Did Jesus quote the Apocrypha?

[Albion]

And? I'm not sure what your point is. You're saying that the Geneva Bible is not the same Bible as the King James Bible. Yea. What's your point? Why would anyone suggest that they're the same Bible?

The point is that it is impossible for the Geneva Bible--unaltered--to include the Apocrypha AS TAKEN FROM THE KJV.

 

[NathanH83]

The point is that it is impossible for the Geneva Bible--unaltered--to include the Apocrypha AS TAKEN FROM THE KJV.

What's your point? The Geneva Bible included the Apocrypha, so....I don't get what you're saying.

What? Just because the video quotes the KJV Apocrypha? Didn't the guy in the video specifically say that he's only doing that because it's easier to read?

I really don't understand your point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

What's your point? The Geneva Bible included the Apocrypha, so....I don't get what you're saying.

The Geneva Bible was not "taken from the KJV." The Geneva Bible is OLDER than the KJV. It is IMPOSSIBLE for ANY of it to be "taken from the KJV." The statement is a falsehood.

There is no KJV version of the Geneva Bible.

I doubt that the original "unaltered" (in no way changed, say by something added to the tome) contained study aids, etc., as is claimed and shown. I suspect that too is a falsehood.

In any case, the video never shows that Jesus QUOTED from any Deuterocanonical Book. The error lies in an ASSUMPTION. If I at some point in my life say a sentence that Donald Trump also said at some point in my life, does that prove I'm specifically QUOTING Donald Trump? Of course not, that's absurd and laughable. It also would not prove that I regard every word Donald Trump said to be the inscripturated, inerrant, canodical Word of God.

 

[NathanH83]

The Geneva Bible was not "taken from the KJV." The Geneva Bible is OLDER than the KJV. It is IMPOSSIBLE for ANY of it to be "taken from the KJV." The statement is a falsehood.

There is no KJV version of the Geneva Bible.

I doubt that the original "unaltered" (in no way changed, say by something added to the tome) contained study aids, etc., as is claimed and shown. I suspect that too is a falsehood.

In any case, the video never shows that Jesus QUOTED from any Deuterocanonical Book. The error lies in an ASSUMPTION. If I at some point in my life say a sentence that Donald Trump also said at some point in my life, does that prove I'm specifically QUOTING Donald Trump? Of course not, that's absurd and laughable. It also would not prove that I regard every word Donald Trump said to be the inscripturated, inerrant, canodical Word of God.

I still don't understand what you're saying. Who ever claimed that the Geneva Bible was taken from the KJV? I don't remember anyone here or anyone in the video ever claiming that.
????
You seem to be trying to disprove a claim that nobody ever made.

The original 1560 Geneva Bible is as exactly shown in the video. it is an exact photocopy replica. And the way 2 Esdras is worded in the Apocryphal section of the Geneva Bible is identical to the way it is worded in the King James. The video just used a KJV Apocrypha just because the words are easier to read.

Besides all this, the holiday which Jesus attended in John 10:22 is the Feast of Dedication, otherwise known as Hanukah, which comes from Maccabees. And that's undeniable. So even if you want to pretend like the 2 Esdras quote is this grand coincidence, you can't deny that Jesus attended and celebrated the events of Maccabees, and the re-dedication of the temple.

I think one of the points being made in the video is the fact that the Pilgrims reading the Geneva Bible, and also the early American settlers using the King James Bible, they all would have gotten the impression that Jesus was quoting 2 Esdras when they saw that marginal note in their Bibles. But modern Bibles are leaving out both that marginal note and the Apocryphal section, so that when we're told "Jesus never quoted the Apocrypha" we're just supposed to beleive it, even though having read these older editions of the Bible, it appears that Jesus really did quote it.

 

[Josiah]

I still don't understand what you're saying. Who ever claimed that the Geneva Bible was taken from the KJV? I don't remember anyone here or anyone in the video ever claiming that.

the Geneva Bible--unaltered--including the Apocrypha AS TAKEN FROM THE KJV.

The original 1560 Geneva Bible is as exactly shown in the video. it is an exact photocopy replica.

I see. So in 1560, there was a STUDY version, with all those cross references and notations? The very first tome to come off the printing press was EXACTLY like that? Hum.... And the exact words - every letter, every word - from the Deutero books in the Geneva Bible are INDENTICAL to the KJV? Really? And the Geneva Bible took all those letters FROM the KJV? Really? Hum.

Besides all this, the holiday which Jesus attended in John 10:22 is the Feast of Dedication, otherwise known as Hanukah, which comes from Maccabees. And that's undeniable. So even if you want to pretend like the 2 Esdras quote is this grand coincidence, you can't deny that Jesus attended and celebrated the events of Maccabees, and the re-dedication of the temple.

How does that prove Jesus is specifically QUOTING FROM the specific book of 2 Esdras? THAT is the issue before us.

