What is the main reason why the Apocrypha doesn’t belong in the Bible?

[NathanH83]

What is the main reason why Catholics believe it does belong?

 

[Josiah]

The RCC believes SOME of the Deuterocanonical books belong because it itself said so - unofficially at Florence in the 15th Century and officially at Trent in the 16th. No other denomination agrees with its unique embrace and unique Bible, nor with its stance that they belong cuz it itself says so.

The EOC also accepts SOME of the Deuterocanonical books (but not the same set as the RCC now does) but it's not quite officially.

The OOC churches also accept SOME of the Deuterocanonical books but not the same set as the EOC or RCC (in fact, not even the same as each other) but it's not quite officially.

The Anglican Church also accepts SOME of the Deutercanonical books. More than the RCC, more than the EOC... it has it's own unique set and thus it's own unique Bible. Officially since the late 16th Century. But none of the Deuterocanonical books are accepted as canonical but only as Deutercanonical (secondary, under) - as important to read and of great value but not as canon for doctrine.

The Lutheran Church has no stance on the Deuterocanonical books at all. Luther personally chose to include the UNIQUE set of ones used in Germany in his day (different that the RCC "set" at Trent, different than the EOC's set or OOC's set or the Anglican set, but the ones found in the Bibles in Germany in the 15th and 16th Century), there are IN his German translation, but he expressed his personal view that they are DEUTERO and not fully canonical, the same view later dogmatized by the Anglicans but never by Lutherans.

Calvin officially rejected all of them and they were not included in most Reformed Bibles. Since Reformed Protestantism dominated in the USA, most Protestant Bibles sold in the USA did not have any set of Deutero books in them.




,

 

[Albion]

The RCC believes SOME of the Deuterocanonical books belong because it itself said so - unofficially at Florence in the 15th Century and officially at Trent in the 16th. No other denomination agrees with its unique embrace and unique Bible, nor with its stance that they belong cuz it itself says so.

The EOC also accepts SOME of the Deuterocanonical books (but not the same set as the RCC now does) but it's not quite officially.

The OOC churches also accept SOME of the Deuterocanonical books but not the same set as the EOC or RCC (in fact, not even the same as each other) but it's not quite officially.

The Anglican Church also accepts SOME of the Deutercanonical books. More than the RCC, more than the EOC... it has it's own unique set and thus it's own unique Bible. Officially since the late 16th Century. But none of the Deuterocanonical books are accepted as canonical but only as Deutercanonical (secondary, under) - as important to read and of great value but not as canon for doctrine.

The Lutheran Church has no stance on the Deuterocanonical books at all. Luther personally chose to include the UNIQUE set of ones used in Germany in his day (different that the RCC "set" at Trent, different than the EOC's set or OOC's set or the Anglican set, but the ones found in the Bibles in Germany in the 15th and 16th Century), there are IN his German translation, but he expressed his personal view that they are DEUTERO and not fully canonical, the same view later dogmatized by the Anglicans but never by Lutherans.

Calvin officially rejected all of them and they were not included in most Reformed Bibles. Since Reformed Protestantism dominated in the USA, most Protestant Bibles sold in the USA did not have any set of Deutero books in them.




,

The Anglican churches do not accept any of the Apocrypha as inspired writings or as part of the Bible. We do accept that there is something to be learned from these books, as is the case with all sorts of religious writings, but that's all.

The comment about the church accepting some of them or of accepting MORE of the Apocrypha than either the RCC or EOC, both of which accept as scripture almost all of them, is a surprise..

And as for the idea that Anglicans have a "unique" Bible, that's not true, unless that was an unusual way of saying that the most popular Bible translation--the King James Version--was translated by the Church of England. But even if that were the meaning, this translation is used by almost every denomination, so it cannot be considered unique to the Anglican churches.

 

[Josiah]

The Anglican churches do not accept any of the Apocrypha as inspired writings or as part of the Bible. We do accept that there is something to be learned from these books, as is the case with all sorts of religious writings, but that's all.

.... exactly as I wrote.

The 39 Articles accepts a FEW of them as DEUTEROcanonical - as good to read but NOT as canon for doctrine. It was the typical opinion .... Luther PERSONALLY shared the very same opinion (but the Lutheran Church never dogmatized it as the Anglican Church did) albeit for a different "set" (Luther's "set" in his German translation was not the "set" the Anglican 39 Articles embraced).

And as for the idea that Anglicans have a "unique" Bible, that's not true

Friend, actually it IS accurate. The books listed in the 39 Articles is UNIQUE, a unique "set." The books included in the 1611 KJV was unique - unlike any other Bible ever existing. It's a unique set of books. It has far more books in it than Luthers'... more than the Catholic Council of Florence or the Council of Trent embrace, more (I think) than the EOC's but less than most OOC's.


Deuterocanonical books in the Anglican Church: 14
Deuterocanonical books in the Catholic Church: 7
Deuterocanonical books in Luther's translation: 8
Deuterocanonical books in the Greek Orthodox Bible: 13
Deuterocanonical books in the Ethiopean Orthodox Bible: 15
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.




