I guess I don't qualify as one who view the Bible as completely God breathed, though I do think there are many Godly truths to be found there. Does this mean I don't qualify to answer your question?
These days I am reading all sorts of stuff. I accept those things which sit peacefully with me. The rest I either outright reject or I sit on until I have more information.
BTW, you can find the books of Enoch on the internet. I have started reading some and it is very interesting.
From what I understand, the "official" books of the Bible were decided a long time ago. It is not up to me or anyone else of my generation to decide what books get in or not.
If it were up to me to decide, I'd have to say that whatever candidates were approved would have to fit with all the rest of the books of the Bible. That happens to be the criteria that apparently was used because all of the OT and NT apocrypha do not fit. There are doctrinal abberations which are readily apparrent in all of them...
I think the problem is as simple as not reading these extra books. For years I only read the bible and was only vaguely aware of these books. I did not think enough of them to read any of them. Then a friend of mine stumbled onto the book of Enoch, read it and then shared this with me. We also studied the book of Enoch at our weekly bible study. I like this book. It has a lot of similarities with the books of the bible. Parts read like the gospels. Other parts read like the book of Job. Still other parts read like other biblical books. I think the writers of both the Old and New Testament were greatly influenced by this writing. I sort of liken the book of Enoch to the Great Grand Father of inspired writings. I recommend it. As for the others. Perhaps they are inspired of God also. However, as of today, the book of Enoch is the only apocrypha book that I have read.
I have just started reading the Book of Enoch, myself. Interesting stuff, and even though it is quoted in the New Covenant Writings (ie. the New Testament), my personal "jury" is out (as of yet), about it's validity.
quote:From what I understand, the "official" books of the Bible were decided a long time ago. It is not up to me or anyone else of my generation to decide what books get in or not.
RG, I fail to see anything that could back up your statements unless I take "official" to mean "accepted". Even then there is no one accepted canon among Christians.
First, who says that the bishops and cardinals of the 4th century church got it 100 percent correct when they decided which books would be in the NT canon and which would not? I speak of the 3rd Council of Carthage which happens to only have been a regional council.
If you don't want to decide for yourself, that's fine. But as for, me after studying to canon and it formation, I reserve the right to decide for myself which books I believe to be inspired and which ones I do not. I see nothing at all (exept blind acceptance) that limits this generation from deciding which books get in and which don't.
A popular book that is nonetheless meticulously presented, is FF Bruce's "The Canon of the Scriptures". Good information without drawing dogmatic conclusions...
Regarding the extra-canonical books "fitting", I don't know about Christians in general, but in TWI we made something "fit" because we assumed that it was all god-breathed. We would perform whatever mental gymnastics were required to fit that hand into the glove. If a book like Enoch or the Maccabees doesn't fit, could it be because we have written it off and assume that the "errors" aren't apparent contradictions, but real ones?
I am not sure what you are saying in your last post Oakspear, but after reading the book of Enoch I find many similarities with books of the bible. In fact, if PFAL was taken from Bullinger's "How To Enjoy the Bible", I would say that the book of Enoch influenced both Old and New Testament writers. Furthermore, if this book was in fact written by Enoch, then it would have predated the books of the Old Testament.
I'm referencing RG's post where he said that much of the apocrypha did not fit with the rest of the bible.
My argument is that if we assumed that any of these apopcryphal books were god-breathed, as we assume that the canonical books are, we would find a way to make them fit with the canonical books.
The other side of the coin is that there are apparent contradictions throughout the bible, we make them fit, because we think that they have to, not because it all self-evidently fits together.
Thank you for the clarification Oakspear. In that case I disagree with RG if he says that the book of Enoch conflicts with the bible. Furthermore, I doubt that RG has even read the book of Enoch. He should try reading it sometime before he makes such a statement. The last time I talked to John Schoenheit, I told him that I found the book of Enoch very interesting and enlightening. He looked at me like I had just joined a new cult. Then I asked him have you ever even read the book of Enoch to have such an opinion of its lack of spiritual/godly merit. He admitted as much that he had read no part of this book other than what is quoted in Jude. I rest my case.
