What book?

[Droobie]

Have you read any of the apocrypha? Have you read the Revelation of Peter? There are many books which have and have not been included/excluded in all and some bibles. Do you know these books, or have you read any of them?

[LouisBooth]

Yup, read it.

[AngelAmidala]

Ya ain't got my answer Droobie!!

My answer is I've heard of it, but I haven't read it yet.

Oh...and I do want to. :) In fact, I want to read all the apocryphal (sp?)books...just haven't had the time yet.

[Droobie]

Okay... you can make your selection now... ;)

[AngelAmidala]

Thank you Droobie. :) I did. :)

[Patty]

I've read three of them.
The First Book of Esdras,
Daniel and Susanna,
and, Daniel, Bel and the Snake.

The rest of the Apocrypha (hidden books) are:

The Second Book of Esdras
Tobit
Judith
The Rest of the Chapters of the Book of Esther
The Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach
Baruch
A Letter of Jeremiah
The Song of the Three
The Prayer of Manasseh
The First Book of the Maccabees
The Second Book of the Maccabees

I particularly love the story of Darius' Debate in the Persian Court. It's in 1Esdras 3. Much of 1Esdras is omitted in the Catholic Bible. And, they number the chapters differently because of it. The reference I noted above is found in the Oxford New English Bible with the Apocrypha.

Daniel and Susanna is a story about Daniel's first prophetic experience. It's a lovely story, and I find it poignant and enjoyable. This story has quite a good moral.

From what I understand, and correct me if I'm mistaken, it seems that these books are referred to as the Apocrypha because their origins are not clear. Because of this, the Catholic Church decided not to include them in the main collection of books of the Old Testament. But, because the books were so worthwhile, the Church decided to include them in the Bible.

I agree with the decision to include them in the Bible. They are well-worth reading.

Patty

[ZiSunka]

Judith is the one where a widow seduces a man then kills him by driving a stake through his head? Ewww! :sick:

What value does that have to the Christian life?

[Patty]

Hey Droobie,

Have you read any of the books in the Apocrypha??

I'd sure like to hear what you have to say about the Apocrypha.

Thanks,
Patty

[Droobie]

Aaah... I myself have not read it. I've browsed through them, but have not done any serious study of them.

[livingforJesus-Shaun]

Is it a good book?

[healthwoman]

Never read it. Have it though.

[Alabare]

where do I find these books?

[WorshipTheLamb]

Ive never heard of it.

[Reader Nilus]

Yes I have read Bel and the Dragon (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvBelD.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div1) , it is one of the stories of Daniel that are like the first chapters of Daniel, along with Daniel and Susanna (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvSusa.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div1) .
Jeff the Finn

[Chakotay2]

I know what you're talking about. I have the book. I bought it years ago, but haven't read it. It's a thin, red book. Now I have a reason to take a look at it. :holy:

[bop1997]

Heard of them but hadn't read them yet.
:)

[JesseB.]

I've never heard of it.... :scratch: :confused: :help:

[GlowingFirefly]

I don't think I've ever heard of that story in my Bible.. :scratch:

[Oblio]

From what I understand, and correct me if I'm mistaken, it seems that these books are referred to as the Apocrypha because their origins are not clear. Because of this, the Catholic Church decided not to include them in the main collection of books of the Old Testament. But, because the books were so worthwhile, the Church decided to include them in the Bible.


The OT Deuterocanon (n.b. most Catholics/Orthodox find the term Apocrypha offensive as it is an inaccurate term) have been part of the Bible as long as there has been a Bible (AD 367) and were not added later as is thought by some. The same does not apply to the NT Apocrypha (note the proper use of the term here) such as the Gospel of Thomas et. al.

The sources and dates of these books of the Bible are at least as well documented as the others in the OT.

The Apocrypha King James Version Study the Apocraypha in the Poetry of King James Version by World Bible Publishing (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0529101831/qid%3D1058028690/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/002-3810701-1608040) is a nice addendum of the Deuterocanon that was removed from the later versions of the KJV. It is less than $10 and is printed on nice stock with hardback binding.