.

 

[Albion]

.... exactly as I wrote.

The 39 Articles accepts a FEW of them as DEUTEROcanonical - as good to read but NOT as canon for doctrine.

Is your meaning here that 14 is a "few" and that "accepts" means "don't accept as scripture?"

actually it IS accurate. The books listed in the 39 Articles is UNIQUE, a unique "set."

You said that the Anglican church has "its own unique Bible." It doesn't. Because none of the Apocrypha is included in the Authorized edition of the Bible, it cannot be "unique." It is instead the same in that respect as the Bibles used in most other churches.

The books included in the 1611 KJV was unique - unlike any other Bible ever existing.

This statement is simply false. There are 66 books in the KJV and always were. No others were ever considered to be part of the Bible. There are, in fact, several grievous errors in that post as regards the claims about the Anglican Church.

What's more, the Articles of Religion (which you referred to several times) clearly states what I am pointing to here.

 

[Andrew]

I find it interesting how much "canon" has consumed different denominations.. According to the Jews only the Torah (first 5 books of Moses) are "canon" (God's authority) and the rest of the writings are used solely for edification.. this edification however concerns prophecy and there is prophecy in the Apocrypha/Septuagint and not just Jewish Idioms to be taken out of context but literal prophecy.. Jews today easily dismiss Jesus as Savior because their corrupt Masoretic uses a slightly and less specific type of paraphrase that does NOT link Jesus to prophecy as we Christians accept, to the Jew they can convince themselves through language barriers and very technical loopholes that Jesus is not the Christ.
It's nobodies fault but the Jews, their fathers did this during the time of Christ and there are many good Jews who are sold into the bondage of "Sola Torah" and thus God will deal with them and redeem those of Israel who are of Israel..
None of your churches will agree on canon because it's a oxymoron of a word, made up, no such thing exist just ask the early Christians who were martyred for their beliefs!
Name one pre Christian canon of books and you will discover none, the Talmud is the continuum of the OT just as our NT Gospel is the final authority over the OT "school master"..
I'm not defending the Catholics bible view at all, I'm just suggesting you take a break and actually read, learn and consider what the ante Nicene church fathers believed about these books! Yes they started to become a little theological but the early "university" of Christianity was 100% accepting of ALL early Hebrew text sources which included these "extra" books outside the Torah and was part of the Tanach!
Aquila the Jewish convert from Christianity revised the original Greek translation into the Torah alone and the Masoretic came waaaaaaay later on down the road but Aquilas GREEK translation in 150AD replaced the FIRST GREEK translation in the greek speaking synagogues (Septuagint/Greek Tanach (OT)..
The Jews were already fighting among themselves over the resurrection and the Sabbath by the time Christ came, the Pharisees took the Torah figuratively (finding loopholes) while the the elders and followers of Zadok (Sadducees) took the law literally and argued against the Pharisees but after 70 AD the Sadducees had no temple to hold priesthood over and the Pharisees became high priest and declared to write and pass down their oral beliefs and traditions through the Talmud, which blasphemies our Lord in great detail!
So when Greek speaking Christians began using Hebrew prophecies to witness to Jews that Christ is the Messiah the rejecting high priest authorities began to white wash whatever they could get away with without "lying" (using loopholes)... Their defense to this day is that only through the original Hebrew language can Gods word be truly Holy (Canon)..
So ask yourself "do any of our translations even hold water?", the Hebrew answer is NO. Hence John the Baptist and Jesus were just greek myths/exaggerations made to compete with the God of Abraham.. not only that, but Jesus was a rogue idolatrous Jew who created a mere cult along with John, this is also an excuse some Jews claim today why the genealogies changed because it was nearing the year 6000 from Adam and they feared the spread of Messianic cults.. The Masoretic did it all by that time, we are actually closer to the year 7000 and not like the creationist view of 6000 years..
Call me stupid, but call your early Christian martyrs stupid too while you are at it, because according to their massive volumes of literature, they had no problem with accepting and teaching from the "Apocrypha"..

 

[Andrew]

A good example, speaks on the Anglican church view btw, only Hebrew can be "canon" according to this Pharisee offspring/Talmudic Jew [MENTION=389]Albion[/MENTION]
https://youtu.be/tGrETdLf4TI
https://youtu.be/JhntNqfJ_A4

 

[Josiah]

.... exactly as I wrote.

The 39 Articles accepts a FEW of them as DEUTEROcanonical - as good to read but NOT as canon for doctrine. It was the typical opinion .... Luther PERSONALLY shared the very same opinion (but the Lutheran Church never dogmatized it as the Anglican Church did) albeit for a different "set" (Luther's "set" in his German translation was not the "set" the Anglican 39 Articles embraced).




