Did Jesus celebrate the Holiday that commemorates the Maccabees?

[pinacled]

It’s not from the 1900’s. You’re making stuff up instead of actually researching this for yourself.

Oh,
I'm not the one whom acts on a whim.

Nor a person who starts threads with a presumption before laying a foundation of study so that others are available for dissection.

Are you,

 

[pinacled]

It’s not missing a letter.

I have no concern about rhetoric .

I asked whether or not the marginal commentary is 19th century print from a typewriter?

 

[NathanH83]

I have no concern about rhetoric .

I asked whether or not the marginal commentary is 19th century print from a typewriter?

No, as I’ve already said. The marginal notes were not added in the 1900’s any more than Alexander the Great defeated the Persians using machine guns and semi-automatic weapons. They didn’t exist in that time.

Typewriters and computers did not exist in the 1600’s. But the printing press did. The printing press was invented in the 1400’s, plenty if time before the publishing of the King James Bible in 1611.

Civilization was plenty capable of calligraphy and all kinds of type fonts. You don’t need a MacBook Pro with Adobe InDesign in order to make all kinds of typefaces. Even back in 1560, when the Geneva Bible was published, of which I also have a photocopy replica, there’s all kinds of things they were able to do with font. Although the King James fonts are much fancier than Geneva.

One of the things King James disliked about the Geneva Bible was all the marginal notes it contained. The marginal notes said all kinds of things against authority. But King James wanted people to know that he’s the one with the gun. He’s the one in authority.

So when the King James was published, they got rid of most of the marginal notes. They only kept the few marginal notes that helped to clarify the verse, explaining what the original Greek or Hebrew meant, or clarifying what Old Testament verse that a New Testament passage was referencing.

So, yes, those marginal notes are legitimate, and 100% true to the original printing if the King James Bible.

Why don’t you go to Washington D.C. and visit the Bible museum? Or watch Steven Anderson’s documentary on the history of the King James (Mr. Anderson is kind of a loose cannon, but he’s got a few cool historical things in his documentary).

Or watch anyone else’s documentary on the history of the King James Bible. Search for it on YouTube or Amazon. There’s a good one on Amazon Prime called “The God Who Speaks”.

Anyone who has researched and learned all about the King James Bible and the history of these Protestant translations, and then sees your comments, they’re automatically going to know that you don’t know what you’re talking about, just like a person who thinks that you have to stuff gun powder down the barrel of a Glock-19 like they did with the hand gun that existed back in the Civil War days. Anyone who knows guns knows that the gun powder is already inside of the modern 9mm bullet, and doesn’t have to be stuffed down the barrel like in the mid-1800’s when Harriet Tubman had to hold her gun above the water when crossing the stream so that it doesn’t get wet.

So, if you want to continue to stay ignorant, then you’ll keep making yourself look foolish, like the Joker who drops his revolver while entertaining kids in a hospital and loses his job over it, and drives him into a crazy mad-man who faces off with Batman.

When you don’t do any research on the King James, then people who have are just going to roll their eyes, and shake their heads at the lack of knowledge that you embarrassingly show everyone in the room that you clearly have, just like the pink elephant in the room that nobody will acknowledge, because of the emperor who has no clothes and nobody will admit it.

But I guess some people think clothes don’t exist, or maybe they prefer someone else to dress them, like a child, or a baby,because they’re too lazy to research things for themselves, because they expect someone else to do their research for them, like the student who lets his study group to do all the heavy lifting, while they sit back and sip on some lemonade and do nothing productive that actually contributes to their project.

 

[Josiah]

Zoom in of marginal note in John 10:22.

Thank you for proving yet again that your claim is false. The Book of Heberws does NOT contain a reference to any book with "Maccabees" in the title; the word "Maccabees" doesn't occur ANYWHERE in the Book of Hebrews....not in the original, not in the KJV, not in ANY translation. Indeed, the word NEVER ONCE even appears in ANY New Testament book, anywhere, for anything, about anything.

