Does anyone else read or use as reference or study-aid, the different apocrypha's and non-canonical books?
While engaged in personal research I happened across an interesting Wiki site which list their references in the main biblical cannon; which was of interesting note.
Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible
(08-14-2009 02:21 PM)grafted Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone else read or use as reference or study-aid, the different apocrypha's and non-canonical books?
While engaged in personal research I happened across an interesting Wiki site which list their references in the main biblical cannon; which was of interesting note.
Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible
The Apocryphal books are not the inspired Word of God. They are filled with contridictions, magic, fantasy, and lack historical accuracy. They are obscure books, most of whom are lost or recently "found" and then translated with bias.
I looked through the list at Wiki. What the list does not tell you is that there is no proof that the Bible quotes from these works. Or that some of the passages listed even refer to them or other books. Most of the information is fabricated to appeal to the gnostic bent that is so prevalent today. The source of this information is more than likely agenda driven to promote these books and thereby trample God's Word.
One example that has been my pet peeve is that the Jude quotes the Book of Enoch. It does not. The Book of Enoch was NOT written by Noah's grandfather, the prophet, and the one who was translated to Heaven. The Book of Enoch was not composed until about 300 BCE and only a few Greek manuscripts - partial and fragments have been found. It is also a major source for various venues of the occult, angel worship, and "holy" demonic tongues/lanugages.
Some frags of the Book of Enoch were found in Qumran [Dead Sea Scrolls] but not the famous Jude "quote". It is supposition and an agenda to promote godless works to render the Bible as "just another book", not the inspired Word of God.
I am not sure what use there is in reading or studying the apoc other than to expose the errors of it. Even Judaism does not accept the Apoc as Scripture - they never did. The 1611 KJV contained some books of the Apoc as assessory reading, but was later taken out in the subsequent versions. It was not included as inspired Scripture and never labeled as such.
The RCC does accept the Apoc as inspired Scripture - several of their doctrines are found in it.
I wouldn't go so far to state they lack anything historical, when they are, (for better or worse,) a glimpse into different historical time-lines; a kind of "what was that person or group thinking at a particular moment, and what prompted this action, e.g. Jubilees and Josephus recording of Hyrcanus falling out with the Pharisees, due to criticism of his role as high-priest and ethnarch). The book was written during this time frame by a Pharisee, so that already tells the reader to grab a bag of salt and hang on tight. From a historical view of that particular place and time, it provides a wealth of information as to what was motivating specific clicks.
There are plenty which are so far removed that they become laughable, but others are close to the waterline:
The Manner of the Kingdom, Referenced at 1Samuel 10:25
1Sa 10:25 Then Samuel told the people the rights and duties of the kingship, and he wrote them in a book and laid it up before the LORD. Then Samuel sent all the people away, each one to his home.
The Book of Samuel the Seer, Referenced at 1Chronicles 29:29
1Ch 29:29 Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the Chronicles of Samuel the seer, and in the Chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the Chronicles of Gad the seer,
The Epistle to the Laodiceans, referenced at Colossians 4:16
Col 4:16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.
There are others which are seriously wishful thinking on the researchers part, e.g. Plato's The Timaeus (360 BC) in Acts 17:24
Though I have no doubts that the learned writers of the day had some form of contemporary Greek culture instilled upon them, I strongly doubt any words of Plato was an influencing factor in any writings; though I do not doubt that prose and cadence were an influence- thankfully they didn't use iambic pentameter.
(08-14-2009 11:23 PM)grafted Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn't go so far to state they lack anything historical, when they are, (for better or worse,) a glimpse into different historical time-lines; a kind of "what was that person or group thinking at a particular moment, and what prompted this action, e.g. Jubilees and Josephus recording of Hyrcanus falling out with the Pharisees, due to criticism of his role as high-priest and ethnarch). The book was written during this time frame by a Pharisee, so that already tells the reader to grab a bag of salt and hang on tight. From a historical view of that particular place and time, it provides a wealth of information as to what was motivating specific clicks.
There are plenty which are so far removed that they become laughable, but others are close to the waterline:
The Manner of the Kingdom, Referenced at 1Samuel 10:25
1Sa 10:25 Then Samuel told the people the rights and duties of the kingship, and he wrote them in a book and laid it up before the LORD. Then Samuel sent all the people away, each one to his home.
