Readers,

Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.

If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:

http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum

The Christian Forum

Or try our URL Forwarder www.bluespun.com

www.Bluespun.com

This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.

Hope to see you there! All links lead to the same place!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@gmail.com), November 28, 2005.

Today , in additionto "Rhe Crazymakers", I managed to pick up an Axfrd World Classic edition of the Hly Bible, complete with Apocrypha!! It has study notes, Maps, and concodrdance, as well as nice paper quality.

A Picture of God, as depicted by Michelangelo, graces he paperback cover.

It is a 1611, with Modern spellings.

The Paocrypha is in centre in its own section.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 06, 2004

Answers

KJV-1611-OXFORD

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 06, 2004.

Groovy. :)

-- Anni the Diva (anni_the_diva@popstar.com), August 06, 2004.

Zarove,

By "Apocrypha", what do you mean? The seven deuterocanonical books, or some other ones that are not accepted either by Catholics or Protestants? Below are listed the Catholic deuterocanicals. Are the contents of your "Apocrypha" different from this?

Tobit
Judith
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Wisdom
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 06, 2004.

Yes, he means the Roman Apocrypha.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 06, 2004.

Zarove, one question, does this KJV have the Apocrypha in a seperate section?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 06, 2004.

I think so, David. He said, "The Paocrypha is in centre in its own section."

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 06, 2004.

David. The Apocrypha have been set aside from the Holy Bible. The Deuterocanicals are consistent in the Holy Bible. Can we please refer to the difference by their respective names? Catholicism was brought to England prior to 1533. Henry VIII was responsible for the beginnings of the Protestant reformation. Before anyone can start in of the Catholic Bible, he must understand why the Protestant reformation got started. It had nothing to do with Scriptures and all to do with disobedience and interpretation that resulted in mutilation of the Holy Bible. Have a strong look at Henry's deeds.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 06, 2004.

The Apocrypha is the term used by Protestants to describe what Romanists call "Deuterocanicals", but are still not Scripture, but imposters.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 06, 2004.

Just like The Epistles of James? I don't think so, David. You haven't considered what I wrote regarding Henry VIII. Have you taken a look at his deeds?

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 06, 2004.

I answered what was necessary. I have no idea what Henry has to do with this, or James for that matter.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 06, 2004.

It's been nice chatting with you rod, but Kevin is back and loaded with more straw men, so I have to go defend my faith. ;)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 06, 2004.

"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's Truth was attacked and yet would remain silent." —John Calvin

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 06, 2004.

Then, I'll tell you.

Henry corrupted the meanings in Scriptures and assumed control of the final word/interpretations of Scriptures. He did it to get his way in regards to his marital and extra-marital activities.

Martin Luther decided that ST. James was in the way of Lutherism, so he thought James should be taken out of the Holy Bible.

The Book of Daniel has also been censored. Protestantism seems to have the power to decide how light the Holy Bible should be, evidently.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 06, 2004.

Yes the apocrypha, or Deuterocannonical books, ar ethe same as the books lef tout of Protestant Bibles, yet foudn in the origional Angliucan editions of the Authorised Version, or King James.

Plus, they are in their own seciton, and on top of each page it is clelary marked " Apocrypha."

I may use htis as a study guide.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 06, 2004.

"Ruff.....ruff.....bow-wow.....ruff!!"

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 06, 2004.

My original post didn't make it. I had a "ruff" time getting online.

Ah! a happy man, Zarove! I still have an 1884 KJV sitting in Illinois, which contains the "Deuterocanicals". It too has them in their own section with a different title.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 06, 2004.

David said: The Apocrypha is the term used by Protestants to describe what Romanists call "Deuterocanicals", but are still not Scripture, but imposters.

David, your statement is erroneous. Catholics do not accept all of the books that are included in the so-called Protestant "Apocrypha."

Catholic Encyclopedia - "Apocrypha"

KJV with Apocrypha

Scroll down to the end of the KJV page. You will see a section for "Apocrypha". Notice that some of the books listed are not in the list I included above, and some of the other books are missing. Hence the reason why I asked Zarove this question.

For example, the "Gospel of Thomas" is considered Apocryphal by both Protestants and Catholics.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 06, 2004.

-- (bold@off.now), August 06, 2004.

