| Author | Message | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
Does anyone have any insight into this subject? My cousin is very interested in it and I don't know enough to even give an opinion. Guess I really need to know when and how the scriptures that we have were put together and why these other books are considered part of the original by some and not others. I'd appreciate any thoughts. Thanks, Sabra | ||
| Gatororeo7 (Gatororeo7) |
Sabra, So glad you asked =). I can't say I know much on the subject myself, but it just so happens that I actually read a little bit on it the last couple days. I had been reading this book called The Foundations of Christian Doctrine, and I was reading a section concerning the authority of Scripture. The book is in outline format and the last heading deals with the apocrypha. Allow me to quote from the text: "The word 'apocrypha' means that which is veiled, secret or closed. "In theology the term apocrypha refers to the 14 books added to the Old Testament by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 AD. These books are; I Esdras, II Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Book of Esther [very likely different from that in the Bible], Wisdom of Solomon [again, probably not like Proverbs], Ecclesiasticus [sic], Baruch, Song of the Three Holy Children, History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasses, I Macabees, and II Macabees." The text then goes on to discuss briefly that most of Christianity does not accept these as having a place in Scripture for several various reasons, some being their contradictory nature to the rest of scripture and their being noted as not being accepted by the Jews of Christ's day. In contrast, look at what the outline says earlier on about the nature of the Scriptures: "For forty different men to write sixty-six books in three languages over a period of sixteen hundred years and have them become one harmonious book is humanly impossible. The unity and progression of thought together with the absence of contradiction indicate that the Bible had ultimately one author, God." That's absolutely amazing! Praise God that He alone inspired men to write the words we see in the Bible and they are of complete consistency. Now, you and I may be on the same track concerning this, because I was about to post something myself once I had enough to formulate a discussion. After reading that chapter (which also goes into a discussion of Divine inspiration), I thought to myself, "Exactly how does Ellen White measure up?" Well the obvious answer would be that she doesn't, and I didnt think much of it until I stumbled upon some article links (which I admit I have yet to read) on the EGW Estate site defending her so-called inspiration. EGW herself makes only one mention of it in her writings and the Estate itself can't figure it out: "I then saw the Word of God, pure and unadulterated, and that we must answer for the way we received the truth proclaimed from that Word. I saw that it had been a hammer to break the flinty heart in pieces, and a fire to consume the dross and tin, that the heart might be pure and holy. I saw that the Apocrypha was the hidden book, and that the wise of these last days should understand it. I saw that the Bible was the standard Book, that will judge us at the last day. I saw that heaven would be cheap enough, and that nothing was too dear to sacrifice for Jesus, and that we must give all to enter the kingdom" (Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, p. 34). I can state from what I've studied thus far, that much of what the SDA church believes to be true today stems from the writings of EGW. When looking at their history, the Adventist followers hinged on her every word, since they believed nearly everything she said was from the mouth of God Himself. I personally find it very interesting that the SDA emphasis on EGW's writings is almost like the Catholic Church adding those books to the Bible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read in this forum, many SDA's will defend their doctrines FIRST with EGW. Sad, really. They don't seem to realize that Heb 1 talks about God speaking to us in these last days through His Son, not through EGW. It almost seems as if the Adventist church has their own idea of apocrypha... EGW's writings. I hope I've been of some help to you. God bless! Joel | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
Thanks Joel, I never knew that about EGW, I'm surprised the SDA's don't have it in their Bible if that is the case. I haven't read it all but I don't see that there is really anything other that historical documentation. ?? | ||
| Dennis (Dennis) |
Some devout SDA apologists speculate that Ellen White meant to say "apocalypse" instead of "apocrypha" in that quote above. The argument is that she didn't know the difference between these two words(smile). Here is another factoid about Ellen White (FUNERAL & INTERMENT): William Fagal, Director of the Ellen G. White Branch at Andrews University, sent me the following email on March 22, 1999: "Her funeral took place on Sabbath, July 24, 1915. She was not actually interred, however, until Thursday, August 26. (How's that for funeral trivia?) Yes, I know what you are wondering, but I don't know why the interment was delayed so long." Some think Dr. John Kellogg, by that time a foe to Ellen White, may have wanted to perform an autopsy on her brain. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
Dennis, So, in your opinion, is it inspired? Sabra | ||
| Dennis (Dennis) |
Sabra, The apocryphal books are NOT inspired. They are very useful, however, for intertestamental history. The apocrypha support views such as purgatory, tithing codes, prayers to deceased humans, and other doctrines that are not a part of the new covenant teachings of Jesus Christ. These spurious writings are rightly deemed as non-canonical. The canonization process had the superintendence of God; therefore, every word of Scripture carries the weight of divine authority. The Scriptures receive their authority from God, not from the church nor from any other human source. The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, adopted at a meeting of more than two hundred evangelical leaders in October 1978, rightly affirms that "the authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian church in this and every age." But authority cannot stand in isolation, as the Statement shows. The authority of the Bible is based on its being the written Word of God, and because the Bible is the Word of God and the God of the Bible is truth and speaks truthfully, authority is linked to inerrancy. If the Bible is the Word of God, and if God is a God of truth, then the Bible must be inerrant--not merely in some of its parts, as some modern theologians are saying, but totally, as the church for the most part has said down through the ages of its history. With the aid of divine inspiration and the superintendence of the Holy Spirit in the giving of sacred Scripture, the writings of the Bible are free from the normal tendencies and propensities of fallen men to distort truth. If human language were to be judged intrinsically inadequate to convey revelation, there would be no possible means by which God could reveal anything about Himself to us in verbal form. Since, however the Bible teaches that man is created in the image of God and that there is some point of likeness between man and God, communication between God and man is possible. Such possibility of communication is built into creation by God Himself. The human tendency toward corruption, distortion, and falsehood is overcome by divine inspiration. Indeed, we can trust the Bible. In the event that your question is whether Ellen White's extrabiblical writings are inspired, I must conclude that they are WITHOUT divine inspiraton. This is not to say that some portions of her writings, particularly the plagiarized segments, are not inspiring. After all, many of her plagiarized sources were notable Christian writers. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Dennis, thank you for that great explanation of the inerrancy of scripture. I like the way you explained that God built into humans the ability to communicate with him, so the Bible can be trusted even though humans wrote the words. That was a great insight. Colleen | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
