I'm re-reading the Bible

Just so you know, I am not Roman Catholic. I beg to disagree, your Church has tried to make Christianity something it never was.

 

Jefferson also used the Qur'an, and had his own copy to quote.
The problem with that was, he had the first English translation, not an accredited one,
He had no way to know about chronology or abrogations.
He had no way to learn about Muhammed.
But just the existence of it alludes to, "he knew something about it".

 

I know when and why the Apcrypha was deleted. The question was does your minister, bishop, elder, preacher, cardinal, pope, or whoever runs your cult know the answers?

 

Now that is just mean spirited as well as wrong.

 

If you have time = http://rockingodshouse.com/why-were-14-books-apocrypha-removed-from-the-bible-in-1881/

 

This guy is full of it. He said: "The Catholics ignored Westcott and Hort, but the Protestants and the Anglicans fell into line, and when the influence of the popular textual critics said, “Well, this should not be in the Bible,” amazingly, everybody just fell like dominoes. And starting in 1881, Bibles that are Protestant or Anglican don’t have the Apocrypha."

The 1928 Book Of Common Prayer, which is one of the service books of the Anglican/Episcopal Church, contains readings from the Apocrypha in its lectionary. How are you supposed to read from the Apocrypha if you don't have one to read? That's at least one detail he got wrong.

He's right in saying that most every Bible published before 1800 had an Apocrypha in it, and then Protestant versions left it out. So what? Most every confession of faith agrees that the Apocrypha is worth reading but not to be used for the creation of doctrine, and that goes back to the 1600's.

Move along, folks, nothing to see here.

 

Historical fact = Almost all Bible versions had the Apocrypha until the malcontents deleted it in the 1880s revision.

 

You've asserted this many times in more than one thread. Got it. Loud and clear.

But you keep ignoring one very important piece of information. The Apocrypha since the first English translations has always been sectioned off to its own part of the book. Prior to the sixteenth century, most common people had no access to the Bible. Only the Church (Roman Catholic and Orthodox) had access. The Protestant Reformation asserted that the Scriptures NOT the Church was Yahweh's authority on earth.

The Church made the assertion that the Apocrypha was of secondary importance to the rest of the Bible. However they left it in the Bible in a sectioned off part so that readers can form their own conclusions. For example: you won't find the Prayer of Manasseh in 2 Chronicles where it would go if the Apocrypha was not sectioned off.

These days many Protestant churches think that parishioners will form the WRONG conclusions and so hide the existence of the Apocrypha from them or make passing reference to it in a very dismissive tone. And yes, that started in the 1880s.

I'm lucky to have my NRSV Bible that includes the Apocrypha.

 

What "malcontents"? Martin Luther? He was already dead.

 

No, you're not, every Bible I own has the Apocrypha in it, the KJV, the Geneva, the ESV, it's not that unusual any more.

 

Martin Luther included the Apocrypha in his Bible.

 

I liked surfing the web decades before there was a web.

The closest thing one could get to surfing the web in the 1960s was the World Book Encyclopedia. By the time I was fifteen, I'd read it. I'd read every article, in every book, in the set in my home; and oh boy were the adults impressed.

"The next thing you know, he'll be reading "War and Peace". They said it with such aw, such stature that I just had to read this "War and Peace". Turns out, it's just a history of European wars from some chick's perspective. But, it set me up for the big one, the bible. On my sixteenth birthday, February 6th, my father gave me a bible. By the end of that school year, I had read that bible cover to cover. It was the best thing I'd ever done. I've been reading that bible every day ever since. I've been reading the bible every day for thirty nine years.

The bible is the key to understanding everything else, and the nature of everything else is the key to understanding the bible.

 

So far as I know, all of these translations are readily available online so that you need not spend any money in buying them. And, as always, you'd be well advised to use a concordance as you study so as to get different view points on the subjects you read about.

 

wiki explains

• "Thou shalt not commit adultery" under the Philonic division used by Hellenistic Jews, Greek Orthodox and Protestants except Lutherans, or the Talmudic division of the third-century Jewish Talmud.

In the New Testament it is taught that merely thinking about adultery constitutes a commission of that sin.

 

So what are the three main points you've gotten from reading the Bible for 39 years?

 

Even if adultery is a sin it's not a sexual sin under the Ten Commandments. The writers used the word "adultery" in two ways. The sexual way and the worshiping of other Gods beside Yahweh. When the crowd brought the woman before Yeshua and accused her of adultery it wasn't in the sexual way. She had been worshiping another deity beside Yahweh, probably Yeshua himself since he was going around blabbling about how he was the son of God. In that instance adultery would be a sin under the First Commandment, Exodus 34:11-16.

 

That's interesting, considering the woman caught in adultery was not even in the original text.

 

Do you have a chapter and verse?

 

Don't you? You think you know everything.

 

What "malcontents" are you talking about, then?

 

It seems peculiar that the message of god would require such intense scholasticism... what about illterate and semi-literate.

 

Good point. That's yet another point that proves that the Bible does not come from a supernatural, all knowing, all powerful and all good force. This supernatural force could not keep its message consistent with different manuscripts.

Unless of course you are one of those KJV only people who say that the KJV was some kind of second revelation aka the translators were given prophetic powers.

 

So you're just making things up. OK.

 

The gang led by Westcott & Hort.

 

The current KJVs are based on the 1769 KJV and not the 1611 version.