Yes Emily, they are consider "apocryphal". But was is meant by "The Apocrypha" are the books/passages Rome has added to the bible. When a protestant uses the term "The Apocrypha" they are refering to what Rome calls "Deuterocanicals".

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 06, 2004.

But whem you speak of a prodict, liek the KJVm when it says " Witht he Apocrpha", it means the books roman Cahtolics call " The deuterocannonicals". For the sake of the prodct, I call them what he cover calls Them..if this was my soon to be gotten doiay-Rhiems, I woudl call them Deuterocannon.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 06, 2004.

Ok, rod, come back now :D

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 07, 2004.

I wound up surfing the Lionel Trains website. Toy trains are in the thousands of dollars way out of my price range. And it's late/early. It's gonna be tough going back to school. Every year it gets tougher and tougher to get back to the classroom. It would be nice to have night school instead. 12:00 a.m. til 6:00 a.m. would be nice.

Anyway, I can't figure out why Bibles are so expensive. They should be free to all who ask for them. This is the 21st century; all believers should have as many Bibles as they wish. $65.00 for a Bible? I was once offered a replica spanish version that was extremely difficult to read and decipher. It was very elegant with heavy leather binding and period calligraphy. Just a bit over $200.00, I said,"I'll pass". The Geneva Bible was out of print.

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 07, 2004.

The Geneva Bible is sill in print, but teporductiosn are extremely expensive. I agree, Bibles shid be free, luckly, they are. The Gideons and the Mormons GIVE AWAY King James Bibles... they ar ein Hitels and buisnesses.

I was once handed a snll free NIV, which I don use. So Bibles are free, though I agree we shudn't proftier off the word of God either.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 07, 2004.

Oh!? The Geneval is still in print?? I'm gonna have to speak to that bookstore dude. He told be differently. I wonder if he just didn't want to get messed-up in ordering one and then me not paying after seeing the price.

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 07, 2004.

Why cant' I ever spell my words right?????

Geneva.........

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 07, 2004.

Or he may have been mistaken, its hard to fnd a Geneva.

They relaly only make limited run replica's at exhorberent prices sold only to collectors throguh exclusive means.

Here are a few sites.

means.http://uk.cambridge.org/bibles/geneva/

http://www.capstonebooks.com/geneva.htm

http://globalcorp.com/geneva-bible/bibles.htm

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 07, 2004.

Thanks for the links, Zarove.

I think the Geneva Bible is a very important landmark Bible when studying early American Protestantism. I have read through an online version. It intrigues me how the early settlers in America wrote and understood the Scriptures. The Geneva is not exactly a masterwork of language arts, but it reflected the pragmatic mode of believers during that critical time in history. Breeches!

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 07, 2004.

Which reminds me...

Yes, all Bibles should be free and that's the mission of the Gideons. So, knowing that the Bible is practically ignored by some hotel guests and the Gideons go around giving them away, is it stealing when a person desires to keep that Gideon Bible after leaving the hotel?

(No, I always place them back where I found It. Trust me.)

I have a stack of Hare Chrisna books/bibles that were given to me free when I was away at college. I don't exactly consider those books a great treasure. Hey, I liked the artwork on the covers and the idea that George Harrison was into that scene. Now, I'll occasionally thumb through those books for trivial information or a "see?! they are wrong" kind of trip.

There are other "free" bibles out there that I have acquired. Jehova Witness, Mormon, and a varied collection of paperback Bibles in spanish. (I should include the spanish versions in with the other motley bunch.) The spanish Bibles are difficult for me to identify which versions they originate from; I do know they are not Catholic, though.

So, yes there are free Bibles and free-er bibles out there. Just like there are numerous publishing houses. I guess I shouldn't really complain.....but , it does make me wonder.

.....

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 07, 2004.

Have you ever hiccupped and burped at the same time?

This:

(I should include the spanish versions in with the other motley bunch.)

Should read like this, instead:

(I should not include the spanish versions in with the other motley bunch.)

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 07, 2004.

David said: The Apocrypha is the term used by Protestants to describe what Romanists call "Deuterocanicals", but are still not Scripture, but imposters. David, your statement is erroneous. Catholics do not accept all of the books that are included in the so-called Protestant "Apocrypha."