It seems that the vast majority of Christians have blindly accepted the canon without so much as a question. To many, possibly like RG and Shoenheit, and many other research heavies, the canon is a sacred cow - not to be questioned.
Personally I have doubts that some what is included in the Bible (NT) is "god-breathed" at all as in direct from the mouth of God. Other writing that may have been excluded - like Enoch, Tolbit, and others, (even if not god- breathed) can certainly be quite informative and usefull - and were even historically read in the early Church gatherings.
Think about it. If the goal is to make things "fit like a hand in a glove", then for example, removing the book of James from the canon eliminates the argument/contradiction of "faith vs works" which basically is what Luther tried to do. Luther also rejected Revelation. Other problems can be eliminated by removing the Pauline Epistles as simply personal letters from Paul represting Pauls opinions(as many others have done).
I am not suggesting that the canon be rejected, but rather that it be explored and not be looked at as a sacred cow beyond question.
Who gave these 4th century churchmen the right to decide for us today and forever - what is God-breathed and what is not?
I have read many and I find that there are some things that seem not to fix with the rest of the bible but then when I look at it with a spiritual heart I see that words may have been translated wrong and after studing that english word in my KJ I see words that would fix better
But that does not prove anything Maybe some day Strong's will add those books to their dictory
I'm bringing this one back up because I just read Patrick Heron's book, "The Nephilim and the Pyramid of the Apocalypse". (He's a former Wayfer and this book was recently mentioned in "Open.")
He refers to The Book of Enoch in his book. From what I've read so far from the Book of Enoch, I don't see contradictions with the Bible. I think it elaborates on some truths that are in Genesis that are very mind boggling but feasible.
So I'm not so sure at this point, whether I'm going off the deep end with this or if this is really a missing book of the Bible.
The fact that the book of Enoch is quoted in Jude gives it some credence. If a book (Jude) was included in the canon that quotes another book, wouldn't that other book be true too?
Maybe the church fathers overlooked that fact when deciding which books to include.
After all, it was a council that decided the trinity was true. Why should men be considered the ultimate authority of what should end up in the Bible?
Maybe there's a reason the Book of Enoch isn't in the Bible. Maybe it's true but God didn't want it in there for general study or something. It's a very heavy book, kind of like an "Advanced Class" of scripture.
A lot of it was political - what got inserted and what didn't.
I find the book of Enoch fasciniating - first because God says himself Enoch walked with him and later translated him that he should not see death. Second, the Book of Enoch is quoted in both the old and new testament. It seems the Book of Enoch was widely read, accepted and known to all, just like our Bible is today. Third, when you read Enoch, he corraborates and enhances. I think the Nephilim weren't gone into in detail in Gen. 6 because it was assumed everyone knew the account in Enoch. It was later, totally destroyed by the religious leaders. Two copies remained hidden and that is where we have our translations from now. I like Enoch because it makes so much sense and to me anyway, was a large piece of a puzzle finally being put into place. For instance - who are the beings in chains, why are they being held and why did Christ preach to them. the authors didn't elaborate because it was common knowledge and pretty much known to everyone who and why. Of course, to us, without the Book of Enoch, its not obvious. I think of all the ones I've read, Enoch is a glaring omission and should have been in there.
Likewise with the Book of Revelation. That was added by the Catholic church 400 years after the fact. It was not considered part of the original cannon. Why did the Catholic church 400 hundred years later, decide it should be put in? I think Martin Luther may have had the right idea.
Some of the other books obviously don't belong. But again, much of the cannon we have now, and don't have, but maybe should, was political, power struggles and dominance.
But knowing that there are other spiritual writings out there is not unusual to me. And it seems to me that it is only right that there should be other things to consider.