[Reader Nilus]

It just dawned on me that the title of the book in Question Daniel Bel and the Dragon in the Catholic Bibles is a chapter in Daniel. That would be the NAB, JB, NJB and so forth. It will only appear as that in Protestant Bibles with the Apocrypha.
Jeff the Finn

[Oblio]

Bel and the Dragon:

Chapter 14 of Daniel, Revised Standard Version

(14:1) When King Astyages was laid with his fathers, Cyrus the Persian received his kingdom.
(14:2) And Daniel was a companion of the king, and was the most honored of his friends.
(14:3) Now the Babylonians had an idol called Bel, and every day they spent on it twelve bushels of fine flour and forty sheep and fifty gallons of wine.
(14:4) The king revered it and went every day to worship it. But Daniel worshiped his own God.
(14:5) And the king said to him, "Why do you not worship Bel?" He answered, "Because I do not revere man-made idols, but the living God, who created heaven and earth and has dominion over all flesh."
(14:6) The king said to him, "Do you not think that Bel is a living God? Do you not see how much he eats and drinks every day?"
(14:7) Then Daniel laughed, and said, "Do not be deceived, O king; for this is but clay inside and brass outside, and it never ate or drank anything."
(14:8) Then the king was angry, and he called his priests and said to them, "If you do not tell me who is eating these provisions, you shall die.
(14:9) But if you prove that Bel is eating them, Daniel shall die, because he blasphemed against Bel." And Daniel said to the king, "Let it be done as you have said."
(14:10) Now there were seventy priests of Bel, besides their wives and children. And the king went with Daniel into the temple of Bel.
(14:11) And the priests of Bel said, "Behold, we are going outside; you yourself, O king, shall set forth the food and mix and place the wine, and shut the door and seal it with your signet.
(14:12) And when you return in the morning, if you do not find that Bel has eaten it all, we will die; or else Daniel will, who is telling lies about us."
(14:13) They were unconcerned, for beneath the table they had made a hidden entrance, through which they used to go in regularly and consume the provisions.
(14:14) When they had gone out, the king set forth the food for Bel. Then Daniel ordered his servants to bring ashes and they sifted them throughout the whole temple in the presence of the king alone. Then they went out, shut the door and sealed it with the king's signet, and departed.
(14:15) In the night the priests came with their wives and children, as they were accustomed to do, and ate and drank everything.
(14:16) Early in the morning the king rose and came, and Daniel with him.
(14:17) And the king said, "Are the seals unbroken, Daniel?" He answered, "They are unbroken, O king."
(14:18) As soon as the doors were opened, the king looked at the table, and shouted in a loud voice, "You are great, O Bel; and with you there is no deceit, none at all."
(14:19) Then Daniel laughed, and restrained the king from going in, and said, "Look at the floor, and notice whose footsteps these are."
(14:20) The king said, "I see the footsteps of men and women and children."
(14:21) Then the king was enraged, and he seized the priests and their wives and children; and they showed him the secret doors through which they were accustomed to enter and devour what was on the table.
(14:22) Therefore the king put them to death, and gave Bel over to Daniel, who destroyed it and its temple.
(14:23) There was also a great dragon, which the Babylonians revered.
(14:24) And the king said to Daniel, "You cannot deny that this is a living god; so worship him."
(14:25) Daniel said, "I will worship the Lord my God, for he is the living God.
(14:26) But if you, O king, will give me permission, I will slay the dragon without sword or club." The king said, "I give you permission."
(14:27) Then Daniel took pitch, fat, and hair, and boiled them together and made cakes, which he fed to the dragon. The dragon ate them, and burst open. And Daniel said, "See what you have been worshiping!"
(14:28) When the Babylonians heard it, they were very indignant and conspired against the king, saying, "The king has become a Jew; he has destroyed Bel, and slain the dragon, and slaughtered the priests."
(14:29) Going to the king, they said, "Hand Daniel over to us, or else we will kill you and your household."
(14:30) The king saw that they were pressing him hard, and under compulsion he handed Daniel over to them.
(14:31) They threw Daniel into the lions' den, and he was there for six days.
(14:32) There were seven lions in the den, and every day they had been given two human bodies and two sheep; but these were not given to them now, so that they might devour Daniel.
(14:33) Now the prophet Habakkuk was in Judea. He had boiled pottage and had broken bread into a bowl, and was going into the field to take it to the reapers.
(14:34) But the angel of the Lord said to Habakkuk, "Take the dinner which you have to Babylon, to Daniel, in the lions' den."
(14:35) Habakkuk said, "Sir, I have never seen Babylon, and I know nothing about the den."
(14:36) Then the angel of the Lord took him by the crown of his head, and lifted him by his hair and set him down in Babylon, right over the den, with the rushing sound of the wind itself.
(14:37) Then Habakkuk shouted, "Daniel, Daniel! Take the dinner which God has sent you."
(14:38) And Daniel said, "Thou hast remembered me, O God, and hast not forsaken those who love thee."
(14:39) So Daniel arose and ate. And the angel of God immediately returned Habakkuk to his own place.
(14:40) On the seventh day the king came to mourn for Daniel. When he came to the den he looked in, and there sat Daniel.
(14:41) And the king shouted with a loud voice, "Thou art great, O Lord God of Daniel, and there is no other besides thee."
(14:42) And he pulled Daniel out, and threw into the den the men who had attempted his destruction, and they were devoured immediately before his eyes.

