This is apocrypha, written by gentiles, after the scriptures were completed in AD95. You can use it as a historical reference but doctrinally and spiritually is pretty much garbage.
apocrypha = hard to understand stuff. The name itself implies quite a lot: away from hidden. And those who stand to gain from orthodoxy, be they religious or scientific, have run with the word and reimagined its application. Books/scrolls of unknonwn, doubtful origin.
You really want to put such a label on those books, intentionally hidden, while the bible itself is of the same type of origin?
King Johosiah: The priests find in some recess of the temple the books of Moses ....Neat! If you could appreciate the gravity of that story .... a lot that we have witnessed and will witnesses falls into place.
And Sola Scritura advocates cannot get around one simple item: Nicea and the meeting that took place there in 325 AD.
Sometimes it is difficult to accept, that the world is a little different than we were lead to belief.
Nicea and the meeting that took place there in 325 AD.
The King James Bible did not originate from Nicea. It originated from Antioch Syria, where the disciples of Jesus Christ went after they left Jerusalem. Make note that the KJV has never included the Apocrypha among the 66 books it canonized.
Kjv is a piece of political ponerology to support the pre-eminence of the Church of England, a political document in short. Of course with the best of intentions.
So, here we have the OT as a political document furnished by the Priests with the message: obey the law in what we tell you the law is.
Then Paul, one of the inner-crowd people comes along with his version, which so happens to be the basis of understanding of what Christianity is for most people and is the measure by which other books are judged.
But what is worse, your argument is an appeal to authority.
Personally, I don't mind. That is your freedom, the bed you made for yourself. Enjoy.
This is apocrypha, written by gentiles, after the scriptures were completed in AD95. You can use it as a historical reference but doctrinally and spiritually is pretty much garbage.
apocrypha = hard to understand stuff. The name itself implies quite a lot: away from hidden. And those who stand to gain from orthodoxy, be they religious or scientific, have run with the word and reimagined its application. Books/scrolls of unknonwn, doubtful origin.
You really want to put such a label on those books, intentionally hidden, while the bible itself is of the same type of origin?
King Johosiah: The priests find in some recess of the temple the books of Moses ....Neat! If you could appreciate the gravity of that story .... a lot that we have witnessed and will witnesses falls into place.
And Sola Scritura advocates cannot get around one simple item: Nicea and the meeting that took place there in 325 AD.
Sometimes it is difficult to accept, that the world is a little different than we were lead to belief.
Nicea and the meeting that took place there in 325 AD.
The King James Bible did not originate from Nicea. It originated from Antioch Syria, where the disciples of Jesus Christ went after they left Jerusalem. Make note that the KJV has never included the Apocrypha among the 66 books it canonized.
Kjv is a piece of political ponerology to support the pre-eminence of the Church of England, a political document in short. Of course with the best of intentions.
So, here we have the OT as a political document furnished by the Priests with the message: obey the law in what we tell you the law is.
Then Paul, one of the inner-crowd people comes along with his version, which so happens to be the basis of understanding of what Christianity is for most people and is the measure by which other books are judged.
But what is worse, your argument is an appeal to authority.
Personally, I don't mind. That is your freedom, the bed you made for yourself. Enjoy.