Friend, actually it IS accurate. The Anglican Church DOES have a unique Bible. The books listed in the 39 Articles is UNIQUE, a unique "set." The books included in the 1611 KJV was unique - unlike any other Bible ever existing. It's a unique set of books. It has far more books in it than Luthers'... more than the Catholic Council of Florence or the Council of Trent embrace, more (I think) than the EOC
's but less than most OOC's.


Deuterocanonical books in the Anglican Church: 14
Deuterocanonical books in the Catholic Church: 7
Deuterocanonical books in Luther's translation: 8
Deuterocanonical books in the Greek Orthodox Bible: 13
Deuterocanonical books in the Ethiopean Orthodox Bible: 15
Etc.k, Etc., Etc.


.

Is your meaning here that 14 is a "few" and that "accepts" means "don't accept as scripture?"

1 Perhaps "SOME" would have been a better word than "FEW". But there are perhaps 20-30 books out there regarded by some as DEUTEROcanonical, so 14 is only SOME of them. "Few" is perhaps too subjective.


2. I never said the Anglican Church accepts anything as "Scripture" did I? I never even mentioned that word (nor does the opening post). What I said is that the Anglican Church officially accepts a unique set of 14 books as DEUTEROcanonical (not as canonical). As I shared, "deutero" means secondary or under.. in theology, it means books held in esteem, as worthy of reading and knowing, but not as canonical - as the canon/rule/norma normans for theology. As we all know, the Anglican Church as has UNIQUE Bible tome, one that contains 80 books in it (all listed in the Thirty-Nine Articles, the defining document of Anglicanism) - but as I noted and stressed, specifically 14 of them are regarded NOT as canonical but as DEUTEROcanoncial - worthy to be read (even included in the Anglican lectionary, read in church during the Sunday worship readings... and at times used as sermon texts) BUT not as the rule or canon or norma normans for theology, NOT the source and norm for faith and morals. As I noted, this was a very typical view in the 16th Century, Luther's own personal opinion (albeit he only embrace 8 - not 14 - such books) but while Lutheranism never dogmatized (or accepted on any level) that common opinion, Anglicanism did.

You said that the Anglican church has "its own unique Bible." It doesn't.

Friend, that's simply incorrect. Compare the tomes with "BIBLE" on the cover with all the following:
Reformed Bibles (following the content mandated by the Westminister Confession)
Luther's German Translation
A post-Trent Catholic tome.
Any Orthodox tome.
Friend, there is ONLY ONE Bible in the universe containing 80 books.... and it's the Anglican one.

This statement is simply false. There are 66 books in the KJV and always were.

The authorized KJV had/has 80 books in it.

Just as Luther's had 74
Just as the Reformed tomes all had 66

Again, as you know, I never said the Anglican Church accepts these (or anything) as SCRIPTURE, I said they embrace them in their unique Bible. The word "Scripture" never appears in the post you reference. I specifically said the Anglican Church does NOT accept this specific unique set of 14 books as canonical, I stressed only as DEUTEROcanonical. But it is a UNIQUE set of them...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_of_the_King_James_Version
http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html
http://christopherbryanonline.com/the-canon-of-holy-scripture-an-anglican-note/

What's more, the Articles of Religion (which you referred to several times) clearly states what I am pointing to here.

Friend, read article 6 of the Thirty-Nine Articles. Check the links offered here. Note the first that states, "There are 80 books in the King James Bible." Yes, many sold in the USA only have 66 but that's because most that buy the KJV are not Anglicans and thus the publishing houses don't unique those but the Authorized King James had and has and always had had 80 books in it. 66 as Canonical, 14 as Deuterocanonical. 80 is a unique number of books, no other Bible under heaven has exactly 80 books in it. Friend, it's just the reality.




.

 

[Albion]

1 Perhaps "SOME" would have been a better word than "FEW". But there are perhaps 20-30 books out there regarded by some as DEUTEROcanonical, so 14 is only SOME of them. "Few" is perhaps too subjective.

Well, I called attention to that word only to say that there are NO additions to the 66 Bible books. "Few" necessarily means that there are some.

It doesn't matter if the thought is that there are 14 by comparison to someone else, or 7 or 20 or any other number. No Deuterocanonical books have ever been Bible books since the KJV was produced. They exist, yes, but they aren't books of the Bible.

2. I never said the Anglican Church accepts anything as "Scripture" did I?

I have been trying to work through the wording you used in order to see if there is a misunderstanding that comes only from the choice of terms. When I use the words Scripture or inspired, it is to make clear my point of disagreement. YOU used the word "Bible," which I am sure most people understand to mean the same thing.

Be that as it may, the following, which you wrote, is in error--

The books listed in the 39 Articles is UNIQUE, a unique "set." The books included in the 1611 KJV was unique - unlike any other Bible ever existing. It's a unique set of books. It has far more books in it than Luthers'... more than the Catholic Council of Florence or the Council of Trent embrace, more (I think) than the EOC's but less than most OOC's.