Thanks Dennis, like I said, I haven't really read it and I don't know why my cousin is so interested in it, she is SDA, well, sort of SD_Pentecosal ?? I definately don't have any question as to whether or not EGW was inspired, at least not by God, she may have some other inspiration. Can you tell me if these books were taken out of the Bible as my cousin believes or where they came from. I don't have any knowledge of how the Bible was put together or who decided that it should be the way it is. I do believe it is inspired by God but I don't have any other information to share with her. Thanks! Sabra | ||
| Dennis (Dennis) |
Sabra, It should not seem strange that a volume that included sixty-six different books written over one thousand four-hundred years would have some difficulties of harmonization within it. It has often been charged, notably by Seventh-day Adventists in their attempt to bolster their extrabiblical writings, that the Bible is FULL of contradictions. Such statements are unwarranted by the evidence. The amount of seriously difficult passages compared to the total quantity of material found there is very small indeed. The Old and New Testament Scriptures are probably the texts which have reached us with the most extensive and reliable attestation. For more than ninety-nine percent of the cases, the original text can be reconstructed to a practical certainty. Even in the few cases where some perplexity remains, this does not impinge on the meaning of Scripture to the point of clouding a tenet of faith or a mandate of life. Therefore, in the Bible as we have it (and as it is conveyed to us through faithful translations), we do have for practical purposes the very word of God, inasmuch as the manuscripts do convey the complete vital truth of the original autograph. The minuscule segments of existing manuscripts where textual criticism (the science that deals with authenticating works of antiquity)has not been able to ascertain with absolute certainty what the original reading was, no essential article of the Christian faith is affected. Calvin, for example, says that we should read the Bible as if we have heard God audibly speaking its message. That is, it carries the same weight of authority as if God Himself were heard to be giving utterance to the words of Scripture. (Institutes, I, vii, 1; Sermons on Gospel Harmony XLVI, p. 164 and passim). That does not mean that Calvin taught or believed that God did in fact utter the words audibly. We do not know the process by which inspired Scripture was given. But I am saying that inspiration, however God brought it about, results in the net effect that every word of Scripture carries with it the weight of God's authority. The human writers of the Bible were not machines and ought not to be conceived of as being without personality. What is overcome or overridden by inspiration is not human personality, style, or literary structure, but human tendencies to distortion, falsehood, and error. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Windmotion (Windmotion) |
To play the devil's advocate, here is a point in favor of the Apocrypha. It would appear that it is validated in Jude 14 and 15 when Jude actually quotes from the first chapter of that book. He says that book was written by "Enoch the seventh from Adam." Now isn't quoting from another book a way that Biblical books validate each other? I have never been able to sort this out in my head. Anyways, food for thought --Hannah | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
Dennis, You may be misunderstanding my posistion. I'm not defending the Apopcrypha, I never even heard of it before my cousin asked my opinion of it. I told her I have no opinion other than the Bible that I have-without the Apocrypha is inspired by God and has more information that I can process in a lifetime. She is referring to the verse in Revelation not to add or subtract from the scriptures and thinks that the Apocrypha was deleted by someone along the way. I researched it some and found that the Jews never accepted it, but I don't guess they accept any of the New Testament either, right? I was really just trying to figure out who included it originally and it appears to be the Roman Catholics. I guess I'm naive in that I never realized the SDA's consider the scriptures contridictory. Anyways, thanks for your input!! Sabra | ||
| Sherry2 (Sherry2) |
Hannah, I've actually considered that text myself and wondered about the book of Enoch in particular. Considering that he walked so close to God he was translated, I would really like to read it for myself. I wonder why it was ousted as part of the cannon. Is ordering a Catholic bible the only way to read the Apocrypha? I'd like to read it in entirety. | ||
| Windmotion (Windmotion) |
Sherry, the list of apocryphal books vary depending on who you are talking to. I have found the most thorough list to be at www.pseudepigrapha.com. You can also read any of the apocryphal books online here. To find out more about any one book, do a search at my fav search engine (google.com) to find out opinions on the book's reliablity. For instance, in my recent search on information on I Enoch, one site said the writers of I Enoch were quoting Jude. Then another site said portions of the book were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date before the time of Christ. The Adventist Review wrote an article recently about that Ellen White quote. You can read it at http://www.adventistreview.org/2002-1513/story2.html. In a nutshell, the article says the portion of Ellen's writings where that came from is not an original script and therefore is not authentic. I am talking to my husband about coming to one of your meetings sometime. How far away are you do you think from Port Huron? His former pastor has resumed contact with him and told David he would buy those red books. Interesting. Anyways. Hannah | ||
| Sherry2 (Sherry2) |
Thanks for the info. That's great! Well hey, if you'd like to come out for it, I think Port Huron is maybe about 2 hours, 2 1/2. Go to Mapquest.com and you can get door-to-door directions there, and will tell the time frame. He wants to buy Dale's books? His own copies? or to take them "off" your husband's hands? Very intereting. God bless! | ||
| Violet (Violet) |
I purchase the apochypha at Barnes and Noble, under the religion section. I was looking at the book of Macabees and the restoration of the sanctuary. I think it was about $12 or so. |