 

[NathanH83]

I see. So in 1560, there was a STUDY version, with all those cross references and notations? The very first tome to come off the printing press was EXACTLY like that? Hum.... And the exact words - every letter, every word - from the Deutero books in the Geneva Bible are INDENTICAL to the KJV? Really? And the Geneva Bible took all those letters FROM the KJV? Really? Hum.





How does that prove Jesus is specifically QUOTING FROM the specific book of 2 Esdras? THAT is the issue before us.

Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 1400's, a century before the Geneva Bible. So yes, they had the technology to include marginal notes. As I said, it's a replica of the 1560 Geneva Bible. And that wasn't the first English Bible.

And again, I nor anyone here EVER claimed that the Geneva Bible CAME FROM the King James Bible. So you can keep knocking that straw man down all you want. You're trying to disprove something that nobody claimed.

And no, the Geneva and the King James Bible are not 100% identical. Of course there's a few variations. But they're the same for the most part. The reason I used the little red book that said "KJV Apocrypha" on it is because it would be easier for the audience to read. I could have shown it in the Geneva Bible, but the letters look so different that it's awfully difficult to read.

But if you want to see that page in the Geneva Bible, then here's a screenshot.

Notice how the wording of 2 Esdras 1:30 in the KJV is EXACTLY the same as the wording in the Geneva Bible. So, your quarrel is over nothing.

 

[atpollard]

Umm ... I know that I am a LIAR and all, but "a hen gathering her chicks under her wings" is a fairly common farm event (been there, seen that) and a widely used metaphor. Everything surrounding the phrase seems different (but I am unfamiliar with the exact wording of Matthew in any 17th C Bible.) PS. doesn't 2 Esdras post date Matthew? [I thought that was the one that Josephus had not heard of in his time]

 

[Andrew]

Umm ... I know that I am a LIAR and all, but "a hen gathering her chicks under her wings" is a fairly common farm event (been there, seen that) and a widely used metaphor. Everything surrounding the phrase seems different (but I am unfamiliar with the exact wording of Matthew in any 17th C Bible.) PS. doesn't 2 Esdras post date Matthew? [I thought that was the one that Josephus had not heard of in his time]

I don't see how it's any different from Jesus quoting Psalms verbatim on the cross.

 

[NathanH83]

Umm ... I know that I am a LIAR and all, but "a hen gathering her chicks under her wings" is a fairly common farm event (been there, seen that) and a widely used metaphor. Everything surrounding the phrase seems different (but I am unfamiliar with the exact wording of Matthew in any 17th C Bible.) PS. doesn't 2 Esdras post date Matthew? [I thought that was the one that Josephus had not heard of in his time]

Not sure what you mean by that, man. Jesus doesn't barely ever talk about chickens, except when he told Peter about the rooster crowing. That's it. Usually he talks about lambs. Nowhere anywhere in the Old Testament do we find this phrase. But we find it in 2 Esdras, and in Matthew 23. And how do you know that 2 Esdras was written after Christ? Where is the evidence for that?

 

[Albion]

What difference does it make whether Jesus quoted or paraphrased something from the Apocrypha...or not?

 

[Andrew]

What difference does it make whether Jesus quoted or paraphrased something from the Apocrypha...or not?

It would mean that they were inspired writings after all and that they were ripped out for a sinister reason

 

[Albion]

It would mean that they were inspired writings after all and that they were ripped out for a sinister reason

No, it wouldn't. It would mean that those writings had some standing with the Jews and were known to them. That's all. It is for this reason that several of the largest Protestant churches advise reading the Apocrypha for the lessons it contains--but which do not consider them to be inspired.

 

[Andrew]

No, it wouldn't. It would mean that those writings had some standing with the Jews and were known to them. That's all. It is for this reason that several of the largest Protestant churches advise reading the Apocrypha for the lessons it contains--but which do not consider them to be inspired.

I don't see why any church would reject inspired scripture if this is the case

 

[Albion]

I don't see why any church would reject inspired scripture if this is the case

The Apocrypha is not inspired scripture.

 

[NathanH83]

The Apocrypha is not inspired scripture.

Then why did Church fathers believe they were? Even Church fathers like Athanasius, who specifically said he rejects the Apocrypha, didn't even list Maccabees as Apocrypha. Origen also rejected the Apocrypha. But Origen quotes Maccabees and calls it holy scripture.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

What you need to understand is that there was a Jewish conspiracy to corrupt scripture. And you're being duped by that conspiracy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

What difference does it make whether Jesus quoted or paraphrased something from the Apocrypha...or not?

Why wouldn't God's Word matter to you? Why are you even asking that question?

 

[NathanH83]

Doesn't Hebrews 11:35 make it sound like Paul considered Maccabees to be scripture?

 

[atpollard]

Doesn't Hebrews 11:35 make it sound like Paul considered Maccabees to be scripture?

“Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection;” [Hebrews 11:35]

Setting aside the questions of Pauline authorship, how so?

 

[NathanH83]

“Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection;” [Hebrews 11:35]

Setting aside the questions of Pauline authorship, how so?