[GCFL-discuss] (no subject)

[gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net]

I'm sorry but I think you'll find that the Apocrypha (The 6 books you
referred to) weren't in the ORIGINALS. None of us are sure when they
appeared. Or why the Catholic Church adopted those books. They are a
wonderful help for us to understand how the Jews of ancient time read the
Jewish Bible. But no one is sure at all if they're original, or
originally meant to be there. I took an Old Testament class with a Prof
who had his doctorate in the Dead Sea Scrolls. None of the scholars (who
are far wiser than ANY of us) are sure where the Apocrypha fits.

I can't argue weather they're Biblical important or a wonderful support
series, there are more than just that and I can't remember what they're
called at this moment. But I'm thinking the Apocrypha, Dead Sea scrolls,
and the last group of books I can't remember are all apart of helping us
understand how the Jews of old understood God's word.

God bless you,
Lance
John 8:32 "You will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free."

On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:20:01 -0400 gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net writes:
> The Catholic version of the Bible has six additional books: Tobit, 
> Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch.   All 
> are in the Old Testament.
> 
> And I wasn't saying that the Catholic version is more accurate than 
> any of the others, just that it had more books.  Since you said that 
> the Bible was exactly the way that God wanted it, then why are 
> Protestants reading a Bible with six books removed from the original 
> version (which stood as the only version for hundreds and hundreds 
> of years)?
> Layne
> 
> 
> In a message dated 5/24/2004 10:48:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net writes:
> 
> >
> >Oh, so you speak Greek then Layne? For that is the ONLY 100% 
> acurate Biblical account we have. Now, I know people with New 
> American Bible and NIV and I've never had either books have 
> something the other one doesn't. Please back up your claim. Inflamed 
> comments need back up please.
> >
> >Like, do you know that Romans 1:1 says, "Paul a slave to Christ"? 
> >
> >God bless you,
> >Lance
> >All the people, lemme hear you give a holler:
> >IN GOD WE TRUST! IN GOD WE TRUST!
> >We stamp it on our penny, nickel, dime, quarter, dollar.
> >IN GOD WE TRUST! IN GOD WE TRUST!
> >-- "Indivisible" by Pillar
> >
> >Please note: message attached
> >
> >Dajas (and others in concurrence with the below statements made by 
> Dajas),
> >Not trying to spark another controversy or anything but... 
> >You say that the Bible is God's message to us and we should take 
> all of it in hand.   Assuming that you're reading any Protestant 
> version of the Bible (like King James or an NIV) then you're not 
> taking the whole Bible as it was for hundreds and hundreds of years 
> before a few "educated" men came along and took out six chapters. 
>  Just thought I'd let you know.
> >Layne
> >PS - If you are reading a complete version of the Bible (such as 
> the New American Bible, than please disregard my above thoughts.
> > 
> >In a message dated 5/24/2004 1:31:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net writes:
> >The Bible is God's message to us.... If you refute one person in 
> the Bible, then you refute them all. For the Bible is take all or 
> nothing. My guess, you'll take it all.
> >_______________________________________________
> >GCFL-discuss mailing list
> >GCFL-discuss at gcfl.net
> >http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss
> >
> _______________________________________________
> GCFL-discuss mailing list
> GCFL-discuss at gcfl.net
> http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://gcfl.net/pipermail/gcfl-discuss/attachments/20040524/029cf733/attachment.htm