@@kjbrc thank you! I have a debate with a King James Only guy next month who believes the apocrypha is scripture because it’s in the 1611 KJV. These quotations at the beginning are invaluable. God bless!
Once i read the Apocrypha I could not believe why any believer would not want to include them in the canons of Scripture. Absolutely wonderful books that all the early Christians held valuable and as canonized scriptures. Only reason they were taken out is because of the publishing company of the KJV and no other reason. No church council ever agreed on taking them out.
I've always thought they kept the apocrypha because those writings were well known and preached by Catholicism and so they were dispelling the myths by saying "Here are these false teachings you have heard, now you can see that they are not biblical." Thank you for these videos.
Don't pass out you little fruit. The KJB is inerrant, perfect. Stick with your corrupt versions, from perverted Alexandrian manuscripts, NIV, ESV, etc. if you want.
The KJV translators, in their notes, state that in translating the Bible they compared their work with the writings of the church fathers. Those church fathers often quoted from the Apocrypha, usually as a way to bolster an argument. Since the fathers used and quoted the Apocrypha, and the translators were using their writings, it’s only natural to include the Apocrypha.
The ancient Jews did not affirm any of the apocrypha as Scripture. Neither did Jesus or any of His apostles. Therefore it isn’t Scripture. Not to mention it is blasphemous in parts and wrought with error.
@@AVKingJamesBible where is it blasphemy? And the translators did put connected verses in the side. It is possible that Jesus quoted from it when he said i want to gather you like a hen gathered her chicks
You know what was interesting when I was in college I heard a Pastor and Professor say that the Apocrypha was wicked and stupid. He said there is a book in there called "Bell and the Dragon" he said so what does a little girl and her Pet Dragon have anything to do with real Scriptures, also he said "The Apocrypha also has Voo Doo in it." I said said to myself Heck No I wont Read that, But a month later, I bought a very old Family Bible and the Apocrypha was in there. I began to read "Bell And The Dragon" and it was Not about a girl and a Dragon at all...... I looked up videos on 15 Reasons why the Apocrypha is wicked and Not Scripture. I found a list of 15 that claimed to PROOVED and EXPOSED the Apocrypha. Then I looked up all of the points and to my surprise they wasn't true.... Wow so many people have said so much against it but when you look up the points and evidence they provide it is just not really true..... I'm still reading it to find out if it is good or not.... See what we find...... If you find a good list with actual proof please send my way...!
We recommend the entire lecture from which this video was part. It goes into more detail and provides several reasons why the Apocrypha should not be considered Scripture Pastor Jason Georges The Problem with the Apocrypha ua-cam.com/video/5nb23jM8aI0/v-deo.html
I heard that some of Sirach may be inspired, I am pretty impressed by nearly all of Sirach, the ESV with Apochrypha translation (seems to be the same translation as the Catholic NRSV) is modern english
Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth He said in a loud voice, FEAR GOD and give HIM glory,because the hour of HIS judgment has come. REV 14:6-7 AMERICA, Judgement is now at the door! Make ready!!
So ..how did an omnipotent all knowing all powerful all loving God allow his word to be added to ? Especially since the same book claims that God is not the author of confusion?
So people can see the folly of those books, scorner. God gave free will so people can add whatever they want, Gods word will always ring true. You can easily see those books aren't inspired / align with the bible. Best way to keep information from people is to manipulate it, as they do when coming out with another translation every year and changing verses. The original Greek and Hebrew doens't change.
Careful! INFALLIBLE - Impossibility of error. INERRANT - No errors found Scripture is Infallible while the works of men may be found Inerrant. E.g. - The Westminster Confession is an Inerrant document and was never for a single moment Infallible.
I will agree that the hebrew tanak is the infalable word of GOD. But no translation is. In the 1679 KJV deuteronomy 32:8 it says sons of israel but the hebrew says "sons of GOD" ( Bene haElohim) hardly inerrant.
Absolute BS "evidence" spoken here as to why the Christian Canon should not include the so-called "Apocrypha." There are 10 "non-apocryphal" OT books never quoted directly by the Apostles or Jesus. The deuterocanonical scriptures have always been included in the Christian Canon since the Greek Septuagint (which is what the Apostles used) and that is all you need to know, quite frankly. We don't look to the Jews to tell us what our Holy Scriptures are and we don't look to Englishmen in the year 1611, either.
@@MagnaDeceptio2030-tb7ip The Apostles also weren't English, either. What's your point? The Apostles used the Greek Septuagint and the so-called "Apocrypha" are in that.
