Replies

We need only look to the books like 2 Maccabees. In the beginning of chapter two Jeremiah is said to have been “warned by God” and so took the tabernacle and ark into the mountain where he found a cave and hid both items there.

Problem for this tale is the Temple had replaced the tabernacle hundreds years earlier and the ark was there.

Jeremiah was under the Mosiac Law and had no authority to move the ark anywhere, a task that only the Levites had performed.

Bel and Dragon: The Illustrated Bible Dictionary (vol. 1, pg 760, calls it a “pious legendary embroidery”.

Maybe Baruch will do better as in chapter one verses one and two Baruch is said to write from Babylon but Jeremiah 42:6,7 says Baruch and Jeremiah went to Egypt and therefore there is no evidence Baruch was ever in Babylon.

Neither Jesus nor any Bible writer quote from the Apocrypha.

I could go on to the false teachings of the Apocrypha too but the obvious errors I pointed out should be enough to show that the Apocrypha is not and never was part of the Inspired Canon.

****I could go on to the false teachings of the Apocrypha too but the obvious errors I pointed out should be enough to show that the Apocrypha is not and never was part of the Inspired Canon. ****

You mean the SPARTANS were not really descendents of Abaraham as is mentioned in the Apocrypha? Even Josephus says they were! ;-)

Bel and Dragon: The Illustrated Bible Dictionary

Well, with towering authorities like that...

We need only look to the books like 2 Maccabees [to see why the Apocryphal books shouldn't be in the Canon]. In the beginning of chapter two Jeremiah is said to have been “warned by God” and so took the tabernacle and ark into the mountain where he found a cave and hid both items there.

Problem for this tale is the Temple had replaced the tabernacle hundreds years earlier and the ark was there.

It's interesting, the footnote I have for that particular passage (up to verse 8). It reads, This legendary account of how Jeremiah hid the sacred tent (which was not mentioned after the time of Solomon!), the ark, and the altar is given for the purpose of explaining why the postexilic temple was the legitimate place of worship even without these sacred objects.

IOW, this account is actually a piece of history regarding what happened to the Ark after it went missing from the Temple. Modern day treasure hunters may want to take it more seriously, if searching for the Ark.

Jeremiah was under the Mosiac Law and had no authority to move the ark anywhere, a task that only the Levites had performed.

I don't see any mention of that in the footnotes, of course that doesn't mean it's not a point to consider. My only question would be, "How do you know this is true, and, how do you know it isn't possible Jeremiah wasn't given permission to do these things by God, either directly (God revealing to Jeremiah directly) or indirectly (God telling a Levite to allow Jeremiah to take the Ark, etc)? IOW, I'd say it would be important to show that only Levites could touch and move the ark.

However, that seems to be an irrelevant point. Verse 4 of 2 Macc says, "The same document also tells how the prophet, following a divine revelation, ordered that the tent and the ark should accompany him..." This doesn't necessarily mean that Jeremiah himself moved the ark. It only says that he "ordered" it be moved; this still obviously means that when he ordered it moved, Levites could have done the actual moving.

Maybe Baruch will do better as in chapter one verses one and two Baruch is said to write from Babylon but Jeremiah 42:6,7 says Baruch and Jeremiah went to Egypt and therefore there is no evidence Baruch was ever in Babylon.

I don't see how in any of Jer 42 we see Baruch and Jeremiah going to Egypt. In fact, in my translation, in verses 10-20, it seems God is warning His people, through Jeremiah, to remain in Babylon and to *not* go to Egypt!

Perhaps you could explain better what you mean here? I don't mean this sarcastically; I've never heard any criticism of the so-called "Apocryphal" writings that stand up to scrutiny, but that doesn't mean there doesn't exist any. Perhaps you have some I haven't heard; this one I haven't heard. But it doesn't appear to be correct based on the text provided.

Neither Jesus nor any Bible writer quote from the Apocrypha.

This statement is, with all due respect, simply flat out wrong. See post #13 that bdeaner posted.

I could go on to the false teachings of the Apocrypha too but the obvious errors I pointed out should be enough to show that the Apocrypha is not and never was part of the Inspired Canon.

Again, I'd like a reply to what I've posted here, or other "obvious errors" you may have to share. I don't think there are such though; by my experience, any "errors" are based on eisegetical hermeneutics.

I could go on to the false teachings of the Apocrypha too but the obvious errors I pointed out should be enough to show that the Apocrypha is not and never was part of the Inspired Canon.

No matter what criteria you apply to the Deuterocanonicals to say the contradict other Scriptures, that same criteria can be applied to other New and Old Testament books. Think about how much ink has been put into all the books that Protestant scholars have written where they recognize what appear to be contradictions in the 66 other books of the New and Old Testament, and nevertheless conclude, based on a careful analysis, that these are only apparent contraditions, not actual ones.

Take, for example, James 2:24 and Romans 4:3. They appear to teach different doctrineson salvation and whether one is saved by faith alone or by faith plus works. However, whether you are Protestant or Catholic, one knows that these apparent contradictions can be reconciled within a single, coherent soteriology. We know it must because we accept that James and Romans are Scriptures. Just because something in a Scripture apepars to be a contradiction, does not make it an actual contradiction -- and that is true of the deuterocanonicals as much as for the other Scriptures of the Bible.

Yet, someone, when it comes to the deuterocanicals, Protestants suddenly take on a different heremeneutic style, and become skeptical of any apparent contradition and quickly presume it is an actual contradition without much in the way of careful, depthful analysis -- the kind of analysis they would happily grant to any other Scripture in the Bible outside of the deuterocanonicals. However, it surely seems hypocritical to quickly lay claim to contradiction in Deuterocanonical passages and yet climb mountains to resolve apparent discrepancies among the non-Deuterocanonical scriptures. In actually, these apparent contradictions, just as in other scripture, are based on misrepresentations, and therefore fail to mount a credible argument to dispute the inspired nature of the Deuterocanonicals, any more than an atheist's claim to contradiction anywhere else in the Bible would be take as having little credibility or merit.