And you prove (again) that the 1611 ENGLISH TRANSLATION of the Bible does not reference the book. You've gone to some length to prove yourself wrong. It seems some UNKNOWN, UNIDENTIFIED, MYSTERIOUS author put it in the MARGIN of some unidentified study edition, date of which is unknown. This is entirely unrelated to your claim, my Concordia Study Bible has THOUSANDS of such notes in margins, often noting verses that might shed insight on another verse, but these are NOT part of the biblical text, these are not Scripture, these are NOTATIONS in the MARGINS, things the author(s) think are helpful to know.



You still have offered NOTHING to prove that the Jews celebrate an event specifically BECAUSE all Jews consider one of the books with 'Maccabees' in the moniker as canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture). Nothing. Another remarkable thread, with yet another claim, once again with NOTHING to prove the claim true. Indeed, with a seeming admission that it's wrong.



.

 

[NathanH83]

Thank you for proving yet again that your claim is false. The Book of Heberws does NOT contain a reference to any book with "Maccabees" in the title; the word "Maccabees" doesn't occur ANYWHERE in the Book of Hebrews....not in the original, not in the KJV, not in ANY translation. Indeed, the word NEVER ONCE even appears in ANY New Testament book, anywhere, for anything, about anything.

And you prove (again) that the 1611 ENGLISH TRANSLATION of the Bible does not reference the book. You've gone to some length to prove yourself wrong. It seems some UNKNOWN, UNIDENTIFIED, MYSTERIOUS author put it in the MARGIN of some unidentified study edition, date of which is unknown. This is entirely unrelated to your claim, my Concordia Study Bible has THOUSANDS of such notes in margins, often noting verses that might shed insight on another verse, but these are NOT part of the biblical text, these are not Scripture, these are NOTATIONS in the MARGINS, things the author(s) think are helpful to know.



You still have offered NOTHING to prove that the Jews celebrate an event specifically BECAUSE all Jews consider one of the books with 'Maccabees' in the moniker as canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture). Nothing. Another remarkable thread, with yet another claim, once again with NOTHING to prove the claim true. Indeed, with a seeming admission that it's wrong.



.

The book of Hebrews is referencing the content found in Maccabees.

You keep repeating, and repeating, and repeating the same jargon over, and over, and over, and over again, because you just love to repeat yourself, and then repeat yourself again, and then repeat yourself again, and then repeat yourself another time. And then after repeating yourself numerous times, you then proceed to repeat yourself.

But the truth is, the story in 2 Maccabees 7 is referenced in Hebrews 11:35, even though the book of Hebrews does not mention Maccabees by name.

Anybody with a working brain, who’s head is screwed on straight, and isn’t mentally disabled, will have the ability to understand that the book of Hebrews can reference the events in Maccabees without specifically mentioning the title of the book.

If you can’t figure out what is basic common sense to any normal person in their right mind, then I really don’t know what else to say to you.

 

[Josiah]

The book of Hebrews is referencing the content found in Maccabees.

The Book of Hebrews doesn't even contain the word "Maccabees". In any context. For anything. About anything. NONE of the New Testament does. There is no book reference to ANY book in Hebrews.

What is accurate is that the Book of Hebrews APPEARS to ALLUDE to an historical event which is recorded in one of the Maccabee books, as well as elsewhere and likely was well known to the Jewish people. It may reference an EVENT, it does not reference any BOOK.

And that has nothing - nothing whatsoever - to do with First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees being the canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God. You know that. We all know that.

But the truth is, the story in 2 Maccabees 7 is referenced in Hebrews 11:35

No, that is NOT the truth. And frankly, it would be IRRELEVANT if it was, noting an historical event does not make all books reporting that ERGO The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God. You are not only NOT stating the truth but making absurd, illogical, inconsistent and laughable leaps from that.


Here is Hebrews 11:35 "Women received back their dead by resurrection Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life."

Now, Nathan, were is the word "Maccabees?" Where does it say this happened in connection with anyone with a name of Maccabees? Where does this state that any book which records this event ergo is the canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture)? The undeniable TRUTH is, Hebrews 11:35 does not identify this event; it describes something without identifying it AND to your point, without stating "and any book which reports this even ergo must be regarded by as as the canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God." The truth is: You claim is entirely, completely unsupported.