Catholic Encyclopedia - "Apocrypha"

KJV with Apocrypha

Scroll down to the end of the KJV page. You will see a section for "Apocrypha". Notice that some of the books listed are not in the list I included above, and some of the other books are missing. Hence the reason why I asked Zarove this question.

For example, the "Gospel of Thomas" is considered Apocryphal by both Protestants and Catholics.

Emily wrie the above...

I think some of the Additional boos, called "Deuterocanonical" By caTHOLICS, use a different name in ome old editions of the Bible, thus som of the diffeences here.

IE, the additions to Esther and Daniel are not "Books" per sey in the douay-Rheims or New American, but ar epreasent instea din the text of the books in the Old Testement.

Other books are either parts of books that wher divided, or else used in the Eastern Orthodox Chruch, or else seen as profitable for learning.

My new KJV has all the books translated by King James.Thus it has 12 additional books, plus the extensions to Daniel and Esther.

Below I give the list of the apicrypha, with the Roman c orropsondants next to it.

Additions to Daniel (Apocrypha) Judith (Apocrypha) {Judith} Esdras (Apocrypha) Additions to Esther (Apocrypha) Susanna (Apocrypha) 1 Maccabees (Apocrypha) {1 Maccabees} 2 Maccabees (Apocrypha) {2 Maccabees} 4 Ezra (Apocrypha) Prayer of Manassheh (Apocrypha) Sirach (Apocrypha) {Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)} Wisdom of Solomon (Apocrypha) {Wisdom} Baruch (including the Epistle of Jeremiah) (Apocrypha) {Baruch } Tobit (Apocrypha) {Tobit} Bel (Apocrypha)

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 07, 2004.

I have a new King James Version without the Apocrypha.Who needs it ? Let us not add anything to the Holy Book.

-- alex (aleks3_2000@hotmail.com), September 13, 2004.

Hi alex.

You might want to study up on the historical circumstances regarding the Bible before you surrender to such a view. BTW, the real "apocrypha" is not what you are thinking of. You are confusing the Deuterocanonicals with the Apocryphal books.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 13, 2004.

rod...

The Deuterocanonical books are the same books as the Apocryphal books.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 13, 2004.

Sorry, Faith. They are not. The "real" Apocrypha were filtered out. We're talking about those "other gospels" that had heretical views. For example: "Satan would be saved". oops, I got to run.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 13, 2004.

..."The Marian gospels", "The Gospel of Thomas", and so on.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 13, 2004.

"Apocrypha" is a misnomer given by Protestants to those books left in the Catholic Bible. There were many writings, which were also left out.

Do you accept the complete Book of Daniel? Luther was tampering with that book, too.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.co), September 13, 2004.

Protestants don't accept any of those uninspired works, rod.

The apocrypha was actually a collection of 15 books, though I know that the Roman Catholic Church only accepts 11 of these books. Because 4 of those books were combined-added in with Old Testament books--your Bible will only contain 7 additional books in the table of contents.

They are refered to as deuterocanonical or noncanonical which means *second canon*.., because they were added later and not considered in the same class with inspired books.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 13, 2004.

I'll go with the Catholic Bible, even if it is a little heavier.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 13, 2004.

"They are refered to as deuterocanonical or noncanonical which means *second canon*.., "

You see? "Apocrypha" doesn't mean that. It means "bastard", which these books are not.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 13, 2004.

Actually, Apocros means Hidden, phia menas writing, the term means " Hidden writtings", though neither the Apocryphal books in the KJV, nor the Apocryphal books as Cathoics call them, where actually ever hidden.

That said, as to why they ar ein he Bible, theyw here in he original 1611 KJV, and this is why I was excited to get this edition.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 13, 2004.

There are several meanings to "apocrypha".

But, neither should apply to the Catholic Books.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 13, 2004.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Apocryphal

A`poc´ry`phal Adj. 1. apocryphal - of questionable authenticity
questionable - subject to question; "questionable motives"; "a questionable reputation"; "a fire of questionable origin"

2. Apocryphal - of or belonging to the Apocrypha

I have stumbled across this word in other sources as being defined to meand "bastard".

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 13, 2004.

Whatever you choose to call those books--we are still talking about the same books, rod.