These "church fathers" as they are called, whoever they were, were only men like you and me.
I'll bet Paul had no idea that there would be such controversy over the "bible" as he penned his letters. Or any of the other writers of the bible. And I would say Paul wrote more than what we have on record today, as well as others who wrote as they were moved by the holy spirit.
The Word was for then and for our learning now, those who speak now carry just as much weight as those who spoke then, imo. Cause the Word spoken now by the living is alive when there is believing behind it, and therefore carries with it the power of it's God.
Comparing spiritual things with spiritual things is a matter of personal growth and the ability to see beyond that of the one writing and consider what was written. Rather then taking someone's word for it that they are speaking by the Spirit of God. But it will on it's own manifest itself to the reader or the one hearing, wether or not it's the word of life.
UNC-Chapel Hill professor Bart Erlhman has written a book called "Lost Scriptures" which includes Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, 3rd
Corinthians, etc. Also, thereare 4 books of Maccabeus, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, "Lost Books of Eden", all coming from Hag Nadgi caves in Egypt. Also Dead Sea Scrolls include War between
Sons of Righteousness against the powers of Darkness. Also, Roy you aren't related by any chance to Hal Love from Charlotte,NC are you? Thomas
Recommended Posts
Abigail
Hiya Anamchara,
I guess I don't qualify as one who view the Bible as completely God breathed, though I do think there are many Godly truths to be found there. Does this mean I don't qualify to answer your question?
These days I am reading all sorts of stuff. I accept those things which sit peacefully with me. The rest I either outright reject or I sit on until I have more information.
BTW, you can find the books of Enoch on the internet. I have started reading some and it is very interesting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Research Geek
From what I understand, the "official" books of the Bible were decided a long time ago. It is not up to me or anyone else of my generation to decide what books get in or not.
If it were up to me to decide, I'd have to say that whatever candidates were approved would have to fit with all the rest of the books of the Bible. That happens to be the criteria that apparently was used because all of the OT and NT apocrypha do not fit. There are doctrinal abberations which are readily apparrent in all of them...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Hi All
you can find most the books here
http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/
but some are not but a search on the book may find it or I would be blessed to Email if I have what your looking for
But I am sure I do not have them all too
With love Roy
PS nice post Oakspear its good to get things in the open and see what others think
lots of love to you my dear friend
with love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
I think the problem is as simple as not reading these extra books. For years I only read the bible and was only vaguely aware of these books. I did not think enough of them to read any of them. Then a friend of mine stumbled onto the book of Enoch, read it and then shared this with me. We also studied the book of Enoch at our weekly bible study. I like this book. It has a lot of similarities with the books of the bible. Parts read like the gospels. Other parts read like the book of Job. Still other parts read like other biblical books. I think the writers of both the Old and New Testament were greatly influenced by this writing. I sort of liken the book of Enoch to the Great Grand Father of inspired writings. I recommend it. As for the others. Perhaps they are inspired of God also. However, as of today, the book of Enoch is the only apocrypha book that I have read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I have just started reading the Book of Enoch, myself. Interesting stuff, and even though it is quoted in the New Covenant Writings (ie. the New Testament), my personal "jury" is out (as of yet), about it's validity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Posted by RG:
RG, I fail to see anything that could back up your statements unless I take "official" to mean "accepted". Even then there is no one accepted canon among Christians.
First, who says that the bishops and cardinals of the 4th century church got it 100 percent correct when they decided which books would be in the NT canon and which would not? I speak of the 3rd Council of Carthage which happens to only have been a regional council.
If you don't want to decide for yourself, that's fine. But as for, me after studying to canon and it formation, I reserve the right to decide for myself which books I believe to be inspired and which ones I do not. I see nothing at all (exept blind acceptance) that limits this generation from deciding which books get in and which don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
A popular book that is nonetheless meticulously presented, is FF Bruce's "The Canon of the Scriptures". Good information without drawing dogmatic conclusions...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Ditto what Goey said.