[Konnie]

Yes, I've read it out of interest.

[Snowy]

never heard of it

[mesue]

I have never heard of that book and I'm not sure I want to. I will have to do some investigation into the matter.

[Salsa_1960]

I'm a Protestant who owns a Catholic Bible. I keep meaning to read books like Maccabees but want to first get back in the habit of reading the Bible in general. (I got out of the habit a few years ago and have been recently trying to read a Proverb a day).

If I want to get brave and try to tackle one of the books in my Catholic Bible, what would be a good one (not too difficult) for a beginner (a Protestant that is) like me?

~Sandy

[Oblio]

If I want to get brave and try to tackle one of the books in my Catholic Bible, what would be a good one (not too difficult) for a beginner (a Protestant that is) like me?

~Sandy

The Book of Wisdom is good to read

Wis 1:1-4 Love righteousness, you rulers of the earth, think of the Lord with uprightness, and seek him with sincerity of heart; (2) because he is found by those who do not put him to the test, and manifests himself to those who do not distrust him. (3) For perverse thoughts separate men from God, and when his power is tested, it convicts the foolish; (4) because wisdom will not enter a deceitful soul, nor dwell in a body enslaved to sin.

[kimber1]

i've read all of them and i thought they were awesome!! especially the one about susanna!! (i think that's the name????)

[Salsa_1960]

Thanks. I was going to read Proverbs but I've read it a few times already. This is the same type of reading but something fresh. The following book (Sirach) seems to be similar.

~Sandy

(Shhhhh. Don't tell my Fundamentalist Protestant friends on me). :pink:

[Kathy]

No, I haven't read them yet....would like too. :)

[Glorianna]

Never heard of it. Is it any good? What's it about?

[KristianJ]

None of my printed Bibles have the full Apocrypha, but it's on my Bible software package. I haven't read it as yet though. I think there are some books in the New Testament as well that form part of the Apocrypha; I've heard the Gospel of Thomas mentioned in a Josh McDowell book.

[sammipher]

I have not read them.

[jeshohaia]

I stay away from apocrypha. I have read a great deal of those books and none of them match with what the Bible states. They even countradict it at numerous times. So it is a wise thing for a person weak in the LORD to stay away from the Apocrypha. For one main reason. It does not fit with the Bible. Its like believing in the Book Of Mormon. I wont get started on that. Not the right place for that discussion.

[rubberduckie]

hmmm, I've never heard of it, but I have heard of the exclusion of certain books from the Bible. My youth pastor is trying to get a hold of a letter Paul wote to the Ephesians I think, I'm not sure, that was excluded. Apparently it was really fierce, critizing the Ephesians, but whoever chose the books of the Bible, chose to leave it out.

[TheMainException]

If it has good moral values and is interesting, I'll read it.

[TheMainException]

Bel and the Dragon:

Chapter 14 of Daniel, Revised Standard Version

(14:1) When King Astyages was laid with his fathers, Cyrus the Persian received his kingdom.
(14:2) And Daniel was a companion of the king, and was the most honored of his friends.
(14:3) Now the Babylonians had an idol called Bel, and every day they spent on it twelve bushels of fine flour and forty sheep and fifty gallons of wine.
(14:4) The king revered it and went every day to worship it. But Daniel worshiped his own God.
(14:5) And the king said to him, "Why do you not worship Bel?" He answered, "Because I do not revere man-made idols, but the living God, who created heaven and earth and has dominion over all flesh."
(14:6) The king said to him, "Do you not think that Bel is a living God? Do you not see how much he eats and drinks every day?"
(14:7) Then Daniel laughed, and said, "Do not be deceived, O king; for this is but clay inside and brass outside, and it never ate or drank anything."
(14:8) Then the king was angry, and he called his priests and said to them, "If you do not tell me who is eating these provisions, you shall die.
(14:9) But if you prove that Bel is eating them, Daniel shall die, because he blasphemed against Bel." And Daniel said to the king, "Let it be done as you have said."
(14:10) Now there were seventy priests of Bel, besides their wives and children. And the king went with Daniel into the temple of Bel.
(14:11) And the priests of Bel said, "Behold, we are going outside; you yourself, O king, shall set forth the food and mix and place the wine, and shut the door and seal it with your signet.
(14:12) And when you return in the morning, if you do not find that Bel has eaten it all, we will die; or else Daniel will, who is telling lies about us."
(14:13) They were unconcerned, for beneath the table they had made a hidden entrance, through which they used to go in regularly and consume the provisions.
(14:14) When they had gone out, the king set forth the food for Bel. Then Daniel ordered his servants to bring ashes and they sifted them throughout the whole temple in the presence of the king alone. Then they went out, shut the door and sealed it with the king's signet, and departed.
(14:15) In the night the priests came with their wives and children, as they were accustomed to do, and ate and drank everything.
(14:16) Early in the morning the king rose and came, and Daniel with him.
(14:17) And the king said, "Are the seals unbroken, Daniel?" He answered, "They are unbroken, O king."
(14:18) As soon as the doors were opened, the king looked at the table, and shouted in a loud voice, "You are great, O Bel; and with you there is no deceit, none at all."
(14:19) Then Daniel laughed, and restrained the king from going in, and said, "Look at the floor, and notice whose footsteps these are."
(14:20) The king said, "I see the footsteps of men and women and children."
(14:21) Then the king was enraged, and he seized the priests and their wives and children; and they showed him the secret doors through which they were accustomed to enter and devour what was on the table.
(14:22) Therefore the king put them to death, and gave Bel over to Daniel, who destroyed it and its temple.
(14:23) There was also a great dragon, which the Babylonians revered.
(14:24) And the king said to Daniel, "You cannot deny that this is a living god; so worship him."
(14:25) Daniel said, "I will worship the Lord my God, for he is the living God.
(14:26) But if you, O king, will give me permission, I will slay the dragon without sword or club." The king said, "I give you permission."
(14:27) Then Daniel took pitch, fat, and hair, and boiled them together and made cakes, which he fed to the dragon. The dragon ate them, and burst open. And Daniel said, "See what you have been worshiping!"
(14:28) When the Babylonians heard it, they were very indignant and conspired against the king, saying, "The king has become a Jew; he has destroyed Bel, and slain the dragon, and slaughtered the priests."
(14:29) Going to the king, they said, "Hand Daniel over to us, or else we will kill you and your household."
(14:30) The king saw that they were pressing him hard, and under compulsion he handed Daniel over to them.
(14:31) They threw Daniel into the lions' den, and he was there for six days.
(14:32) There were seven lions in the den, and every day they had been given two human bodies and two sheep; but these were not given to them now, so that they might devour Daniel.
(14:33) Now the prophet Habakkuk was in Judea. He had boiled pottage and had broken bread into a bowl, and was going into the field to take it to the reapers.
(14:34) But the angel of the Lord said to Habakkuk, "Take the dinner which you have to Babylon, to Daniel, in the lions' den."
(14:35) Habakkuk said, "Sir, I have never seen Babylon, and I know nothing about the den."
(14:36) Then the angel of the Lord took him by the crown of his head, and lifted him by his hair and set him down in Babylon, right over the den, with the rushing sound of the wind itself.
(14:37) Then Habakkuk shouted, "Daniel, Daniel! Take the dinner which God has sent you."
(14:38) And Daniel said, "Thou hast remembered me, O God, and hast not forsaken those who love thee."
(14:39) So Daniel arose and ate. And the angel of God immediately returned Habakkuk to his own place.
(14:40) On the seventh day the king came to mourn for Daniel. When he came to the den he looked in, and there sat Daniel.
(14:41) And the king shouted with a loud voice, "Thou art great, O Lord God of Daniel, and there is no other besides thee."
(14:42) And he pulled Daniel out, and threw into the den the men who had attempted his destruction, and they were devoured immediately before his eyes.
Now I've read it. That's a pretty cool book.

[Kyebosh]

I have read the book of Enoch, which I found most entertaining. Draws many shrouds around many already mysterious topics (the nephylim for example) & quite curiously is the source of verses quoted in Jude!

However I do not regard it as inspired word. If God intended us to read it as scripture, it would by his hand be included in the cannon.

[CZzyzx41]

I haven't read any of the apocrypha but I heard a reference in a talk by a scholar and wanted to know what book this was in.

In the story of the adultress, she's dragged through the street by priests and they prepare to stone her. In that story Jesus stops and writes in the sand. Now naturally if you can picture this happening, the priests being interested in what Jesus was writing in the sand stand behind him and lean in. One of the books of the Apocrypha describe that he writes each of their sins in the sands. They run off.

I haven't heard this before but it makes a lot of sense. Can anyone direct me?

[The-Doctor]

Never heard of it...should I have?