As I am writing this, I am looking at the King James Version of the Bible, certified true to the 1611 work, and its listing of the books of the Old Testament and, also, the books of the New Testament. There are 39 of the former and 27 of the latter, so how can this be called by you "UNIQUE," "its own unique set," and "unlike any other Bible ever existing?" It cannot be.

What I said is that the Anglican Church accepts 14 books as DEUTEROcanonical (not as canonical).

Alas, that is not what you said, which is why I felt I needed to set this matter straight.

Friend, read article 6 of the Thirty-Nine Articles. Check the links offered here. Note the first that states, "There are 80 books in the King James Bible." Yes, many sold in the USA only have 66 but that's because most that buy the KJV are not Anglicans and thus the publishing houses don't unique those but the Authorized King James had and has and always had had 80 books in it.

I do not know what you have been reading. It may be something from a Roman Catholic source, but in any case you are not citing Article VI.

Note, by the way, that what you say is in Article VI makes a reference to the "King James Version," which is a slang term that the Articles never use. The proper term for this translation of the Bible is "Authorized Version (AV)." The terms "God's word" and "holy Scripture" appear in the Articles, but "King James Version" never does. Yet your alleged quote makes use of it.

I just read the first and second of your links--as requested--and they do not say what you claimed. The DeuteroCanonical books are listed, but there is no suggestion that they are part of the canon. It's quite the opposite, in fact. That they are excluded is made more than clear.

So it's apparently just a misunderstanding on your part. I hope, therefore, that I have helped you and that other readers are set straight about this matter (if they even care about this piece of trivia).

 

[Josiah]

1. Perhaps "SOME" would have been a better word than "FEW". But there are perhaps 20-30 books out there regarded by some as DEUTEROcanonical, so 14 is only SOME of them. "Few" is perhaps too subjective.
Well, I called attention to that word only to say that there are NO additions to the 66 Bible books. "Few" necessarily means that there are some.

It doesn't matter if the thought is that there are 14 by comparison to someone else, or 7 or 20 or any other number.

Hum, whether you think it "matters" or not isn't the point. What I posted is that the Anglican church embraces a specific and UNIQUE "set" of DEUTEROcanonical books. That's what I stated and you seemed to disagree.

Read Article VI of the 39 Articles (the defining document of the Anglican Church). Hum.... it specifically lists 80 books. Eighty. Specifically. Now, you can check out ANY OTHER CHURCH in the universe and you won't find specifically 80. So it has a unique tome.

And if you read Article VI of the 39 Articles, you will not some NOT mentioned by the RCC's Council of Florence or Trent, NOT mentioned by Luther, NOT mentioned by the Greek Orthodox Church.... and some missing that ARE mentioned elsewhere. It is unique.

And if you look at say the Ethiopean Orthodox Church Bible, you will find MORE books than in the Anglican Bible.

That's what I said. Friend, you offered nothing to show what I said is wrong

2. I never said the Anglican Church accepts anything as "Scripture" did I?

Be that as it may, the following, which you wrote, is in error--

The books listed in the 39 Articles is UNIQUE, a unique "set." The books included in the 1611 KJV was unique - unlike any other Bible ever existing. It's a unique set of books. It has far more books in it than Luthers'... more than the Catholic Council of Florence or the Council of Trent embrace, more (I think) than the EOC's but less than most OOC's. As I am writing this, I am looking at the King James Version of the Bible, certified true to the 1611 work, and its listing of the books of the Old Testament and, also, the books of the New Testament. There are 39 of the former and 27 of the latter, so how can this be called by you "UNIQUE," "its own unique set," and "unlike any other Bible ever existing?" It cannot be.

No. It's not "in error."
I'm looking at the Table of Contents from the Authorized Version of 1611 and ... um.... 80 books.
See https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Books/1611-KJV-Original-Book-Names.php Scroll down to the scan of the actual page of content.

Also read Article VI of the 39 Articles. Count the number of books. I count 80. Eighty listed. Officially, formally. By name. Count 'em.



The Anglican Church - specifically, officially, formally - states: "And the other Books the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras,
The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Fourth Book of Esdras,
The Book of Wisdom,
The Book of Tobias,
Jesus the Son of Sirach,
The Book of Judith,
Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children,
The Prayer of Manasses,
The Story of Susanna,
The First Book of Maccabees,
Of Bel and the Dragon,
The Second Book of Maccabees.

They ARE listed. They ARE in the official King James Bible. They are listed - specifically, by name - right there in the Table of Contents. Contained in the tome. I'm looking at the very page of CONTENT.
YES! Of course! As I stressed and clearly stated, they are noted as DEUTEROcanonical and not canonical - specifically as I stated.
And yes, 14 is UNIQUE, as I noted.

But the 39 Articles stress the same point I have throughout this thread: These are NOT accepted as canonical but only as DUETEROcanonical. They are books included in the Anglican Bible but they are not canonical (the rule, the source, the norma normans for theology). I stressed that. And noted Luther had the same opinion (albeit for 8 and not 14 Books) but Lutherans never officially dogmatized that whereas the Anglicans did.