:D-->
Regarding the extra-canonical books "fitting", I don't know about Christians in general, but in TWI we made something "fit" because we assumed that it was all god-breathed. We would perform whatever mental gymnastics were required to fit that hand into the glove. If a book like Enoch or the Maccabees doesn't fit, could it be because we have written it off and assume that the "errors" aren't apparent contradictions, but real ones?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
I am not sure what you are saying in your last post Oakspear, but after reading the book of Enoch I find many similarities with books of the bible. In fact, if PFAL was taken from Bullinger's "How To Enjoy the Bible", I would say that the book of Enoch influenced both Old and New Testament writers. Furthermore, if this book was in fact written by Enoch, then it would have predated the books of the Old Testament.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Mark S:
I'm referencing RG's post where he said that much of the apocrypha did not fit with the rest of the bible.
My argument is that if we assumed that any of these apopcryphal books were god-breathed, as we assume that the canonical books are, we would find a way to make them fit with the canonical books.
The other side of the coin is that there are apparent contradictions throughout the bible, we make them fit, because we think that they have to, not because it all self-evidently fits together.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Thank you for the clarification Oakspear. In that case I disagree with RG if he says that the book of Enoch conflicts with the bible. Furthermore, I doubt that RG has even read the book of Enoch. He should try reading it sometime before he makes such a statement. The last time I talked to John Schoenheit, I told him that I found the book of Enoch very interesting and enlightening. He looked at me like I had just joined a new cult. Then I asked him have you ever even read the book of Enoch to have such an opinion of its lack of spiritual/godly merit. He admitted as much that he had read no part of this book other than what is quoted in Jude. I rest my case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mark - Oak,
It seems that the vast majority of Christians have blindly accepted the canon without so much as a question. To many, possibly like RG and Shoenheit, and many other research heavies, the canon is a sacred cow - not to be questioned.
Personally I have doubts that some what is included in the Bible (NT) is "god-breathed" at all as in direct from the mouth of God. Other writing that may have been excluded - like Enoch, Tolbit, and others, (even if not god- breathed) can certainly be quite informative and usefull - and were even historically read in the early Church gatherings.
Think about it. If the goal is to make things "fit like a hand in a glove", then for example, removing the book of James from the canon eliminates the argument/contradiction of "faith vs works" which basically is what Luther tried to do. Luther also rejected Revelation. Other problems can be eliminated by removing the Pauline Epistles as simply personal letters from Paul represting Pauls opinions(as many others have done).
I am not suggesting that the canon be rejected, but rather that it be explored and not be looked at as a sacred cow beyond question.
Who gave these 4th century churchmen the right to decide for us today and forever - what is God-breathed and what is not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Precisely. VPW was quick enough to do down loads of other things they did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Hi All
I have read many and I find that there are some things that seem not to fix with the rest of the bible but then when I look at it with a spiritual heart I see that words may have been translated wrong and after studing that english word in my KJ I see words that would fix better
But that does not prove anything Maybe some day Strong's will add those books to their dictory
It would help my research alot
but now I just read and do my best
with love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outandabout
I'm bringing this one back up because I just read Patrick Heron's book, "The Nephilim and the Pyramid of the Apocalypse". (He's a former Wayfer and this book was recently mentioned in "Open.")
He refers to The Book of Enoch in his book. From what I've read so far from the Book of Enoch, I don't see contradictions with the Bible. I think it elaborates on some truths that are in Genesis that are very mind boggling but feasible.
So I'm not so sure at this point, whether I'm going off the deep end with this or if this is really a missing book of the Bible.
The fact that the book of Enoch is quoted in Jude gives it some credence. If a book (Jude) was included in the canon that quotes another book, wouldn't that other book be true too?
Maybe the church fathers overlooked that fact when deciding which books to include.
After all, it was a council that decided the trinity was true. Why should men be considered the ultimate authority of what should end up in the Bible?