Brother, anyone with even some respect for Scripture and for honesty must admit, your claims are baseless. You are simply substituting your own theories for the words of Scripture. As is obvious. And undeniable.




.

 

[NathanH83]

The Book of Hebrews doesn't even contain the word "Maccabees". In any context. For anything. About anything. NONE of the New Testament does. There is no book reference to ANY book in Hebrews.

What is accurate is that the Book of Hebrews APPEARS to ALLUDE to an historical event which is recorded in one of the Maccabee books, as well as elsewhere and likely was well known to the Jewish people. It may reference an EVENT, it does not reference any BOOK.

And that has nothing - nothing whatsoever - to do with First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees being the canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God. You know that. We all know that.





No, that is NOT the truth. And frankly, it would be IRRELEVANT if it was, noting an historical event does not make all books reporting that ERGO The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God. You are not only NOT stating the truth but making absurd, illogical, inconsistent and laughable leaps from that.


Here is Hebrews 11:35 "Women received back their dead by resurrection Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life."

Now, Nathan, were is the word "Maccabees?" Where does it say this happened in connection with anyone with a name of Maccabees? Where does this state that any book which records this event ergo is the canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture)? The undeniable TRUTH is, Hebrews 11:35 does not identify this event; it describes something without identifying it AND to your point, without stating "and any book which reports this even ergo must be regarded by as as the canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God." The truth is: You claim is entirely, completely unsupported.

Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?

Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?

Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?

Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?
Repeating yourself again?

 

[NathanH83]

The Book of Hebrews doesn't even contain the word "Maccabees". In any context. For anything. About anything. NONE of the New Testament does. There is no book reference to ANY book in Hebrews.

What is accurate is that the Book of Hebrews APPEARS to ALLUDE to an historical event which is recorded in one of the Maccabee books, as well as elsewhere and likely was well known to the Jewish people. It may reference an EVENT, it does not reference any BOOK.

And that has nothing - nothing whatsoever - to do with First and/or Second and/or Third and/or Fourth Maccabees being the canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God. You know that. We all know that.





No, that is NOT the truth. And frankly, it would be IRRELEVANT if it was, noting an historical event does not make all books reporting that ERGO The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God. You are not only NOT stating the truth but making absurd, illogical, inconsistent and laughable leaps from that.


Here is Hebrews 11:35 "Women received back their dead by resurrection Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life."

Now, Nathan, were is the word "Maccabees?" Where does it say this happened in connection with anyone with a name of Maccabees? Where does this state that any book which records this event ergo is the canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture)? The undeniable TRUTH is, Hebrews 11:35 does not identify this event; it describes something without identifying it AND to your point, without stating "and any book which reports this even ergo must be regarded by as as the canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God." The truth is: You claim is entirely, completely unsupported.


Brother, anyone with even some respect for Scripture and for honesty must admit, your claims are baseless. You are simply substituting your own theories for the words of Scripture. As is obvious. And undeniable.




.

You know, honestly, I went for 20 years or so of being a Christian, reading the Bible through from cover to cover multiple times, and never understood the prophecies in Daniel 8 and 11.

Then recently, I watched a bunch of documentaries on the life of Alexander the Great. I basically just searched YouTube, Netflix, Amazon Prime, iTunes, etc., just whatever I could find on the life of Alexander. I found documentaries from PBS, History Channel, BBC, etc.

After learning all about the life of Alexander, I heard some pastor on YouTube suggest that Daniel 8 prophesies about Alexander the Great. This caught my attention since I’ve never been able to understand Daniel 8. It’s always been so confusing and cryptic and mysterious to me.

I re-read Daniel 8, and all of a sudden, the chapter CAME ALIVE! It was so clear to me that the symbolism of the goat with a single horn, then breaking off and becoming 4 horns…it was all symbolic of Alexander defeating the Persians, dying at a young age, and then being replaced by his 4 generals. It all became so clear.

But I didn’t understand why it took so long for me to understand this chapter finally. 20 years?

I mean, after all the sunday schools, all the sunday sermons, bible studies, cell groups, church camps, discipleship groups, conferences, workshops, and teaching sessions….. and NOBODY bothered to explain this to me?!

Instead, it’s after I watch SECULAR documentaries by PBS and The History Channel that I’m NOW able to comprehend Daniel 8?