The DeuteroCanonical books are listed, but there is no suggestion that they are part of the canon.

EXACTLY as I stated.

By definition, DEUTEROcanonical is not canonical, they would be canonical if they were canonical. I would have stated they were accepted as canonical if I meant that, I stressed (putting it in all caps) that they are embraced as DEUTEROcanonical. And I defined what is meant by DEUTEROcanonical.




Friend.... I am scratching my head wondering what your disagreement is.... why you are having an "issue" with me (we typically get along very, very well - LOL).

I'm going to chuck this up to your misunderstanding me - and apologize for not being clearer.








A blessed Advent to you and yours.


- Josiah






.

 

[Albion]

Hum, whether you think it "matters" or not isn't the point. What I posted is that the Anglican church embraces a specific and UNIQUE "set" of DEUTEROcanonical books.

Look, I see that with each reply you are softening your claim in response to the facts as have been explained, but the AV has never had 80 books of Scripture and the Articles have never said that it does.

That's the fact, no matter what bogus "Article VI" you present to us.

I know what is in the real Article, and the second of your links prints it out for all to read--without, of course, any statement about the Anglican Church having a unique Bible that is unlike any other--which is exactly what you alleged before and which is dead wrong.

 

[Albion]

Hum, whether you think it "matters" or not isn't the point. What I posted is that the Anglican church embraces a specific and UNIQUE "set" of DEUTEROcanonical books. That's what I stated and you seemed to disagree.

Read Article VI of the 39 Articles (the defining document of the Anglican Church). Hum.... it specifically lists 80 books. Eighty. Specifically. Now, you can check out ANY OTHER CHURCH in the universe and you won't find specifically 80. So it has a unique tome.

And if you read Article VI of the 39 Articles, you will not some NOT mentioned by the RCC's Council of Florence or Trent, NOT mentioned by Luther, NOT mentioned by the Greek Orthodox Church.... and some missing that ARE mentioned elsewhere. It is unique.

And if you look at say the Ethiopean Orthodox Church Bible, you will find MORE books than in the Anglican Bible.

That's what I said. Friend, you offered nothing to show what I said is wrong







Funny, because I'm looking at the Table of Contents from the Authorized Version of 1611 and ... um.... 80 books.
See https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Books/1611-KJV-Original-Book-Names.php Scroll down to the scan of the actual page of content.
And read Article VI of the 39 Articles. Count the number of books. I count 80.

The publication, the printing, included the non-canonical books of the Apocrypha, the frontpiece, Table of Contents, and etc. along with the 66 books of the Bible!!

Do you understand this now?

But your claims are not just a matter of misunderstanding something. And, no, it is NOT "funny." You have stuck by blatantly
false claims, too. For example, all that about an Article VI that is not the real Article, the claim about Anglicans having a unique Bible that is unlike any others, and so on.





.

 

[Josiah]

the AV has never had 80 books of Scripture and the Articles have never said that it does.

Read all of post 10.


Friend, I can't find ANYTHING that supports your claim that the AV never contained 14 Deuterocanonical books. I've LOOKED AT THE VERY TABLE OF CONTENTS from the actual 1611 Authorized Version (I provided a link for you) and there are 80 books listed.

I read Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles. It references 80 books - including 14 DEUTEROcanonical ones officially listed specifically by name. Friend, it's there in black and white words for all to see; I'm puzzled by your seeming denial of this.

And again, I never mentioned "Scripture." I never REMOTELY indicated that the Anglican Church accepts them as "SCRIPTURE". You know this. I said it has them in its offical Bible. I specifically STRESSED they are NOT - N.O.T. - accepted as canonical but as DEUTEROcanonical (I even have put the DEUTERO part in all caps so no one could miss that point).... I even defined "DEUTEROcanonical" several times in case any reader here doesn't know what that means. I NEVER said, "The Anglican Church consdiers 80 books to be SCRIPTURE, to the CANONICAL...... I specifically said and stressed that it does NOT - N.O.T. - it does NOT accept its unique set of 14 to be such but rather than DEUTEROcanonical. I'm struggling to understand why you are dismissing all that and indicating I stated the opposite.

Friend, READ the Table of Contents of the AV..... there are 14 DEUTEROcanonical books listed by name. It's right there in black and white.
Friend, READ the actual, verbatim, Article VI of the Thirty-Nine articles. It officially, formally LISTS (by name) specifically FOURTEEN books as DEUTEROcanonical - NOT canonical. It's right there in black and white.

That's the fact, no matter what bogus "Article VI" you present to us.

I provided an official link.

Article VI is not "bogus" it IS one of the 39 Articles. I QUOTED - verbatim - from part of it.

I know what is in the real Article, and the second of your links prints it out for all to read--without, of course, any statement about the Anglican Church having a unique Bible that is unlike any other--which is exactly what you alleged before and which is dead wrong.