@@MagnaDeceptio2030-tb7ip Thanks for displaying quite clearly that you cannot participate in argumentation or defend a position. My argument is that the Apostles didn't need to quote an OT book for it to be considered Christian canon. What say you?
It would have been kind of difficult for the Apostles, or Jesus even to have used the Septuagint, because it didn't exist in their time! The Septuagint the you, and most modern people are familiar with, was produced by Origen of Alexandria, Egypt in the 3rd century. He was agnostic cultist, and a heretic! Jewish historical records there was an original produced around 250 BC, and was destroyed in a fire 100 years later. After the Jews of that era had sent the 70 scribes , they lamented knowing they had sinned. First the scripture say's over, and over and over do not return to Egypt. Plus only Levitical scribes copy scripture, not the 70 generic scribes that were sent. This doesn't count Jewish Temple/synagogue rules only allowed the reading, and speaking Hebrew while there. So even if the Septuagint had existed, Jesus being sinless following the Law, and Jewish customs. Because by doing so would have diqualified Him from the cross. Where the Septuagint supposedly differs from the Hebrew OT, aren't OT quotes but new "revelation"! Because Origen copied the NT to make it in the first place!
Excellent video
Please keep them coming. Not enough of this content on the internet done right.
Thank you!
@@kjbrc thank you! I have a debate with a King James Only guy next month who believes the apocrypha is scripture because it’s in the 1611 KJV. These quotations at the beginning are invaluable. God bless!
Once i read the Apocrypha I could not believe why any believer would not want to include them in the canons of Scripture. Absolutely wonderful books that all the early Christians held valuable and as canonized scriptures. Only reason they were taken out is because of the publishing company of the KJV and no other reason. No church council ever agreed on taking them out.
I've always thought they kept the apocrypha because those writings were well known and preached by Catholicism and so they were dispelling the myths by saying "Here are these false teachings you have heard, now you can see that they are not biblical."
Thank you for these videos.
Oh gosh...Did he say that the King James Translation was inerrant? My goodness.
Don't pass out you little fruit. The KJB is inerrant, perfect. Stick with your corrupt versions, from perverted Alexandrian manuscripts, NIV, ESV, etc. if you want.
The KJV translators, in their notes, state that in translating the Bible they compared their work with the writings of the church fathers.
Those church fathers often quoted from the Apocrypha, usually as a way to bolster an argument.
Since the fathers used and quoted the Apocrypha, and the translators were using their writings, it’s only natural to include the Apocrypha.
I think everyone should own and use the original 1611 AV. I have read the apocrypha and thought it was neat. It reveals what urim and Thummim are.
The ancient Jews did not affirm any of the apocrypha as Scripture. Neither did Jesus or any of His apostles. Therefore it isn’t Scripture. Not to mention it is blasphemous in parts and wrought with error.
@@AVKingJamesBible where is it blasphemy? And the translators did put connected verses in the side. It is possible that Jesus quoted from it when he said i want to gather you like a hen gathered her chicks
You know what was interesting when I was in college I heard a Pastor and Professor say that the Apocrypha was wicked and stupid. He said there is a book in there called "Bell and the Dragon" he said so what does a little girl and her Pet Dragon have anything to do with real Scriptures, also he said "The Apocrypha also has Voo Doo in it." I said said to myself Heck No I wont Read that, But a month later, I bought a very old Family Bible and the Apocrypha was in there. I began to read "Bell And The Dragon" and it was Not about a girl and a Dragon at all...... I looked up videos on 15 Reasons why the Apocrypha is wicked and Not Scripture. I found a list of 15 that claimed to PROOVED and EXPOSED the Apocrypha. Then I looked up all of the points and to my surprise they wasn't true.... Wow so many people have said so much against it but when you look up the points and evidence they provide it is just not really true..... I'm still reading it to find out if it is good or not.... See what we find...... If you find a good list with actual proof please send my way...!
We recommend the entire lecture from which this video was part. It goes into more detail and provides several reasons why the Apocrypha should not be considered Scripture
Pastor Jason Georges The Problem with the Apocrypha
ua-cam.com/video/5nb23jM8aI0/v-deo.html
@@kjbrc Please send link.
The link is in our previous comment. You can also find it by searching the title on our channel
Macabees is an amazing book.
John 10:22🕎
I've heard, they're 8 authors of new testament
James Jude Peter Paul
Matthew Mark Luke John
With Jesus in middle
I heard that some of Sirach may be inspired, I am pretty impressed by nearly all of Sirach, the ESV with Apochrypha translation (seems to be the same translation as the Catholic NRSV) is modern english
The ancient Jews did not affirm any of the apocrypha as Scripture. Neither did Jesus or any of His apostles.