Huh?!

That just doesn’t make sense! Why should I have to read a secular history book, or watch a secular documentary in order to understand biblical prophecy?

Shouldn’t there be a book in the Bible containing this history so that I can understand these prophecies? It just seemed to me that this history SHOULD be in the Bible.

Then, later on, I decided to read the book of 1 Maccabees for the first time. I had never read it before, and wondered what it was about.

The very first chapter is all about how Alexander becomes king of the greeks, defeats the Persians, dies at a young age, and then his kingdom dividing up into 4 kingdoms by his 4 generals. And that was the end of chapter one of First Maccabees.

I thought to myself, “Oh my goodness! Here I was thinking that there needs to be a book of the Bible containing this history. And here I come to find out, there IS a book of the Bible containing it! It’s been there all along! I just didn’t know, because I grew up with a Bible that didn’t contain it!”

But the early church had this book in their Bibles. Even the Protestants had Maccabees in their King James Bible from 1611 until it was taken out in 1885. It’s just our modern Bibles that are missing it.

Then I learned that the rest of Daniel 8 and 11 prophesy about the events of Hanukkah, which Maccabees explains.

So, it honestly just does not make any sense to me for someone to have to go 20 years being completely CLUELESS as to what Daniel 8 is talking about, with no help from the church, until finally I have to watch SECULAR documentaries about Alexander that I just happened to decide to watch.

That’s just doesn’t make sense to me. It needs to be in our Bibles. And it WAS in our Bibles….EVERYONE’S Bibles…until 1885 when they took it out. That’s over 1800 years that everyone’s Bibles contained it, until it was taken out.

Printing Bibles without the books of Maccabees is a modern phenomenon from the 19th and 20th centuries that is not consistent with the historic Christian faith.

The Spirit inside of me tells me this book SHOULD be in our Bibles. It always has been historically, and we can’t understand Daniel’s prophecies without it. We can’t understand Hebrews 11:35 without it either.

 

[Josiah]

You know, honestly, I went for 20 years or so of being a Christian, reading the Bible through from cover to cover multiple times, and never understood the prophecies in Daniel 8 and 11.

... and PERHAPS the history recorded in one of the Maccabee books brought YOU some personal insight. GREAT! WONDERFUL!

But brother, that does not mandate that ERGO that book must be The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God - and it being required to be accepted as such by every Jew and Christian since 33 AD. That's quite a leap, don't you think? Quite an absurd leap.

Brother, I've read MANY books - hundreds I suppose - that have been very helpful to me on many topics, including the Bible and theology. But that does not mandate that ERGO each of those MUST be the canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God - and it being required for all those books to be in all tomes with "BIBLE" found on the cover.

Then recently, I watched a bunch of documentaries on the life of Alexander the Great. I basically just searched YouTube, Netflix, Amazon Prime, iTunes, etc., just whatever I could find on the life of Alexander. I found documentaries from PBS, History Channel, BBC, etc. After learning all about the life of Alexander, I heard some pastor on YouTube suggest that Daniel 8 prophesies about Alexander the Great. This caught my attention since I’ve never been able to understand Daniel 8. It’s always been so confusing and cryptic and mysterious to me.

SO, LOTS of things were helpful to you! Why aren't those documentaries The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God and must be in every tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover? Why not all those very helpful things you found on PBS, the History Channel, YouTube, Netflix, iTunes, etc.?

Then, later on, I decided to read the book of 1 Maccabees for the first time. I had never read it before, and wondered what it was about.

You know.... Lutherans and Anglicans read and study 1 and 2 Maccabees...... it's included in many of the Sunday Lectionaries of Lutherans and Anglicans (and of course Catholics and Orthodox). Luther included 2 of them in his German translation. The publishing house of the LCMS has excellent studies on them;. I don't know what denomination you were a part of who kept this from you, but it seems maybe your frustration should be aimed at your denomination.

And again, just because there's very HELPFUL stuff on PBS, The History Channel, YouTube, iTunes, BBC, Netflix, etc. does not mean ergo all those MUST be The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Does your pastor at times mention or even quote from something NOT in the LXX but is helpful? Does he sometimes show a video clip or quote the lyrics of a song? Did the Apostle Paul quote secular philosophers? Does that mandate that ERGO all of those MUST be The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God?

