If the bible is god's word, why have collections like the Apocrypha been deliberately kept out of the bible?

Question

I’m not looking for an interpretation of a biblical story!!!

Answer 1

Books are left out of the Bible because they don't relate to the central theme of the Bible, or that obviously contradict the rest of the Bible.

Now, I'm not a fundamentalist, but I don't think that the existence of the Apocrypha, or the Gnostic Gospels in itself contradicts the "word of God" view of the Bible. Just because someone tries to add something to a book, it doesn't mean that the book is false.

Think about it this way- Let's say a hacker gets into Yahoo!Answers and changes this post by adding paragraphs that make it look like I'm admitting to kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. That doesn't mean the other things I'm writing aren't really coming from me.

People at Yahoo might even have a council at, say Nicea, to discuss which paragraphs I wrote, and which one the hacker wrote. Maybe with my guidance, that Yahoo council at Nicea would find the original text of my post. Others could still argue that I really had kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.

Now, all that being said, I am still not a fundamentalist. And I did not Kidnap the Lindbergh baby

Answer 2

The 'Apocrypha' refers to texts that were "hidden away" for various reasons... usually where the authenticity or the author themselves are in question. Sometimes for a much darker reason such as a conflct with another source you like better.

The other reason for labeling something as 'Apocrypha' is so you can control what is read and known about a thing. Imagine labeling as 'Apocrypha' the entire 'D' Encyclopedia for instance?

Knowledge is power, and he who controls the release (or suppression) of that Knowledge is TRULY the Master.

That Master was the Pope and his seat upon the Vatican was ultimate and his influence vast-reaching.

Answer 3

The correct term for the apocryphal books is the deuterocanonical books. They were left out in the 16th century by Martin Luther because they contained things that did not agree with his opinions. He had no authority to do this, just as he had no authority to add to Romans 3:28 to support his other opinions. He added the word "alone" to "we are justified by faith..."

The deuterocanonical books have always been in the Catholic Bible, and were part of the Bible ever since all 27 books of the New Testament were part of the Bible. They are all listed in the council of Hippo and Carthage and anyone can read the canons of those councils if they want to. Constantine had been dead for about 50 years, so he had nothing to do with the compilation of the Holy Books.

Answer 4

How did you recognize who hardened Pharaoh's coronary heart? it may were God himself. yet in case you ant to be particular, there have been a number of dozen translations of the Bible made contained in the surprising 60 years or so. you may search for suggestion from a variety of of variations. because you're consulting a Bible with "-eth" variations of verbs, that is maximum in all likelihood the King James translation, which develop into made merely over 400 years in the past. The language in that translation is in a large number of places very appropriate, in spite of the undeniable fact that that is 400 years previous. The English language has moved on considering that then. a number of uncomplicated words in that translation have replaced appreciably, such that they propose almost the different of their which skill 400 years in the past, that may convey about puzzlement in some parts.

Answer 5

Simple, Man chose what he thought should be taught around 200, 300 AD and said forget the rest. Like the Book of Enoch, it tell the story of how the rebel Angels were cast out of Heaven and how they corrupted mankind. Try to find a copy, good luck

Answer 6

The apocrypha has some dubious content, such as God assisting Judith in a lie, among other things. Second, neither Jesus nor the apostles nor the church fathers ever considered them Scripture like they did the old and new testaments.

Answer 7

Shalom,

Because modern day Christianity isn't as it should of been, that is to say that before Roman Emperor Constantine Christianity was a lot different. It became used a tool of political power and to put people under subjugation of their rulers and to keep them bound to absolute ignorance. And how may one do this? By keeping certain scriptures out that disproves the religion that those people were in power were trying to make. Or as can be plainly seen today, to keep man bound by his ignorant superstitions in regards to things other than what he can perceive with his organic conscious.

If you look at scriptures such as the dead sea scrolls, gnosticism scriptures such as Gospel of Thomas then you will clearly be able to see that Christianity isn't as it should of been. The winners and those who are in power write history.

Peace

Aza

Gorgeoustxwoman: I'm not saying that the scriptures were written by men in power, rather I'm saying the the original writers of them handed the elementary versions them down to gentiles(those foreign of God) and they were immediately corrupted and used as a stepping stone to gain power and to keep those who were already rulers in power. And to those who knew the true meaning of the scriptures and how to apply them were murdered.

In the Epistle of Peter given to James he writes in regards to the corruption of the scriptures: "Hear me, brethren and fellow-servants. If we should give the books to all indiscriminately, and they should be corrupted by any daring men, or be perverted by interpretations, as you have heard that some have already done, it will remain even for those who really seek the truth, always to wander in error. Wherefore it is better that they should be with us, and that we should communicate them with all the fore-mentioned care to those who wish to live piously, and to save others."