You call them deuterocanonical and so do I--or I refer to them as the apocryphal books. Either way--the same books are the subject.

What separates these books from the Old and New Testaments--are when they were written and by whom. They were not written by prophets of God or by Jesus' apostles.

These books were written by ordinary men who were not inspired by God to write them. They make no prophecy to confirm that what they say is from God--and there are no confirming miracles performed by these authors., as in the case of the apostles.

The other problem with these books is that they contradict what the Old and New Testaments declare, they have numberous errors and are quite fanciful and contain the earmarks of legend....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 13, 2004.

faith said something true: The Greek Septuagint has 15 books and additions. If that is the case, then, why not all Catholic churches accept them all?

The apocrypha was actually a collection of 15 books, though I know that the Roman Catholic Church only accepts 11 of these books. Because 4 of those books were combined-added in with Old Testament books--your Bible will only contain 7 additional books in the table of contents.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 13, 2004.

Elpidio--

Is there a reason that you are ignoring the question I posed to you in the "For Elpidio--100 Truths about Jesus" thread??

I need you to answer a simple question so that I can ask you the next question.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 13, 2004.

YOU will get and answer, faith. I had other personal problems to deal with lately.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 13, 2004.

It's not complicated, Elpidio--

Just a yes or no answer will do. Is Jehovah God the one speaking in those verses?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 13, 2004.

But, Faith, I did say that those are the books that I will hold on to.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 13, 2004.

If memory serves me right, I do recall that the Gospel of Mary was rejected for logical reasons. It wan't because of any errors or heresies, it was rejected for the fear of viewing Mary as divinity.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 13, 2004.

In fact rod--

All of those books that were inserted into the Septuagint--should be logically rejected., as none of them meet the standard of *inspired Scripture.*

The Catholic Church needed some of those books in order to fend-off the Protestants and their legitamate objections..and that is why the Council of Trent finally made an official move to canonize those books.

Up until that point--those books were never officially accepted due to objections from clergy among the Catholic Church. Jerome himself-- did not want to include them in his Latin translation of the Septuagint called the Vulgate. But he was forced to do so--over-ruled of course! But he made a hurried copy and kept them separate from the Old and New Testaments by inserting them in the middle of his translation, between the Old and New Testaments.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 13, 2004.

Sorry Faith, but the Vulgate ws not a translation of the septuegent, rather, irt was a translation of the origional Hebrew and Greek texts. One of hte reasons Jerome rejected the c ontested books was because they dd not exist in the origional Hebrew, as with other Old Testament books, but only in the translation. That and he foudn them to be uninspired for two or three other reasons, btu memory is actign up so I will get bakcon that.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 13, 2004.

"One of hte reasons Jerome rejected the c ontested books was because they dd not exist in the origional Hebrew,..."

I read that somewhere, too Zarove.

Where do you get your information about the Bible compilations, Faith?

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 13, 2004.

Well whatever source he was working from, Zarove--he knew the apocryphal books did not belong...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 13, 2004.

I have an incredible collection of resourses at my finger tips--rod. I could open up my house as a Christian library : )

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 13, 2004.

This will make for an intereting thread, faith. Which books do you think should be in the Bible?

After all, Catholics (Rome) made that decision by Trent in 1546-72. Protestants in the late 16th century. Luther did think James did not belong. So does Dr. James scott in his program in LA.

The Orthodox add more books than Roman Catholics.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 13, 2004.

Hmmm.....my fingers aren't that big. :)

I too have a growing library of history, religion, and biographical stuff. I wish I had the time to read all there is, but my lifetime is limited. Zarove has made it clear about his readings, Elpidio has the entire web and his public library, Gail probably has the Gold Medal for providing information, and Emily has proven quite resourceful, too. Ian reads and is also strongly knowledgeable. James boat don't leak, but we should allow him to port soon. Max is a bright one. Kevin is keen of Scriptures. Luke looks good, too.

But, Faith. I wonder if you read only Protestant books. I tend to read as much as possible in every doctrine that's out there. Currently, I've been fascinated with Johnathan Kirsch' The Woman Who Laughed At God. It's a pretty good disection of the Judaic faith system(s) stemming from the time of Abraham and Sara (I think even before them). When I study about Judaism, I can't help but to wonder about Christianity and our doctrines. Like it or not, we are all connected to a common humanism. Breaking out of that humanism into God's will is the real kicker.