But the early church had this book in their Bibles.

You have this idea that if you just REPEAT your claims - over and and over and over and over and over - endlessly, like a broken record, for pages and pages, in thread after thread - then BINGO, it must be true and beyond any accountability. You need to re-think your epistemology, my brother;.

Even the Protestants had Maccabees in their King James Bible from 1611

Well, ONE Protestant denomination, the Church of England (The Anglican Church) in it's own The Thirty-Nine Articles has TWO of the Maccabee books IN THE APOCRYPHA, as NOT, as NOT, the canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God, as NOT, as NOT "Scripture." Yes, in the tome, yes in the lectionary - but as you have been told MANY TIMES, that is irrelevant to the issue of whether it is embraces as CANONCIAL SCRIPTURE. Two very, very different things. A whole other enchilada, my brother.


The Church of England (agreeing with Luther and pretty much 1000 years of Christian tradition) saw several books as HELPFUL.... books that should be read (including in church during the worship service) and studied.... books good for information and inspiration and in some cases history, but NOT, repeat NOT The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God.

BTW my Bible within it's covers has maps, a concordance, and many other things HELPFUL in understanding the Bible. But just because they are found in the same tome doesn't mean ERGO it's all the officially declared, canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God.

our modern Bibles that are missing it.

Well, I have no idea what Bible your denomination tells you to use. You might have an issue with that denomination.

The Lutheran Study Bible (which I use) INCLUDES what in the English speaking world is now known as the Apocrypha. It's published by Concordia Publishing House. I have the 2012 edition.

Maybe if you had been Lutheran or Anglican, you would not have been kept ignorant of these helpful books.

It needs to be in our Bibles.

Fine. But again, that doesn't make it canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God - SCRIPTURE. It simply makes it a resource in a tome. They didn't have tomes in the Early Church (hadn't been invented) but when books were invented, it was common to put HELPFUL things in there, not just Scripture.

The Spirit inside of me tells me this book SHOULD be in our Bibles.

No problem... The Spirit in me tells me there also should be maps, illustrations, historical notations, a good concordance, and certainly Luther's Small Catechism. But that doesn't mean ERGO every Jew and Christian for 2000 years has formally, officially embraced all that as The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) - just that it's good to have helpful resources included in the tome.

we can’t understand Daniel’s prophecies without it.

Hum. So those documentaries, those YouTubes, those Netflix shows, the History Channel, PBS, etc. - none of those offered any insights? Did you know there are MANY, MANY books that tell of the Maccabee revolt? It is NOT true that the ONLY PLACE on the Planet where one can learn about their revolt in First or Second or Third or Fourth Maccabees! Indeed, google it.... it's online, you don't need to have the 4 Maccabee books in your leather-bound KJV English Bible to learn about it.





.

 

[Andrew]

... and PERHAPS the history recorded in one of the Maccabee books brought YOU some personal insight. GREAT! WONDERFUL!

But brother, that does not mandate that ERGO that book must be The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God - and it being required to be accepted as such by every Jew and Christian since 33 AD. That's quite a leap, don't you think? Quite an absurd leap.

Brother, I've read MANY books - hundreds I suppose - that have been very helpful to me on many topics, including the Bible and theology. But that does not mandate that ERGO each of those MUST be the canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God - and it being required for all those books to be in all tomes with "BIBLE" found on the cover.






SO, LOTS of things were helpful to you! Why aren't those documentaries The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God and must be in every tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover? Why not all those very helpful things you found on PBS, the History Channel, YouTube, Netflix, iTunes, etc.?





You know.... Lutherans and Anglicans read and study 1 and 2 Maccabees...... it's included in many of the Sunday Lectionaries of Lutherans and Anglicans (and of course Catholics and Orthodox). Luther included 2 of them in his German translation. The publishing house of the LCMS has excellent studies on them;. I don't know what denomination you were a part of who kept this from you, but it seems maybe your frustration should be aimed at your denomination.

