It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Defending Inerrancy in the Bible...

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 03:20 AM

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Akragon

only one Bible defines all the words in it by the words context, and has its own built in cross reference system.

You forgot to mention that it also contained the Apocrypha (without any stipulations that they are uncanonical as far as I can tell, see other examples of other translators and scholars below). And that comment you made about "RC dominated ones" is rather hypocritical if you have the Roman Catholic Priest Erasmus and his TR listed on the left, which added 1 John 5:7 under pressure from the RC hierarchy, a whole Greek manuscript was fabricated to give it more credibility (as if it was in the Greek manuscripts). Is that Christian behaviour?

King James Bible
Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Deuteronomy 12:32
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

New World Translation

Deuteronomy 4:2
2 You must not add to the word that I am commanding you, neither must you take away from it, so as to keep the commandments of Jehovah your God that I am commanding you.
Deuteronomy 12:32
32 Every word that I am commanding you is what you should be careful to do. You must not add to it nor take away from it.


The Greek word a·poʹkry·phos is used in its original sense in three Bible texts as referring to things “carefully concealed.” (Mr 4:22; Lu 8:17; Col 2:3) As applied to writings, it originally referred to those not read publicly, hence “concealed” from others. Later, however, the word took on the meaning of spurious or uncanonical, and today is used most commonly to refer to the additional writings declared part of the Bible canon by the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1546). Catholic writers refer to these books as deuterocanonical, meaning “of the second (or later) canon,” as distinguished from protocanonical.

These additional writings are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus (not Ecclesiastes), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, supplements to Esther, and three additions to Daniel: The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna and the Elders, and The Destruction of Bel and the Dragon. The exact time of their being written is uncertain, but the evidence points to a time no earlier than the second or third century B.C.E.

Evidence Against Canonicity.
Differing Catholic views. The trend toward including these additional writings as canonical was primarily initiated by Augustine (354-430 C.E.), although even he in later works acknowledged that there was a definite distinction between the books of the Hebrew canon and such “outside books.” However, the Catholic Church, following Augustine’s lead, included such additional writings in the canon of sacred books determined by the Council of Carthage in 397 C.E. It was, however, not until as late as 1546 C.E., at the Council of Trent, that the Roman Catholic Church definitely confirmed its acceptance of these additions into its catalog of Bible books, and this action was deemed necessary because, even within the church, opinion was still divided over these writings. John Wycliffe, the Roman Catholic priest and scholar who, with the subsequent help of Nicholas of Hereford, in the 14th century made the first translation of the Bible into English, did include the Apocrypha in his work, but in the preface to this translation declared such writings to be “without authority of belief.” Dominican Cardinal Cajetan, foremost Catholic theologian of his time (1469-1534 C.E.) and called by Clement VII the “lamp of the Church,” also differentiated between the books of the true Hebrew canon and the Apocryphal works, appealing to the writings of Jerome as an authority.

It is to be noted as well that the Council of Trent did not accept all the writings previously approved by the earlier Council of Carthage but dropped three of these: the Prayer of Manasses and 1 and 2 Esdras (not the 1 and 2 Esdras that, in the Catholic Douay Bible, correspond with Ezra and Nehemiah). Thus, these three writings that had appeared for over 1,100 years in the approved Latin Vulgate were now excluded.
Commenting on such postapostolic Apocryphal writings, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Vol. 1, p. 166) states: “Many of them are trivial, some are highly theatrical, some are disgusting, even loathsome.” (Edited by G. A. Buttrick, 1962) Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Bible Dictionary (1936, p. 56) comments: “They have been the fruitful source of sacred legends and ecclesiastical traditions. It is to these books that we must look for the origin of some of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church.”

Source: Apocrypha: Insight, Volume 1

The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible.

The website above is also not clear about whether or not these books are divinely inspired or should be considered canonical. It seems to promote the notion that I have referred to as the agnostic philosophy of vagueness regarding this topic (as if it isn't clear). At least I got that impression. Reading it again, I actually get the impression that they are speaking in favor of the Apocrypha because of mentioning things like:

Fragments of Dead Sea Scrolls dating back to before 70 A.D. contained parts of the apocrypha books in Hebrew, including Sirach and Tobit [source].

Keep this in mind when reading the following apocryphal books. Martin Luther said, "Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read." (King James Version Defended page 98.)

But neglecting to mention all the reasons and evidence to avoid these books and know that they are unreliable and sometimes even deceptive or directly contradicting bible teachings, or some of the other reasons that I already quoted from the insight book. More examples of that:

Tobit (Tobias). The account of a pious Jew of the tribe of Naphtali who is deported to Nineveh and who becomes blinded by having bird’s dung fall in both of his eyes.
The story was probably written originally in Aramaic and is estimated to be of about the third century B.C.E. It is obviously not inspired by God because of the superstition and error found in the narrative. Among the inaccuracies it contains is this: The account states that in his youth Tobit saw the revolt of the northern tribes, which occurred in 997 B.C.E. after Solomon’s death (Tobit 1:4, 5, JB), also that he was later deported to Nineveh with the tribe of Naphtali, in 740 B.C.E. (Tobias 1:11-13, Dy) That would mean that he lived more than 257 years. Yet Tobias 14:1-3 (Dy) says he was 102 years old at the time of his death.

So what's so "profitable and good to read" (quoting Luther) in a book written by someone who can't even count (or be honest about that)? Which is a question btw I ask myself regarding comments made by some of those who have responded to my commentary about the subject whether or not 1+1=2 as well.
edit on 11-10-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 03:27 AM

edit on 11-10-2016 by Akragon because:

posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 05:12 AM
Talking about whether or not it's wise to take your council or advice from Luther as that kingjamesbibleonline website seems to imply that it is by suggesting to keep it in mind, I wonder how they consider this council:

Certainly, the handiest trick of the propagandist is the use of outright lies. Consider, for example, the lies that Martin Luther wrote in 1543 about the Jews in Europe: “They have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnaped children . . . They are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil who sting and work harm.” His exhortation to so-called Christians? “Set fire to their synagogues or schools . . . Their houses [should] also be razed and destroyed.”

Source: The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000
I think I'll take note of Isaac Newton's warning and keep that in mind instead, at least that man cared about truth, accuracy, reason, understanding, knowledge, insight, our thinking abilities, honesty and wisdom:

...the more learned and quick-sighted men, as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinger, Grotius, and some others, would not dissemble their knowledge...

Source: An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture, by Isaac Newton, honest truthseeker.

Too bad they carefully avoided any quotations from that research subject in the documentary the scenes below are taken from (which actually lasts more than 50 minutes):

edit on 11-10-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

new topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in