Thoughts on these lost books of the bible that are being sold.

 

 

Is this biblical. For me it is a very cautoius topic. I thought we were not to add anything to the word nor take anything away, I thought the Bible was put together as it should have and was intended for 66 books and nothing else. Is this wrong? I know there is soooooo much that we dont know but this is a touchy topic. Any thoughts.

Views: 146

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes you hold a strong point, and in no way am I saying that good works does it all; however, one's good works never go unnoticed, especially when it is to repay another for sins committed directly against them. The lamb's blood was towards GOD, for "the wages of sin is death". However, you still have the issue of wronging another person. Lamb's blood does not cover that, as Zacchaeus knew full well (Luke 19). Think about it: Would a lamb on the alter matter to you if I robbed you? Wouldn't you want your money back, or some sort of retribution?
Trevor,

Lamb's blood covers the sin of people, whether the sin was against someone else, or against Abba.
Lambs' blood covered the sins of the people before GOD, not before each other. I will continue to appeal to Luke 19 until someone refutes this chapter.
Trevor,

It was for both. When they would offer everyday, especially on yom kippur, it was the sins against their fellow man, and against Abba Himself.
Zacchaeus' experience doesn't need to be refuted. After a heart-felt conversion, he did offer to give alms and to restore fourfold what he had stolen from people. These were the ways he showed his faith by works. But they were not the means of his atonement.
I see that there is a great misunderstanding of our standpoints on this subject.......
Trevor,

I have read several text about giving alms, which is charity, or mercy, if you will. These atone for sin only in the sense of "overlooking." But, real atonement, as in "cover/take away", is done with blood. Without blood, there's no remission of sin(Lev 17:11 & Hebrews 9:22).
SAME THING!!! This is not about the "remission of sin".
Trevor,

Atonement does not always carry the meaning of "overlook." Only blood atones for sin(Lev 17:11).
Concerning the Apocrypha, this is what REALLY happened:

"English-language Protestant Bibles in the 16th Century included the books of the Apocrypha—generally in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments—and there is evidence that these were widely read as popular literature, especially in Puritan circles. By the mid—17th Century, however, Puritan theologians were increasingly uneasy at the intermingling of Biblical scripture with popular culture in general, and with the Apocrypha in particular. Further, these theologians were also inclined to reject books which owed their inclusion in the Biblical canon to ecclesiastical authority. Starting in 1630, volumes of the Geneva Bible were occasionally bound with the pages of the Apocrypha section excluded. After the Restoration in 1660, Dissenters tended to discourage the reading of the Apocrypha in both public services and in private devotion.

The Church of England in the Thirty-Nine Articles had included the Apocrypha within the canon of "Holy Scripture". Article VI Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation asserts:

And other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine

The Authorized Version included the Apocrypha; all the books and sections of books present in the Latin Vulgate's Old Testament — the translation of Jerome (Hierome) — but missing in the Hebrew. Indeed, the Book of Common Prayer specifies lectionary readings from the Apocrypha to be read in Morning and Evening Prayer in October.

The standardisation of the text of the Authorized Version after 1769 together with the technological development of Stereotype printing made it possible to produce Bibles in large print-runs at very low unit prices. For commercial and charitable publishers, editions of the Authorized Version without the Apocrypha reduced the cost, while having increased market appeal to non-Anglican Protestant readers. With the rise of the Bible societies, most editions have omitted the whole section of Apocryphal books.

The Apocrypha were excluded from most Bibles following a withdrawal of subsidies by the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1826, which resolved:

That the funds of the Society be applied to the printing and circulation of the canonical books of Scripture, to the exclusion of those books and parts of books which are usually termed Apocryphal

The society revised its position in 1966.
"


In other words, the Apocrypha was removed do to Puritan theological (mis)understandings. Later, the Church of England removed it and banned it the the early 1800's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version
If the books are being sold, can they be truly called lost?
I hear you. I guess its just a way for them to market them and get folks interested in them I suppose.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service