Friend, what other denomination has a bible with exactly 80 books in it?
If you can't find one, doesn't that make the Anglican tome unique?


https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Books/1611-KJV-Original-Book-Names.php

all that about an Article VI that is not the real Article

Friend, quote me where I stated that Article VI is not the real Article. I NEVER remotely said any such thing. I simply verbatim QUOTED it and noted it officially, formally, notes specifically FOURTEEN Deuterocanonical books. Exactly as I have stated. In never said it's not real.




Read post #10.




.

 

[Albion]

Read all of post 10.


Friend, I can't find ANYTHING that supports your claim that the AV never contained 14 Deuterocanonical books. I've LOOKED AT THE VERY TABLE OF CONTENTS from the actual 1611 Authorized Version (I provided a link for you) and there are 80 books listed.

.

Please, PLEASE, PLEASE stop trying to save face. There is nothing here that is confusing. The 66 books of the Bible were, for awhile, printed ALONG WITH THE DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS, which are clearly described in the Articles as not being the word of God.

In one of your links, the actual Article in question is presented--not the bogus one you first gave us--and it is so unambivalent that I do not see how anyone could misunderstand the meaning.

Maybe I should direct us specifically to the Article:

"In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church...
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,
The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,
The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,
The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,
Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical."

This says that the Deuterocanonical books are NOT scripture, cannot be used like scripture, and yet they are worth reading for other purposes...which is essentially the same stance as taken by the Lutheran churches.


But if so, your first post wasn't just about that. It is therefore necessary to correct that nonsense about the Anglican Church having a Bible that is unique, unlike any other ever, and take care of the counterfeit Article VI you used in order to "prove" your claim. There is almost no excuse for that kind of stuff.

 

[Josiah]

. It is therefore necessary to correct that nonsense about the Anglican Church having a Bible that is unique, unlike any other ever, and take care of the counterfeit Article VI you used in order to "prove" your claim. There is almost no excuse for that kind of stuff.

I never gave anything "counterfeit." Go to any official Anglican website and you can read Article VI for yourself. It lists specifically, by name, FOURTEEN Deuterocanonical books that it accepts as such. EXACTLY AS I HAVE CONSISTENTLY STATED. It has 80 books noted in Article VI - 14 of them as Deuterocanonical. Anyone who can read knows what I said is true.

A tome with 80 books in it IS unique. I asked you to produce the bible of any other denomination that has an official embrace of 80 books in it and you have not. By definition, that makes the AV unique.


Now, you seem to want to entirely ignore the point I so powerfully and consistenly STRESSED (even by the use of capitol letters) that some of these are not accepted as canonical but rather as DEUTEROcanonical... and, ignoring and deleting that point.... seem to what to substitute a word I never used, "Scripture." I never said that the Anglican Church accepts 80 books as Scripture, you know that, everyone here know that, I said its tome of the Bible contains 80 books - 14 of which it officially, formally holds a DEUTEROcanonical. No 'saving face" or "changing" I have been totally consistent on this. And I still hold this to be the case. You have made no effort to show this is false.


Friend, I have been 100% consistent throughout this thread. I suspect you simply did not read the stressed point about DEUTEROcanonical and also that you confused "Bible" with a word I never used, "Scripture." IF I had said, "The Anglican Church embraces 80 books AS SCRIPTURE as CANONCIAL" I'd be wrong. Obviously. But I never said that, did I? In fact, I said quite the opposite. I stressed - boldly, consistently - that a unique set of these (14 in number) are accepted as DEUTEROcanonical. Typically putting DEUTERO in all caps so as not to be missed, sometimes emboldening it. Often defining that word in case any here isn't familiar with it. Did you simply ignore all this emphasis? Did you impose the word "Scripture" where I never used it? Did you simply misunderstand?

It's impossible for me to comprehend how you can read the Table of Contents of the AV and not notice 14 Books listed there.... How you can read Article VI and not notice specificially 14 Books listed there. 66+14-80. The number of books in the AV. I NEVER said the Anglican Church accepts 80 Books "AS SCRIPTURE, as CANONICAL" did I? I stressed that it accepts 14 of them NOT as canonical but rather as DEUTEROcanonical - quoting (verbatim) Article VI on that point. And I have been totally consistent throughout this thread on that point.

We usually don't have this problem, lol.

Maybe I should direct us specifically to the Article:

"In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church...
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,
The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,
The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,
The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,
Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical."

This says that the Deuterocanonical books are NOT scripture, cannot be used like scripture, and yet they are worth reading for other purposes...which is essentially the same stance as taken by the Lutheran churches.

Exactly as I posted. Clearly. Consistently. Accurately.

So, what books are in the AV? 39 OT ones (accepted as canonical - as Scripture), 27 NT ones (accepted as canonical - as Scripture) PLUS OFFICIALLY, FORMALLY, BY NAME, SPECIFICALLY A UNIQUE SET OF FOURTEEN others, which it stresses are DEUTEROcanonical - the same point I have stressed from my first post in this thread. Which seemed to have caused you to accuse me of all kinds of horrible things, my friend.