[cajunhillbilly]

I love the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus and the Song of the Three Young Men. Have not read much else in the Apocrypha

[HolySpiritWarrior]

I've never heard of these other books do tell what they are....

[Teacher]

I read a little of it, went to the bathroom and barfed, and then went back to the "real" scriptures! Good question and interesting poll results. I hope you're going to "educate" everyone about what "Bell and the Dragon" is...oh illustrious moderator!

[TheDandyMan]

Haven't heard of it.

[*nicholas*]

Never heard of it

[Moros]

Yes. As an Orthodox Christian, I read the Septuagint Bible, and "Bel and the Dragon" is in the book of Daniel.

My favourite Deuterocanonical text however is Chapter 51 of the book of Sirach.

[Athanasian Creed]

Have you read any of the apocrypha?  Have you read the Revelation of Peter?  There are many books which have and have not been included/excluded in all and some bibles.  Do you know these books, or have you read any of them?
I was given a Bible in my teen's that had the Apocrypha in the middle between the Old and New Testaments. I have only read 1 & 2 Maccabees that i can recall, not giving any attention to them because they are not part of the canon of Scripture. I have also read some of the Epistle of Barnabbas some of which i found quite uplifting. ;)



Ray :wave:

[Teshi]

I rather loathe using the term "Apocrypha" to refer to the additional books used by Catholics and Orthodox.

I've read this book, as a part of Daniel, of course. But my favorite "Apocryphal" (gahhh) book will always be Tobit.

[Neal]

I dunno if I should or not. I suppose it'd be fine to read. I never studied the reasons those old guys thought that some books were Scripture and some not, though.

[just_dance]

:confused: :confused: :confused: Can you PM me and tell me what they are??? Please I am so confuzzled

[wellab]

I've read three of them.
The First Book of Esdras,
Daniel and Susanna,
and, Daniel, Bel and the Snake.

The rest of the Apocrypha (hidden books) are:

The Second Book of Esdras
Tobit
Judith
The Rest of the Chapters of the Book of Esther
The Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach
Baruch
A Letter of Jeremiah
The Song of the Three
The Prayer of Manasseh
The First Book of the Maccabees
The Second Book of the Maccabees

Patty
I am CAtholic, so the these books are a part of my Bible as regular normal books. I haven't read much of them, except what we read in Sunday Mass. We mostly stick with the New Testatment, the Psalms, the Pentatauch, and then the book of Wisdom (guess that is part of the above list)

[Zoomer]

I own the Apocrypha, as it is not in Protestant Bibles. Haven't read anything from it yet, though.

[El_Ayin]

I've read most of them. All except 1&2 Esdras and 1-4 Maccabees. I own a Bible called "The Complete Parallel Bible" which is actually 4 Biblical texts in a side-by-side format. It contains the entire Apocrypha but I haven't had time to read all of it.

I especially like how Daniel catches the two elders in their lie in the story of Susanna. :)

[yeshuaskid]

Never heard of it:scratch:

[Maeyken]

All I've done is read it once. One time, when I discovered the apocryphal books I read them all. Don't really remember much from them though. That was awhile ago.

[jcright]

Haven't read it..perhaps someday I will

[XxAuroraxX]

never heard of it, lol

[labellady]

Haven't heard of some of those that have been mentioned, but I am interested in finding and reading them.

[chris714ndud3]

heard of it, haven't read it yet

[Meche]

I haven't heard of it, sorry. Makes me curious though!

[Hisbygrace]

Although I have the book: The Apocrypha ( The authorized version of the books that are not in the Bible) edited by Manuel Komroff, I have not read it yet. but, I have thumbed through it.
It seems that I am constantly pulled away from it and lead to other books about Jesus, John, Paul and Job, but do want to read it when the time is right.

[kissybug27]

I haven't the slightest idea what that is but now that I know of it I shall look it up and read it to see what it is.

[okiemommy26]

never heard of it

[SuperSmart]

I've never heard of it before

[Illuminatus]

I've read a bit of the Apocrypha, but not that part.

[Yogi Bear]

Never heard of it, what is it?

[GodFlute2]

no idea what that is

[plum]

I haven't read this book..

I only plan on reading the "apocryphal" books included in the Catholic Bible... (old testament books like Tobit, Baruch...)

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

It's in my Bible, very good book too :)

[ALASKACHICK10]

I have never heared of the that book..whats it about??

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I have never heared of the that book..whats it about??
It's an addition to Daniel

[tqpix]

I've read at least Chapter 2 of Wisdom.

[ClaireZ]

I read the OT books many years ago, when I babysat for a Catholic woman. I have read the Gospel of Thomas, and just bought a couple of books on the Gnostic Gospels, which I hope to get to after the Holidays.