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.

Do you think faith knows which woman laughed at God Yahweh, Rod?

Hint: name of patriarch whose meaning means to laugh.

Those old books in Greek, Hebrew,...really come handy, Rod.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.

Hi Elpidio.

There is another book out there with a very similar title. That book reveals many of the women in Scriptures.

That laughing woman was rather arrogant towards God, now that I've had some time to really study her. I think she had much to do as a metaphor about the Judaic attitudes towards God.

Well, Faith? It's only a trivial question. Do you know this laughing woman?

But, Elpidio did she actually laugh, giggle, or chuckle in God's presence? The Jewish story tells one account, while our Scriptures tell a slightly different account.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.

I'm guessing you are talking about Sarah--but then--I could be wrong.

I am not thoroughly read in the Old Testament like I am in the New-- though it is my life's commitment to always be in the Word of God and studying it. So I imagine I'll cross everything revealed in there at some point in my life : )

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 14, 2004.

Yes, faith, she is Sarah. Her Son Issac (Yitzhak) means to laugh.

I think Rod she had tried so many things that when she was told she was going to be a mother at her age (I think she was around 35-42 Rod, not 90) she could not get pregnant anymore.

So her problem was a question of faith. After you tried, and failed. Most likely one loses hope.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.

But what's the point?

I think Sarah laughed at the notion of bearing a child at her age-- though she was blessed with that child just the same--and the Scriptures tell us that they displayed great faith. As a matter-of- fact--Abraham was considered *righteous* because of His faith in God's promises.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 14, 2004.

And also Elpidio--the Scriptures reveal she was ninety...

Genesis 17:17:

Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, "Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?"

35 or 40 is hardly old age for having children--especially back then when people., although they weren't living as long as their descendants before them had--they lived longer than we do today....Abraham lived to be 175 years old--for example.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 14, 2004.

Do you think faith Sarah was 90 and Abraham 100 when they had Isaac? This is a point I had with Rod in e-mails last year.

I believe Sarah was around 11-15 when she married her uncle Abraham.25 years later during her stay in Canaan, now Israel, she became pregnant. Abraham had to be around 45-50 25 years later, not 100 as we are told in Genesis. Men married back then between 20-33.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.

I believe what God reveals Elpidio.

You walk on shaky ground and that is why you are so confused and easily deceived. You have no foundation or truth source.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 14, 2004.

Zarove, do you have an ISBN no. or something on that Bible. I have a Cambridge KJV with the deuteros and I love it, but it is so small. How big is the one you have?

Thanks,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 28, 2004.

The Cambridge I have is 27 years old, and has no ISBN as its form england, was my fathers... a "Memorial edition', limited to only about 3000 copies. I also have Oxford world Classics, the one for his thread, but the notes are liberal and innacurate. Lukcily, they arent merged withte text of the KJV, but in the back.

I likewise have the Thomas Nealson 1611 Reprint repordiction, and a 1611 reprint thats not a reprodiction. Neither are Bold brint editions.

the three other KJV's I have wiht apocrypha are a figital onlien one I got on CD-Rom, which has font that can be realigend to any hight your computer can make it, one from the Churhc of england use, and one from Thomas nealson...

Tbhosed ar ehte seven Complete KJV's I have. Noen have the apocrypha in it and are bold print, Im afraid, but I cna chek aorun and see what I can find.

bUT IF YOU WAIT TIL NEXT YEAR, i AM SELF PUBLISHIGN A bIBLE REISION OF THE kjv TO MAKE IT EASIER TO READ, and can include in a specual subset one designed withhte apocrpypha- deuterocannonicals in a Catholic format.

Shoudl be released July 2005.

-- zaroe (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 28, 2004.

Oh Thanks Zarove, I love my little Cambridge. I think I'll just stick with this, and maybe think about getting some reading glasses. I figured if anyone would know what's out there, you would. I hunted for 3 hours Sunday and did run across one you might find interesting. I'll see if I can find it and post a link here.

Thanks,

gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), December 28, 2004.

Here it is, Zarove. It is quite attractive, and it does have the deuteros. http://www.cuttingedge.org/detail.cfm?ID=778

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), December 28, 2004.