Did you choose to just entirely ignore my whole STRESSED and consistent point about DEUTEROcanonical and canonical? Did you choose to delete the word "Bible" and "tome" wherever I used it and substitute instead "Scripture, canonical?"

I TRY to be clear. I did NOT use the word "Scripture" to refer to the 14 because I didn't mean that. I did NOT use the word "canonical" to refer to the 14 because I didn't mean that. I was uber-careful to use the word DEUTEROcanonical (and to define it), to capitolize "DEUTERO" and often put it in enboldened letters as DEUTERO because I wanted to stress that. And I noted, "DUETERO" means secondary, under, held in esteem, to be read, often included in the Sunday Lectionary and perhaps used a sermon texts but NOT (as I stressed!) , NOT canoncial, NOT as canon/rule/norma normans for faith and morals. I stated that. Clearly. Consistently. Did you notice?

I suspect you just misunderstood. Happens.



A blessed Advent to you and yours.




.


.

 

[Albion]

I never gave anything "counterfeit."

You cited as proof of your claim an "Article VI" that obviously is NOT Article VI of the Articles of Religion. All that a person has to do in order to verify this is compare your "Article VI" with the actual Articles that were reprinted in your second link. So what word do you prefer--bogus, manufactured, phony??

A tome with 80 books in it IS unique.

There you go again, mushing up what you actually wrote. You didn't say that there's a book which has the Bible but also includes the Apocrypha. Nor anything about a "tome."

What you actually wrote was this:

"More than the RCC, more than the EOC... it has it's own unique set and thus it's own unique Bible. Officially since the late 16th Century"

See there: "it's [sic] own unique Bible. Officially...."











.

 

[Albion]

I never gave anything "counterfeit." Go to any official Anglican website and you can read Article VI for yourself.

That's been done here, and it wasn't the bogus one that you presented to us. Yet you still won't correct the error, whatever caused it in the first place.

 

[Josiah]

I never gave anything "counterfeit." Go to any official Anglican website and you can read Article VI for yourself. It lists specifically, by name, FOURTEEN Deuterocanonical books that it accepts as such. EXACTLY AS I HAVE CONSISTENTLY STATED. It has 80 books noted in Article VI - 14 of them as Deuterocanonical. Anyone who can read knows what I said is true.

A tome with 80 books in it IS unique. I asked you to produce the bible of any other denomination that has an official embrace of 80 books in it and you have not. By definition, that makes the AV unique.


Now, you seem to want to entirely ignore the point I so powerfully and consistenly STRESSED (even by the use of capitol letters) that some of these are not accepted as canonical but rather as DEUTEROcanonical... and, ignoring and deleting that point.... seem to what to substitute a word I never used, "Scripture." I never said that the Anglican Church accepts 80 books as Scripture, you know that, everyone here know that, I said its tome of the Bible contains 80 books - 14 of which it officially, formally holds a DEUTEROcanonical. No 'saving face" or "changing" I have been totally consistent on this. And I still hold this to be the case. You have made no effort to show this is false.


Friend, I have been 100% consistent throughout this thread. I suspect you simply did not read the stressed point about DEUTEROcanonical and also that you confused "Bible" with a word I never used, "Scripture." IF I had said, "The Anglican Church embraces 80 books AS SCRIPTURE as CANONCIAL" I'd be wrong. Obviously. But I never said that, did I? In fact, I said quite the opposite. I stressed - boldly, consistently - that a unique set of these (14 in number) are accepted as DEUTEROcanonical. Typically putting DEUTERO in all caps so as not to be missed, sometimes emboldening it. Often defining that word in case any here isn't familiar with it. Did you simply ignore all this emphasis? Did you impose the word "Scripture" where I never used it? Did you simply misunderstand?

It's impossible for me to comprehend how you can read the Table of Contents of the AV and not notice 14 Books listed there.... How you can read Article VI and not notice specificially 14 Books listed there. 66+14-80. The number of books in the AV. I NEVER said the Anglican Church accepts 80 Books "AS SCRIPTURE, as CANONICAL" did I? I stressed that it accepts 14 of them NOT as canonical but rather as DEUTEROcanonical - quoting (verbatim) Article VI on that point. And I have been totally consistent throughout this thread on that point.

We usually don't have this problem, lol.


Maybe I should direct us specifically to the Article:

"In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church...
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,
The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,
The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,
The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,
Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical."

This says that the Deuterocanonical books are NOT scripture, cannot be used like scripture, and yet they are worth reading for other purposes...

Exactly as I posted. Clearly. Consistently. Accurately.


So, what books are in the AV? 39 OTones (accepted as canonical - as Scripture), 27 NTones (accepted as canonical - as Scripture) PLUS OFFICIALLY, FORMALLY, BY NAME, SPECIFICALLY A UNIQUE SET OF FOURTEEN others, which it stresses are DEUTEROcanonical - the same point I have stressed from my first post in this thread. Which seemed to have caused you to accuse me of all kinds of horrible things, my friend.


