Scripture is considered to be the word of God
, and yet Preachers teach what they
believe to be the truth
. They say it is based on the Bible. Is it really
? I remember in High School we were instructed to read a book and give our thoughts and judgments on the book.
Many in class had different views. Why is a Preachers view so cherished? At Mars Hill in Seattle, there exists one
who believes he knows. Does he really? Why should I believe him over another Preacher?Okay let's say that we start to rely on this Preacher.. he indicates in Gospel 101 under the heading "Apocryphal Books" that.."While these books were read by some of God's people, they were treated like Christian books in our own day and never accepted as Scripture. While the Old Testament is quoted roughly 300 times in the New Testament, none of the apocryphal or pseudepigrahal are ever quoted in the New Testament or recognized as Scripture by Christians until the Catholic Council of Trent in 1546. Under pressure from Protestant reformers, the Catholic Church voted to include some apocryphal books to justify their baseless doctrines such as purgatory. These books contradict each other, have some clearly aberrant doctrine at odds with the rest of God's Word, and do not claim to be inspired."Now gosh... I am not sure why he even included this...except to trash another Church... what is his purpose here...If you search the internet for some historical information... here is what you find:Old Testament
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaCanon of the Old Testament
Main article: Biblical canon
's Veritas Hebraica, the Protestant
Old Testament consists of the same books as the Tanakh
, but the order and numbering of the books are different. Protestants number the Old Testament books at 39, while the Jews number the same books as 24. This is because the Jews consider Samuel
, and Chronicles
to form one book each, group the 12 minor prophets
into one book, and also consider Ezra
a single book. The Roman Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox include books removed by Martin Luther, called the deuterocanonical books, which Protestants exclude as apocryphal. The basis for these books is found in the early Koine Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible. This translation was widely used by the early Christians and is the one most often quoted (300 of 350 quotations including many of Jesus' own words) in the New Testament when it quotes the Old Testament.
See also: Books of the Bible
, for a side-by-side comparison of the various canons of the Hebrew Bible.
King James Version of the Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Difference in the contents
The original printing of the King James Version included the "Apocrypha", so named in the text. This section includes the "deuterocanonical books" accepted as canonical by Roman Catholicism, but no longer considered Scripture under the Thirty-Nine Articles, the doctrinal confession of the Church of England. This section also includes other non-canonical texts from the Vulgate's appendix. This includes the Prayer of Manasseh; the First Book of Esdras, accepted as canon by Eastern Orthodox Christianity but not by Roman Catholics or Protestants; and the apocalyptic Second Book of Esdras, accepted by no denomination as canon. These texts are printed separately, between the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament. The Septuagint's emendations to the Book of Esther and the Book of Daniel (The Prayer of Azariah, Bel and the Dragon, Susanna) are included here, rather than added to the texts of those books.
In addition... understand that the "Geneva" Bible that was used by J. Calvin also included the Apocrypha.
It is interesting that these sections were included with these Protestant bibles. Even if one takes the position that Protestants did not regard these books in the highest sense. They most definately had higher regard for them.. then just Christian books. Why else would they have included them in their Bibles.
Well it is just another day in "Mars Hill Fiction"