The Book of Samuel the Seer, Referenced at 1Chronicles 29:29
1Ch 29:29 Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the Chronicles of Samuel the seer, and in the Chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the Chronicles of Gad the seer,
The Epistle to the Laodiceans, referenced at Colossians 4:16
Col 4:16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.
There are others which are seriously wishful thinking on the researchers part, e.g. Plato's The Timaeus (360 BC) in Acts 17:24
Though I have no doubts that the learned writers of the day had some form of contemporary Greek culture instilled upon them, I strongly doubt any words of Plato was an influencing factor in any writings; though I do not doubt that prose and cadence were an influence- thankfully they didn't use iambic pentameter.
The Apoc books were not written as historical documents, but are based on legend and myth for the most part, which makes them quite unreliable. As you have stated, they are helpful as far as seeing what people thought at the time, but that really has nothing to do with the Scripture itself and understanding what God wants us to know about Him. The point of Scripture is about God, and how we are to line up with His will, not promote man's speculations and doctrines.
The main point is that they are not Scripture and should not be viewed contributing anything worthy as far as God's Word goes.
God uses people where they are and through their humanity - His Spirit moves His people in spite of their culture and language, not because of it.
Please show me where it says in 1 Sam 10:25 that the name of the book is the "Manner of the Kingdom". Does it not occur to you that when the book was discovered it was labeled by man as such, not by inspiration of God?
Again, if you look at the text in 2 Chron 29:29, it does not tell us the name of the books that were written by Samuel, Nathan, and Gad. It is only assumed by men that the found book is applied to Samuel. It is pure conjecture and speculation. If those books were to be included in the canon, God would have preserved them as such.
Quote:The Epistle to the Laodiceans, referenced at Colossians 4:16
Col 4:16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.
Again, there is no point to having this letter, regardless of Paul's mention. God did not preserve it, so therefore; it is unnecessary.
Does it not occur to me? I really like how immediate and confrontational that little sentence is, (notice my lack of shock,) does it occur to me, well I really don't know, being an illiterate lemming who doesn't have a clue as to what is useful as far as learning about "his" will and what is useful as far as figuring out the motivations of people during a specific moment in time; I might have had a faint inkling which is which.
(08-15-2009 12:58 PM)grafted Wrote: [ -> ]Does it not occur to me? I really like how immediate and confrontational that little sentence is, (notice my lack of shock,) does it occur to me, well I really don't know, being an illiterate lemming who doesn't have a clue as to what is useful as far as learning about "his" will and what is useful as far as figuring out the motivations of people during a specific moment in time; I might have had a faint inkling which is which.
It was not meant to be confrontive, more of "how about if we think about it for a second". Sometimes words are written and because we are only reading them we tend put our own emotion into them. It was more of a rhetorical question.
What I think you are saying is that whatever is out there is useful for learning from. We differ in opinion as to what has value. I refuse to accept academia's promotion of the Apocrypha and the The Gnostic Society Library's Nag Hammadi as nothing less than a direct torpedo hit on the Bible. I am a bit sensitive in this area ....... what can I say?
I have no argument with people's differences of opinions or different hobbies. I enjoy the academia, but equally understand that there is a dividing line. While I find the Gnostic history interesting, particularly that of the early Christians who brought food to the in-slaved captives, pressed-ganged into the Roman army; ref: Pachomius, I equally understand that the Coptic literature is not something that should be held close to the chest, just as referencing the battle of Plataea shouldn't be taken as having any real value in understanding the battle of Baghdad; the history is interesting, and that's its ending point.
(08-16-2009 11:04 PM)grafted Wrote: [ -> ]I have no argument with people's differences of opinions or different hobbies. I enjoy the academia, but equally understand that there is a dividing line. While I find the Gnostic history interesting, particularly that of the early Christians who brought food to the in-slaved captives, pressed-ganged into the Roman army; ref: Pachomius, I equally understand that the Coptic literature is not something that should be held close to the chest, just as referencing the battle of Plataea shouldn't be taken as having any real value in understanding the battle of Baghdad; the history is interesting, and that's its ending point.
Quote:Does anyone else read or use as reference or study-aid, the different apocrypha's and non-canonical books?
There are plenty which are so far removed that they become laughable, but others are close to the waterline ...
grafted,
Your opening premise was that the Apocrypha is useful as a study aid and reference, and that some that are "close to the waterline". What this says to me is that you prefer to use the coptic writings and the works of mythology to better understand the Bible, even saying that they are almost equal to it. That does not compute with the Bible itself. It appears that the gnostic bug has bitten.