Did you choose to just entirely ignore my whole STRESSED and consistent point about DEUTEROcanonical and canonical? Did you choose to delete the word "Bible" and "tome" wherever I used it and substitute instead "Scripture, canonical?"


I TRY to be clear. I did NOT use the word "Scripture" to refer to the 14 because I didn't mean that. I did NOT use the word "canonical" to refer to the 14 because I didn't mean that. I was uber-careful to use the word DEUTEROcanonical (and to define it), to capitolize "DEUTERO" and often put it in enboldened letters as DEUTERO because I wanted to stress that. And I noted, "DUETERO" means secondary, under, held in esteem, to be read, often included in the Sunday Lectionary and perhaps used a sermon texts but NOT (as I stressed!) , NOT canoncial, NOT as canon/rule/norma normans for faith and morals. I stated that. Clearly. Consistently. Did you notice?


I suspect you just misunderstood. Happens.


.

Here's what you wrote:

"More than the RCC, more than the EOC...it has it's own unique set and thus it's own unique Bible. Officially since the late 16th Century"

See there: "it's own unique Bible. Officially...."

... and that's absolutely accurate.


How many books are contained in the AV? 80. 39 OT (accepted as canonical), 27 NT (accepted as canonical) EXACTLY UNIQUELY 14 (as DEUTEROcanonical). 39+27+14=80

I asked you to list any other denomination that has a tome with EXACTLY 80 books in it (not 79 or 81 but 80). You have yet to do that. If no other has 80 books in it, then that AV is unique. By definition. Friend, it's not rocket science, lol And yes, it IS official since the offically acceptance of the Thirty-Nine Articles (which specifically lists EXACTLY 80 books).

The Thirty-Nine Articles ARE the official position of the Anglican Church. You yourself also quoted it to prove it DOES embrace specifically, exactly 80 books. This then is the position of the Anglican Church since the 16th Century when the 39 Articles were adopted. OF COURSE, as I have so consistently and boldly stressed, not all are accepted as canonical (a unique set of 14 are DEUTEROcanonical) but yup, 80 books. And how many books are listed in the Table of Contents of the 1611 AV? Yup, 80 - count 'em - I gave you a link where you can actually see the original page of contents. Right there. Black and white. Nothing "contrafeit" or "bogus" Nothing changed.

You posted I never said "tome" Actually, I counted. In this thread it's nine. I used that word nine times. Perhaps you missed that.





.

 

[Albion]

I never gave anything "counterfeit."

It wasn't a real Article VI. It was a phony one, as anyone can see. The real one clearly indicates that the Apocryphal books are not inspired, not included in the canon, not to be used to establish any doctrine. Yet yo continue trying to alibi.

any official Anglican website and you can read Article VI for yourself.

Exactly. I'm now beginning to think you just cannot read this theological language.

AS I HAVE CONSISTENTLY STATED. It has 80 books noted in Article VI - 14 of them as Deuterocanonical. Anyone who can read knows what I said is true.

Nonsense. There are 80 books that are REFFERED TO, and 14 of them are explicitly said to not be canonical, not part of holy Scripture like the other 66 are.

Your claim, from the start, has been that they all--80 books--are the Anglican Bible!

A tome with 80 books in it IS unique.

How you could know that no other "tome" was ever published with 80 books perhaps should be asked, but that isn't what you claimed anyway. You said--and I proved in the previous post that it was so--that the Anglican BIBLE, which you identified as the KJV and gave its date of publication, consisted of 80 books.

You also called this alleged Bible unique in all the world and compared it, with the 80 supposed books in it canon, to a variety of Bibles--not "tomes" or other kinds of publications--in use in other churches.

Just admit your mistake and state the real situation and be done with it. It means nothing to you, but to me my church is being horribly misrepresented to other readers who may believe your falsehoods, even though I have done my best to point them out.






.

 

[Albion]

.
How many books are contained in the AV?

66.

Friend, it's not rocket science, lol And yes, it IS official since the offically acceptance of the Thirty-Nine Articles (which specifically lists EXACTLY 80 books).

It names 66 as holy Scripture and name 14 others that are NOT scripture. How you think you can get away with claiming that there are 80 books of the "Anglican Bible" is amazing. It is right there in the middle of post #2.
You wrote:

it has it's own unique set and thus it's own unique Bible.

The Thirty-Nine Articles ARE the official position of the Anglican Church.

Believe it or not, as an Anglican I may know something about the Anglican church.

OF COURSE, as I have so consistently and boldly stressed, not all are accepted as canonical (a unique set of 14 are DEUTEROcanonical) but yup, 80 books.

We have established that you can count to 80. Also that you post "boldly" and "powerfully."

What is so terribly wrong is you claiming that the Anglican Bible consists of 80 books.

You posted I never said "tome" Actually, I counted. In this thread it's nine. I used that word nine times. Perhaps you missed that.

Again with the verbal slight of hand. I noted you switch to "tome" after you realized that you might not be able to defend a claim of the Anglican Bibleconsisting of 80 books.