[Utah Knight]

never heard of it

[reformedfan]

John Calvin says they inculcate bad values, so I steer clear of them even for historical info.

[PaladinValer]

They are fully Canon and truly Scripture. I absolutely love having the Deuterocanon in my Bible, for it not only is an excellent source of morality, doctrine, and faith, but it makes my Bible complete :)

[LisaWolf]

I haven't heard of it and there for, I never read it. Not sure if I should or not. What's it about?

[purpleunicorn_Andi]

I've read some of the Apocrypha, and some of the "lost books" as well. some of them are powerful, some of them just made me kind of go What?

[mark53]

Whether one should read these non-canonical books is not wheher they are canonical or not. We read other books that are not in Bible so what is the difference whether they were written within the century before and after Jesus or within the last century. They all have something to say. Read them and enjoy them and look for God in all that you read.

[blessedbythebest]

never read it...Is it good?

[PlumTea]

I bought a copy, but haven't read it yet.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

never read it...Is it good?

It's certainly a part of the Bible that you don't want to miss

[ServantOrion]

Dunno if I have ever heard of it before

[ladybug01]

I've read most of the deutero-canonicals, including the story in Daniel about Bel and the Dragon, but none of the apocrapha.

[IXOYE<><]

I haven't read Bel and the Dragon, but I am currently reading the book of Tobit. I have a number of different translations, including an NAB.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I've read most of the deutero-canonicals, including the story in Daniel about Bel and the Dragon, but none of the apocrapha.

The Deuterocanon is what the Protestants call the Apocrypha

[ladybug01]

There are deutero-canonicals and then there are apocrypha...

Deutoro-canonicals: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and 1 & 2 Machabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel.

The apocrypha include 3 & 4 Machabees, 3 & 4 Ezra, Psalm 151, Jubilees, Enoch, and the Rest of the Words of Baruch, 1 & 2 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Gnostic gospels.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

There are deutero-canonicals and then there are apocrypha...

Deutoro-canonicals: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and 1 & 2 Machabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel.

The apocrypha include 3 & 4 Machabees, 3 & 4 Ezra, Psalm 151, Jubilees, Enoch, and the Rest of the Words of Baruch, 1 & 2 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Gnostic gospels.

The deuterocanons are actually expanded in the Orthodox Church, but anyways, you seem to be confusing Apocrypha with pseudo-epigrapha. The Gnostic Gospels, Enoch, etc are not in the Apocrypha.

[one way]

I have not heard of it.

[Gyrfalcon]

I've heard of it, but I haven't read it yet.

[jacko50]

ive never heard of them, but they sound really good to read.

can sombody please PM me on which bible version i can find these books in, or if i can aquire these books anwhere else.

[anawim]

Judith is the one where a widow seduces a man then kills him by driving a stake through his head? Ewww! :sick:

What value does that have to the Christian life?

Let's see, first we have Gen 3:15 in which the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent.

Then we have Jael driving a tent peg through the head of Sisera, the general of the opposing army (Judges 4)

Then in Judges 9:53, we have an unnamed woman dropping a millstone on the head of Abimelech, who she got drunk and passed out (beginning to sound familiar?)

Then the most famous head crushing incident where David slay Goliath by crushing his head with a stone. Of course the cleaned up Sunday School version doesn't usually include what David does next: he cuts off the head of Goliath, parades back to Jerusalem and puts the head on a parapet of the gate of the city, just like Judith.

So, you see, there is a thread running through Scripture of the enemies of God having their heads crushed, and in some cases having it cut off and put on display.

Might seem on the surface to be a bit violent, and what value is that? Well, Jesus was crucified on Golgotha, which means skull. He fulfilled the Protevangelium of Gen. 3:15. Doesn't get any more valuable than that!

[lgintrnj]

yes i have

[-Lily-]

Never heard of it..

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

Have you read any of the apocrypha? Have you read the Revelation of Peter? There are many books which have and have not been included/excluded in all and some bibles. Do you know these books, or have you read any of them?I just bought the Apocrypha and started reading it recently.

And when reading "Lost Scriptures", or maybe it was "Lost Books of the Bible" or I guess it could have been in the " Nag Hamadi Library" this morning ( I read a lot...and I'm really tired, so my mind isn't recalling location specifics at the moment.), the Revelation of Peter was mentioned. So...if it is included in any of these books or any of the other resource materials I'm studying, I'm sure I'll read it too. It sounded interesting. Isn't there also another book of revelation written by another person too? Not he one in the book of Revelation...someone else wrote one. Well, anyway...I find this catagory of study so interesting.