Maybe there's a reason the Book of Enoch isn't in the Bible. Maybe it's true but God didn't want it in there for general study or something. It's a very heavy book, kind of like an "Advanced Class" of scripture.
But then again, maybe I'm losing my mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
A lot of it was political - what got inserted and what didn't.
I find the book of Enoch fasciniating - first because God says himself Enoch walked with him and later translated him that he should not see death. Second, the Book of Enoch is quoted in both the old and new testament. It seems the Book of Enoch was widely read, accepted and known to all, just like our Bible is today. Third, when you read Enoch, he corraborates and enhances. I think the Nephilim weren't gone into in detail in Gen. 6 because it was assumed everyone knew the account in Enoch. It was later, totally destroyed by the religious leaders. Two copies remained hidden and that is where we have our translations from now. I like Enoch because it makes so much sense and to me anyway, was a large piece of a puzzle finally being put into place. For instance - who are the beings in chains, why are they being held and why did Christ preach to them. the authors didn't elaborate because it was common knowledge and pretty much known to everyone who and why. Of course, to us, without the Book of Enoch, its not obvious. I think of all the ones I've read, Enoch is a glaring omission and should have been in there.
Likewise with the Book of Revelation. That was added by the Catholic church 400 years after the fact. It was not considered part of the original cannon. Why did the Catholic church 400 hundred years later, decide it should be put in? I think Martin Luther may have had the right idea.
Some of the other books obviously don't belong. But again, much of the cannon we have now, and don't have, but maybe should, was political, power struggles and dominance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
All I really know is the King James.
But knowing that there are other spiritual writings out there is not unusual to me. And it seems to me that it is only right that there should be other things to consider.
These "church fathers" as they are called, whoever they were, were only men like you and me.
I'll bet Paul had no idea that there would be such controversy over the "bible" as he penned his letters. Or any of the other writers of the bible. And I would say Paul wrote more than what we have on record today, as well as others who wrote as they were moved by the holy spirit.
The Word was for then and for our learning now, those who speak now carry just as much weight as those who spoke then, imo. Cause the Word spoken now by the living is alive when there is believing behind it, and therefore carries with it the power of it's God.
Comparing spiritual things with spiritual things is a matter of personal growth and the ability to see beyond that of the one writing and consider what was written. Rather then taking someone's word for it that they are speaking by the Spirit of God. But it will on it's own manifest itself to the reader or the one hearing, wether or not it's the word of life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I haven't broken my neck scrutinizing the hagiographa and pseudiographa.
However,
going from cursory reads from different ones, I've eliminated a lot of them
from consideration.
Basically,
I stay with the canon,
and keep an asterisk mentally next to Enoch.
Otherwise,
I see more merit in reading some of the posts at the GSC than some of the books
some people have claimed were divine.
Just a quick look at the "gospels" alone can tell you that, other than the
Big Four, they were all written over 100 years after all the eyewitnesses were
dead, and they each "mysteriously" push doctrines of a particular group.
Imagine that!
For comedic value, "the Infancy Gospel of Thomas" is a favourite.
Please remember that a name slapped on something does not mean that person WROTE
the thing. I could write one tomorrow and throw, say, and slap the name
"the Gospel of Thaddeus" on it....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
UNC-Chapel Hill professor Bart Erlhman has written a book called "Lost Scriptures" which includes Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, 3rd
Corinthians, etc. Also, thereare 4 books of Maccabeus, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, "Lost Books of Eden", all coming from Hag Nadgi caves in Egypt. Also Dead Sea Scrolls include War between
Sons of Righteousness against the powers of Darkness. Also, Roy you aren't related by any chance to Hal Love from Charlotte,NC are you? Thomas
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Thomas Loy Bumgarner
God bless your heart
I do not know for sure Because my Granfather moved from NC To MD and his name was Roy William Perry Sr or the 1st
But I just have never met any of them but they can Email me if they wish
with love and an holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.