Answer 8

Thank you so much for introducing me to this word and, more importantly, these works.

There is passages that state there can be salvation by our works! Now that shoots a huge hole in the "saved" way of thinking. I love it!

This only proves what I have said forever, that the book was written by men. Men with desires for power. They used fear to obtain this power.

Answer 9

God(using a human of course) decided what would be put in His word. So if there's a problem with it, you'll need to take it up with the Big man up stairs.

Answer 10

Was The Apocrypha In The First King James Bible?

Issue Date: July/August 1999

The Answer Book, was written by Dr. Samuel Gipp in response to the dozens of questions used by critics of the King James Bible. The following excerpt is question number 34 and Gipp's answer. The Answer Book can be read online.

QUESTION: Didn't the King James Bible, when first printed, contain the Apocrypha?

ANSWER: Yes.

EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.

First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.

That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.


What is the Apocrypha? Why aren't these books found in
the Protestant Bibles?

Today the word Apochrypha is synonymous with the 14 or
15 books of doubtful authenticity and authority. These
writings are not found in the Hebrew Old Testament,
but they are contained in some manuscripts of the
Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old
Testament) which was completed around 250 B.C. in
Alexandria, Egypt.

Most of these books were declared to be Scripture by
the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent
(1545-1563), though the Protestant Church rejects any
divine authority attached to them.

Those who attribute divine authority to these books
and advocate them as Scripture argue that the writers
of the New Testament quote mostly from the Septuagint,
which contains the Apocrypha. They also cite the fact
that some of the Church fathers, notably Iraneaeus,
Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, used the
Aprocrypha in public worship and accepted them as
Scripture, as did the Syriac Church in the fourth
century.

St. Augustine, who presided over the councils at Hippo
and Carthage, concurred with their decision that the
books of the Apocrypha were inspired. The Greek Church
adds its weight to their belief in the Apocrypha.
Among the fragments at Qumran are copies of some of
the apocryphal books written in Hebrew. These have
been discovered alongside other Old Testament works.

The case for including the Apocrypha as holy Scripture
completely breaks down when examined. The New
Testament writers may allude to the Apocrypha, but
they never quote from it as holy Scripture or give the
slightest hint that any of the books are inspired. If
the Septuagint in the first century contained these
books, which is by no means a proven fact, Jesus and
His disciples completely ignored them.

Appealing to certain Church fathers as proof of the
inspiration of the books is a weak argument, since
just as many in the early church, notably Origen,
Jerome and others, denied their alleged inspiration.

The Syriac Church waited until the 4th century A.D. to
accept these books as canonical. It is notable that
the Peshitta (the Syriac Bible of the 2nd century
A.D.) did not contain them.

The early Augustine did acknowledge the Apocrypha, at
least in part. But later, Augustine's writings clearly
reflected a rejection of these Hebrew scriptures.

The Jewish community also rejected these writings. At
the Jewish Council of Jamnia (c. A.D.90), nice of the
books of our Old Testament canon were debated for
differing reasons whether they were to be included.
Eventually they ruled that only the Hebrew Old
Testament books of our present canon were canonical.

Citing the presence of the Apocrypha among the Old
Testament fragments proves little regarding
inspiration, as numerous fragments of other,
nonscriptural documents were also found.

It cannot be overemphasized that the Roman Catholic
church itself did not officially declare these books
Holy Scripture until 1545-1563 at the Council of
Trent.

The acceptance of certain books in the Apocrypha as
canonical by the Roman Catholic Church was to a great
extent a reaction to the Protestant Reformation. By
canonizing these books, they legitimized their
reference to them in doctrinal matters.

The arguments that advocate the scriptural authority
of the Apocrypha obviously leave a great deal to be
desired.

There are some other telling reasons why the Apocrypha
is rejected by the Protestant Church. One of these
deals with the unbiblical teaching of these
questionable books, such as praying for the dead.

Praying for the deceased (advocated in 2 Maccabees
12:45-46) is in direct opposition to Luke 16:25, 26
and Hebrews 9:27, among others. The Apocrypha also
contains the episode which has God assisting Judith in
a lie (Judith 9:10, 13).

The Apocrypha contains demonstrable errors as well.
Tobit was supposedly alive when Jeroboam staged his
revolt in 931 B.C. and was still living at the time of
the Assyrian captivity (722 B.C.), yet the Book of
Tobit says he lived only 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5,
14:11).

Finally, there is no claim in any of these apocryphal
books as to divine inspiration. One need only read
these works alongside the Bible to see the vast
difference.

McDowell, Josh. Answers to tough questions skeptics
ask about the Christian faith. Wheaton, Ill. Campus
Crusade for Christ. 1980. (pp. 46-49)

Go here for more links:
http://www.geocities.com/dexlox/lostbooks.html
http://www.ariel.org/qapocryp.html