And again, just because there's very HELPFUL stuff on PBS, The History Channel, YouTube, iTunes, BBC, Netflix, etc. does not mean ergo all those MUST be The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Does your pastor at times mention or even quote from something NOT in the LXX but is helpful? Does he sometimes show a video clip or quote the lyrics of a song? Did the Apostle Paul quote secular philosophers? Does that mandate that ERGO all of those MUST be The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God?






You have this idea that if you just REPEAT your claims - over and and over and over and over and over - endlessly, like a broken record, for pages and pages, in thread after thread - then BINGO, it must be true and beyond any accountability. You need to re-think your epistemology, my brother;.






Well, ONE Protestant denomination, the Church of England (The Anglican Church) in it's own The Thirty-Nine Articles has TWO of the Maccabee books IN THE APOCRYPHA, as NOT, as NOT, the canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God, as NOT, as NOT "Scripture." Yes, in the tome, yes in the lectionary - but as you have been told MANY TIMES, that is irrelevant to the issue of whether it is embraces as CANONCIAL SCRIPTURE. Two very, very different things. A whole other enchilada, my brother.


The Church of England (agreeing with Luther and pretty much 1000 years of Christian tradition) saw several books as HELPFUL.... books that should be read (including in church during the worship service) and studied.... books good for information and inspiration and in some cases history, but NOT, repeat NOT The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God.

BTW my Bible within it's covers has maps, a concordance, and many other things HELPFUL in understanding the Bible. But just because they are found in the same tome doesn't mean ERGO it's all the officially declared, canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God.





Well, I have no idea what Bible your denomination tells you to use. You might have an issue with that denomination.

The Lutheran Study Bible (which I use) INCLUDES what in the English speaking world is now known as the Apocrypha. It's published by Concordia Publishing House. I have the 2012 edition.

Maybe if you had been Lutheran or Anglican, you would not have been kept ignorant of these helpful books.






Fine. But again, that doesn't make it canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God - SCRIPTURE. It simply makes it a resource in a tome. They didn't have tomes in the Early Church (hadn't been invented) but when books were invented, it was common to put HELPFUL things in there, not just Scripture.





No problem... The Spirit in me tells me there also should be maps, illustrations, historical notations, a good concordance, and certainly Luther's Small Catechism. But that doesn't mean ERGO every Jew and Christian for 2000 years has formally, officially embraced all that as The canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture) - just that it's good to have helpful resources included in the tome.






Hum. So those documentaries, those YouTubes, those Netflix shows, the History Channel, PBS, etc. - none of those offered any insights? Did you know there are MANY, MANY books that tell of the Maccabee revolt? It is NOT true that the ONLY PLACE on the Planet where one can learn about their revolt in First or Second or Third or Fourth Maccabees! Indeed, google it.... it's online, you don't need to have the 4 Maccabee books in your leather-bound KJV English Bible to learn about it.





.

Then shouldn't all the bibles include the section? Its Christian Church history and bible tradition to include those books, but now its taken out solely in protest against Catholicism or at least distinguish Portestants from the RCC (imo)

If someone wants a truly Holy Bible then cut out all the numbers you see, no margins, no footnotes, no intros, no maps, no commentary, no publishing data etc.. you might find it frustrating, so how does the section of the "intermediate" books suddenly corrupt the Holy Bible in the 19th century?

 

[NathanH83]

Then shouldn't all the bibles include the section? Its Christian Church history and bible tradition to include those books, but now its taken out solely in protest against Catholicism or at least distinguish Portestants from the RCC (imo)

If someone wants a truly Holy Bible then cut out all the numbers you see, no margins, no footnotes, no intros, no maps, no commentary, no publishing data etc.. you might find it frustrating, so how does the section of the "intermediate" books suddenly corrupt the Holy Bible in the 19th century?

Good question. They were in the Bible, even if a separate section of the Bible, until 1885. But suddenly in the 1900’s, they can’t be there any more. Why? Because “Cat in the Hat”. That’s why.

 

[pinacled]

Good question. They were in the Bible, even if a separate section of the Bible, until 1885. But suddenly in the 1900’s, they can’t be there any more. Why? Because “Cat in the Hat”. That’s why.

Or was it "bat in the hat".