whole bible .
فَوَيۡلٞ لِّلَّذِينَ يَكۡتُبُونَ ٱلۡكِتَٰبَ بِأَيۡدِيهِمۡ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَٰذَا مِنۡ عِندِ ٱللَّهِ لِيَشۡتَرُواْ بِهِۦ ثَمَنٗا قَلِيلٗاۖ فَوَيۡلٞ لَّهُم مِّمَّا كَتَبَتۡ أَيۡدِيهِمۡ وَوَيۡلٞ لَّهُم مِّمَّا يَكۡسِبُونَ ﴾
[ البقرة: 79]
﴿ ترجمة: فويل للذين يكتبون الكتاب بأيديهم ثم يقولون هذا من عند الله ليشتروا ﴾
Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allah," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby.
If our people want to know about the 81 books..they don't need to read books outside the bible. Purchase the 1611 king james bible with the apocrypha and seek out the teachers and pastors the most high has given us...Jeremiah 3:15
81 books? Only the Ethiopian orthodox bible has that many books
It is better to Seek out Jesus himself and I'm doing this.
Book of Judith 1:1 Nebuchadnezzar is king of Ninevah. Elsewhere, Jerusalem is rebuilt Before it is destroyed. The apocryphal books do not flow with the rest of scripture
Judith takes place after the Maccabean revolt, long after Jerusalem was destroyed. And that's when Nineveh was rebuilt.
King James and his 7 Catholic bishops.... Read King James connection to both Protestant and Catholic....
The term "Apocrypha" is being misused by you. Apocrypha means 'hidden' and refers to books such as "The book of Jubilees" and the "book of Enoch" for example. Neither of those are part of the Deuterocanonical books which are composed of 7 books the Catholic Bible has.
The LXX was the Bible Jesus and His disciples used, it was the Bible of the time. One of the criteria of determining if a book is Scripture is if the early church read it in mass.
They did read the 7 books qualifying them in that aspect as Scripture.
Secondly, by what authority did the folks have to expunge any books from the KJV 1611? None
Blessing and thank you. The term "Deuterocanonical" identifies a subset of books within the broader Apocrypha. In Catholicism these are the seven books-Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and First and Second Maccabees-are recognized as Deuterocanonical. Hence, the books in the Apocrypha vary based on which texts are included or excluded, but all the books referred to as Apocrypha are part of a one faith or another’s Deuterocanonical book. This term highlights those books that are recognized as canonical by that tradition and because these are not universally accepted, by them they are called Apocrypha. Hence there are books that are Deuterocanonical to the Orthodox but are Apocryphal to Catholics, and books that are Deuterocanonical to Catholics but are Apocryphal to Protestants.
@@gclmedia
Thanks, but again you don't understand the term. As I've previously stated, The book of Enoch is an example of Apocrypha. To put Tobit in this same category has never been heard of before the 16th century.
I think the difference in our position is this:
I am ordering the books in the categories the exact same way the early church did.
You on the other hand are ordering the books according to the Reformation Fathers.
As such, you cannot supplant church history that extends back to the 1st century with Protestant history which began in the 16th century.
Show me a single church father that classified Tobit as "Apocrypha" in the 1st century & I will submit to your argument.
Protestants consider ANY book as "Apocrypha" that doesn't fall into their canon. As such this is incorrect reasoning.
@@jakejordan9466
@@jakejordan9466 ua-cam.com/video/ey6Vefgryhc/v-deo.htmlsi=ttDt_rAtVgUANZV7
@@jakejordan9466 Good evening Jake. You said; "Show me a single church father that classified Tobit as "Apocrypha" in the 1st century"
Jerome called these books Apocryphal. Jerome classified these books as useful, ecclesiastical, but not inspired or part of the canon of scripture.
___________________
"Show me a single church father that classified Tobit as "Apocrypha" in the 1st century"
The Books of Enoch and Jubilee are classified as *_Pseudepigraphal_* which is spurious, doubtful, false, Jewish fables.
It was the Catholic Church that took it out of the Bible.