Isn't Bel and the Dragon part of a book in the Bible? I seem to remember reading it somewhere. :scratch: It's not titled that, I mean the book it's in isn't's titled that right? I guess if I can't remember where, it's time to re-read.

Thank you Droobie. I appreciate that you are always such an encouragement for Christians to read and study.

***I'm very tired. So this is my disclaimer...I've not read any but the O.P. of this thread.

[Blessed_Mommy]

nope.

[anawim]

Isn't Bel and the Dragon part of a book in the Bible? I seem to remember reading it somewhere. :scratch: It's not titled that, I mean the book it's in isn't's titled that right? I guess if I can't remember where, it's time to re-read.


It was part of the Greek portion of the book of Daniel and is part of chapter 14.

(bit of trivia: the story of Bel and the Dragon has parallels in an episode from the original Star Trek series second season, entitled "The Apple".)

[big1968dog]

never heard of it

[AngCath]

Yes I have read the complete Deuterocanon (part of my Bible) and have read much of the Pseudepigrapha (Enoch, Testament of Job...

[ShilohCity]

heard of it, haven't read any of them, not sure if i ever will or not.

[AvgJoe]

Heard but haven't read. I've read some of the books of the apocrypha.

[Paladin_Mark]

Never heard of it

[Leanna]

I had to read it for a class.... Intertestamental History and Literature....

[ScarletWitch]

what????

[Ric]

Heard of it, and no need to read it!

[Gkbarnes]

I did read it online ages ago, but I can't remember much of it.

[Maja]

Don't know anything about it, but I would like to know more!

[PaladinGirl]

I have read the book of Enoch, which I found most entertaining. Draws many shrouds around many already mysterious topics (the nephylim for example) & quite curiously is the source of verses quoted in Jude!

However I do not regard it as inspired word. If God intended us to read it as scripture, it would by his hand be included in the cannon.

It is included in the Canon. The Protestants took it out during the Reformation so it is no longer a part of most Protestant's Bibles.

[Deiesous]

From what I understand, and correct me if I'm mistaken, it seems that these books are referred to as the Apocrypha because their origins are not clear. Because of this, the Catholic Church decided not to include them in the main collection of books of the Old Testament. But, because the books were so worthwhile, the Church decided to include them in the Bible.

Patty

The books of the Apocrypha are not in the canon because their "validaty" was not accepted by the original church, in the same way that the Gnostic gospels (i.e. Thunder, Perfect Mind, Gospel of Mary/Thomas/Phillip/of Truth/to the Egyptians, The Apocalypse of Peter, The Apocalypse of Paul, The Letter of Peter to Phillip, and Testimony of Truth) were not accepted. The same way the Gnostic Gospels were rejected, the books of the Apacrypha were rejected. If we accept the books of the Apacrypha, we have to also accept the Gnostic Gospels.

Now how many Christians are willing to do that?:P

[mommysue]

What is that? I would really like to know.

[anawim]

At the time of Christ there was no canon of scripture. The Sadducees only accepted the 5 books of Moses (the Torah). The Pharisees accepted the equivalent of the 39 book canon. The Alexandrian, and other Greek speaking Jews accepted the Septuagint. That is why, even to this day, the Ethiopian Jews accept a much larger canon.

At the council of Jamnia (or Javneh), rabbis met to decide, among other things, to exclude those books from the Septuagint which were only extant in Greek. However, it was not a binding council in the way that the council of Jerusalem, or any of the Christian councils are thought to be. Even into the second century AD, there were Rabbis who continued to quote from the book of Sirach.

The first person to compile a list of the 73 books of the Bible (46 books of the OT, and 27 for the NT) was St. Athanasius in 367. In 382 there was a local council in Rome which drew up this exact same list. A second local council in Hippo compiled the same list in 393. A third local council in Carthage compiled the same list again in 397. In 405, Pope Innocent I approved the same list that was submitted to him by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse. In 419, another local council in Carthage also submitted the exact same list to the Pope for approval.

Since these were all local councils, the decision was not binding on the universal church. Hence the Eastern Orthodox have a canon of Scripture that consists of all of the Deuterocanonical books (14 in all).

The first Ecumenical council to compile the list of 73 books of the Bible was the Council of Florene in 1441. Since the split between East and West had already ocurred, the East continued to use the longer canon, while the West used a shorter canon.

The books of the Septuagint were not added. The West removed 6 books and retained 7 others. The East retained them all.

[mle]

it is part of the apochrifa, usually in Catholice bibles.

[Athanasian Creed]

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.



Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (*edited*)
The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954: Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:

2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.Salvation by works:

Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin. Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.



Magic:

Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):

Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.
Wasn't the Apocrypha in the King James?

The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God. As books of some historical value, the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material. This followed the format that Luther had used. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:

"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read." King James Version Defended page 98.In 1599, TWELVE YEARS BEFORE the King James Bible was published, King James said this about the Apocrypha:
"As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said before)..."

(from: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm)


Ray :wave:

[britishtankgirl]

i was aware tht the catholics and others had more to their bibles.
im hoping one day i can get round to reading them it would be intresting to see wot else there is.

[Stacey]

Never heard of it...

[immersedingrace]

I have a copy of the apocrypha. I didn't realize Bel and dragon was a part of it. I've not read all of it though...not much of it at all actually.

Blessings

[PaladinValer]

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.

Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
False. Much of them are in either Hebrew or Aramaic in terms of their originals.

None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
Nor did some of the non-argued books.

The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
False again. The Jews had two canons; one of which, the Alexandrian, consisted of the "Apocryphal" books. Incidentally, what the Jews thought in 70 ce or anytime after 30 ce is of no consequence. Judaism was no longer the true religion, and Christians accepted those "Apocryphal" books in patriarchal synods in each of the five patriarchies. Thus, the Holy Canon included those "Apocryphal" books officially all across Christendom.

The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (*edited*)
False. They were known of.

The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
And there are historical inaccurasies in non-argued books too.

The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954: Basis for the doctrine of purgatory: 2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
What's the surprise? Did we forget that Jews believed in sheol? And that the Early Christians did too? Or that Christians believe that, with death powerless, the saints who had "died" where still not only alive in Christ, but, through Christ, still in Communion with those in heaven and on Earth? Ouch...so much for Jesus being Master of life. I guess He's then just another false messiah*...

Salvation by works:






Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin. Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.







So what's the surprise? The Early Church taught theosis.




Magic:





Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.







Jesus was a magician too, you know. Remember when he spat on the ground, mixed it with mud, and smeared it on a blind person's eyes to heal him?




What...an interesting parallel! Another proof that Jesus is a false messiah!*
Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):






Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.







That has nothing to do with St. Mary the Theotokos. Incidentally, we do have good souls, or is Genesis wrong when it states that all of God's creations are good?




And the body isn't evil either, unless of course a person is Manichean or some other Gnostic or Gnostic-type heretic.

It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
Samson didn't commit suicide? There's a new one.
Assassination? Oh there were a few occurances of that too in non-argued books.
I've already shown "magic" performed by Jesus...and it was a parallel event like that in Tobit!
Lying? See assassination.

No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
Parallels and drawings are referrals as well. They simply aren't as direct.

Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.
How odd. You say that, yet you choose to ignore the significance of Tobit when it comes to sheol. That's rather hypocritical. Practice what you preach, please.

Wasn't the Apocrypha in the King James?

The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God.

Not all perhaps. But some did. Anglicans translated it, and those English Catholics** would indeed accept it.

As books of some historical value, the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material.

Oh that wasn't all. Please review your history of the Anglican Church and faith around the time of King James I.

This followed the format that Luther had used. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:






"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read." King James Version Defended page 98.







I thought we were discussing now the King James Version. This is a Straw Man and of no consequence.










In 1599, TWELVE YEARS BEFORE the King James Bible was published, King James said this about the Apocrypha:"As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said before)..."







One man doesn't make the church.




(from: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm) (http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm))




A source known for its bogus nonsense, heresy, and unreliability. As a historian, I see no value in it in terms of history. As a budding theologian, I see no value in it in terms of theology either.

*=Obvious sarcasm, although I will say that the sarcasm would be the logical conclusion based on the argument given by Athanasian Creed.




**=English Catholics are those Anglicans who are "Anglo-Catholic;" keepers of Henry VIII's Catholic faith.

[Brooke4Jesus]

I have never heard of it

[handmaiden97]

no havent read it.

[GordonSlocum]

Everyone should read it. The Apocrypha are interesting "spurious" writing. The Catholic church and a few other denominations include it in their cannon of Scripture and consider it as such. Not me. Strict 66 books only.

:)

[jul7246]

hmmm...never heard of them
God bless!
Julie

[plum]

haven't read Bel and the Dragon, but I have read some of the Apocrypha

[Swede]

No :o

[mohawk]

I've read the entire Apocrapha.

[supermom]

I have not read none of the books but I have the least in my kjv bible. But a girl I worked with found them on the internet and copied one of the books off.

[Kirkhaven]

Yep, and now I own it in one of many bible versions.