@@AVKingJamesBible How do you know?
Esra 2 seems a lil different tho, others are easy to tell...
The KJV Bible is mathematically encoded. 66 Books.
The King James Bible has 70 books.
The psalms are actually 5 books
@@darrellblanchard2362 Who do you believe Jesus is?
Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth
He said in a loud voice,
FEAR GOD and give HIM glory,because the hour of HIS judgment has come. REV 14:6-7
AMERICA, Judgement is now at the door! Make ready!!
Why is judgement reserved for America? Why not everyone on Earth?
@@kimngandong Kim....the angel of God goes out to the entire world and the entire world will be judged.
The HOLY SPIRIT DWELLS WITHIN THE WORD THE HOLY SPIRITS HELPS YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORD OF GOD
Everything he said was Speculation and not truth Just opinion......
Apocrypha Means False writings!!!
No it doesn’t. It means hidden. Maccabees is real history. You think Maccabees is fake?
No it doesn't. And buy yourself a dictionary before you embarrass yourself this way again.
@@Moliere1000 , I can tell you really are a troll !! By your comment !!!
Has anyone ever heard of tongue in cheek?
So ..how did an omnipotent all knowing all powerful all loving God allow his word to be added to ? Especially since the same book claims that God is not the author of confusion?
So people can see the folly of those books, scorner.
God gave free will so people can add whatever they want, Gods word will always ring true. You can easily see those books aren't inspired / align with the bible.
Best way to keep information from people is to manipulate it, as they do when coming out with another translation every year and changing verses.
The original Greek and Hebrew doens't change.
@@romans1450 so ...the only way to know the truth is to learn ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew?
Careful! INFALLIBLE - Impossibility of error. INERRANT - No errors found
Scripture is Infallible while the works of men may be found Inerrant.
E.g. - The Westminster Confession is an Inerrant document and was never for a single moment Infallible.
Semantic meaningless quibbling.
The westminster confession has absolute heresy in it.
I don't remember where I got this information but the Apocrypha was bound together with Scripture purely for convenience and cost.
If you remember, please let me know!
I will agree that the hebrew tanak is the infalable word of GOD. But no translation is. In the 1679 KJV deuteronomy 32:8 it says sons of israel but the hebrew says "sons of GOD" ( Bene haElohim) hardly inerrant.
Is the Greek New Testament also word of GOD?
Absolute BS "evidence" spoken here as to why the Christian Canon should not include the so-called "Apocrypha." There are 10 "non-apocryphal" OT books never quoted directly by the Apostles or Jesus. The deuterocanonical scriptures have always been included in the Christian Canon since the Greek Septuagint (which is what the Apostles used) and that is all you need to know, quite frankly. We don't look to the Jews to tell us what our Holy Scriptures are and we don't look to Englishmen in the year 1611, either.
@@MagnaDeceptio2030-tb7ip The Apostles also weren't English, either. What's your point? The Apostles used the Greek Septuagint and the so-called "Apocrypha" are in that.
@@MagnaDeceptio2030-tb7ip The Apostles didn't quote from the Book of Esther, either.
@@MagnaDeceptio2030-tb7ip Thanks for displaying quite clearly that you cannot participate in argumentation or defend a position. My argument is that the Apostles didn't need to quote an OT book for it to be considered Christian canon. What say you?
@@MagnaDeceptio2030-tb7ip intellectual plebeian
It would have been kind of difficult for the Apostles, or Jesus even to have used the Septuagint, because it didn't exist in their time! The Septuagint the you, and most modern people are familiar with, was produced by Origen of Alexandria, Egypt in the 3rd century. He was agnostic cultist, and a heretic! Jewish historical records there was an original produced around 250 BC, and was destroyed in a fire 100 years later. After the Jews of that era had sent the 70 scribes , they lamented knowing they had sinned. First the scripture say's over, and over and over do not return to Egypt. Plus only Levitical scribes copy scripture, not the 70 generic scribes that were sent. This doesn't count Jewish Temple/synagogue rules only allowed the reading, and speaking Hebrew while there. So even if the Septuagint had existed, Jesus being sinless following the Law, and Jewish customs. Because by doing so would have diqualified Him from the cross. Where the Septuagint supposedly differs from the Hebrew OT, aren't OT quotes but new "revelation"! Because Origen copied the NT to make it in the first place!