I agree that historical research helps give some perspective and interest to periods and time frames, but as for understanding the core "agenda" of the Bible, it is unnecessary - and can twist, obscure, demote the Bible itself by weighing that importance over above and replacing the spiritual application that God intended.
The gnostic bug bit Eve and immediately she fell. As Paul stated - it was subtle. Gnosticism promotes self and intellectual superiority and relegates the Bible useless - the bottom line = you shall be as God.
2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
I love the Word of God, so that "colors" how I view the attacks against it. The coptic works and Apocrypha are the enemies of the Bible, not "good neighbors" to it
1Co 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
1Co 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
Now you are placing words in my mouth based off of your own perception. At what point did I ever "SAY" they were almost equal to it? Of course some of the items from that wiki are close to home, and I pointed out a couple of examples; oh the horror, the heresy...get real.
The Gnostic bug has bitten, bitten whom, as my writing clearing demonstrates I enjoy the "history" of what I read, to learn about the person/persons of that period, their motivations, but as I have equally stated I know there is a clear dividing line, and what is good and what is not. You even concur in your second paragraph that understanding the history, and like myself you concur that there is a dividing line. Is it good for research purposes- yes, the premise of this thread "as a reference or study-aid". Should it be used to learn "his" will - as I have previously stated, no.
This isn't the only thread were you have falsely accused me, and promoted yourself my judge- how many more false accusations would you care to level in your attempt to promote arguments and dissension, or would you prefer I be handed over to an angry mob with burning stake?
My master "Jesus" knows my motivations, and obviously has not found fault with them, since I have not replaced his words with them- though you would like to believe that I have, and I wonder what his words are regarding spreading dissension among believers and accusing falsely?
Quote:Does anyone else read or use as reference or study-aid, the different apocrypha's and non-canonical books?
While engaged in personal research I happened across an interesting Wiki site which list their references in the main biblical cannon; which was of interesting note.
Quote:I wouldn't go so far to state they lack anything historical, when they are, (for better or worse,) a glimpse into different historical time-lines; a kind of "what was that person or group thinking at a particular moment, and what prompted this action, e.g. Jubilees and Josephus recording of Hyrcanus falling out with the Pharisees, due to criticism of his role as high-priest and ethnarch). The book was written during this time frame by a Pharisee, so that already tells the reader to grab a bag of salt and hang on tight. From a historical view of that particular place and time, it provides a wealth of information as to what was motivating specific clicks.
There are plenty which are so far removed that they become laughable, but others are close to the waterline:
The Manner of the Kingdom, Referenced at 1Samuel 10:25
1Sa 10:25 Then Samuel told the people the rights and duties of the kingship, and he wrote them in a book and laid it up before the LORD. Then Samuel sent all the people away, each one to his home.
The Book of Samuel the Seer, Referenced at 1Chronicles 29:29
1Ch 29:29 Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the Chronicles of Samuel the seer, and in the Chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the Chronicles of Gad the seer,
The Epistle to the Laodiceans, referenced at Colossians 4:16
Col 4:16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.
There are others which are seriously wishful thinking on the researchers part, e.g. Plato's The Timaeus (360 BC) in Acts 17:24
Though I have no doubts that the learned writers of the day had some form of contemporary Greek culture instilled upon them, I strongly doubt any words of Plato was an influencing factor in any writings; though I do not doubt that prose and cadence were an influence- thankfully they didn't use iambic pentameter.
Quote:Does it not occur to me? I really like how immediate and confrontational that little sentence is, (notice my lack of shock,) does it occur to me, well I really don't know, being an illiterate lemming who doesn't have a clue as to what is useful as far as learning about "his" will and what is useful as far as figuring out the motivations of people during a specific moment in time; I might have had a faint inkling which is which.
Religious leaders sometimes view information that they do not understand
as ‘apostate’; I believe this is the case of Non-canonical books.
The Book of Enoch is a great read for the Christian looking for advanced studies.
This book describes the course of humanity, from a standpoint of Spirituality.
The book of Clement (of Philip.4:3) is a good read as well; it reads much like
Steven’s dissertation in the book of Acts, but longer and of greater detail.
The dead sea scrolls is another fine read; these writings date back before Christ.
God is so fast, for any Christian to think they know all truth truly limits only there
own growth potential.
God bless
Ed J