Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Errors in the Apocrypha

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00

jgredline

Member
Errors in the Apocrypha

The apocrypha (απόκρυφα means "hidden") is a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ that is rejected by the Protestants and officially accepted by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 as being inspired. These books are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch.
But if the Apocrypha is a Scripture, then it should not have any errors. But since it does have errors, as will be demonstrated below, this puts into question whether or not the Roman Catholic Church has properly used its self-proclaimed position as the teaching authority of the Christian Church. If it can error in such an important manner as what is Scripture, can it be trusted to properly teach the Christian Church? The following references can be verified at http://www.newadvent.org/bible.


Problems in the Apocrypha



When we look into the apocrypha itself, we find numerous problems. For example, we see it advocating magic where the smoke of a fish heart on a fire drives away devils.

Magic:
Tobias 6:5-7, "Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them."

Is it true that the smoke from a fish's heart when burned, drives away evil spirits? Of course not. Such a superstitious teaching has no place in the word of God.

The Apocrypha also teaches that forgiveness of sins is by human effort.

Salvation by works:
Tobias 4:11, "For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness."
Tobias12:9, "For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting."

We know from Scripture that alms (money or food, given to the poor or needy as charity) does not purge our sins. The blood of Christ is what cleanses us, not money or food given to poor people. "but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin," (1 John 1:7).

Money as an offering for the sins of the dead:
2 Macabees 12:43, "And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection."

Can anyone truly except that money isn't offering for the sins of dead people? such a superstitious and unbiblical concept has no place in Scripture.

Wrong historical facts:
Judith 1:5, "Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him."

Baruch 6:2, "And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace."

The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1

Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. "And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."
Conclusion

Obviously the apocrypha has serious problems. From magic, to salvation by works, to money as an offering for the sins of the dead, and blatant incorrect historical facts, it is full of false and unbiblical teachings. It isn't inspired. Likewise, neither is the Roman Catholic Church, which has stated the apocrypha is inspired. This shows the Roman Catholic Church is not the means by which God is communicating his truth to his people, that the Magisterium has erred greatly, and that it is infested with man's false tradition, rather than God's absolute truth.



_______________
1. "Nebuchadnezzar II was the most powerful and longest reigning king of the Neo-Babylonian (625-539 b.c.)"Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985.

http://www.carm.org/catholic/apocrypha_errors.htm
 
If I ever get around to it, I'll try to read the Maccabbees, because I believe it is accurate history, but those are probably the only ones worth reading in the Apocrypha. And Ben Sira's "Wisdom" is a mix of either a parroting of Proverbs or an interjection of his own which is wholely uninspired (which sometimes shows through in his contempt and downplay of women).

My 2 cents.


~Josh
 
cybershark5886 said:
If I ever get around to it, I'll try to read the Maccabbees, because I believe it is accurate history, but those are probably the only ones worth reading in the Apocrypha. And Ben Sira's "Wisdom" is a mix of either a parroting of Proverbs or an interjection of his own which is wholely uninspired (which sometimes shows through in his contempt and downplay of women).

My 2 cents.


~Josh

I have just finished reading Wisdom. I highly recommend it. You will find the foreshadowing of the Word made flesh in the middle of the book. It will be obvious where John 1 came from after reading it. Also, it has something that no other book of the OT focuses on so much - the mercy and love of God. You won't find this "NT theology" so highly praised as it is here.

Regards

Regards
 
jgredline said:
Errors in the Apocrypha

The apocrypha (απόκρυφα means "hidden") is a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ that is rejected by the Protestants and officially accepted by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 as being inspired. These books are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch.
But if the Apocrypha is a Scripture, then it should not have any errors.

All of this has been addressed. The only point of this thread is to create more separation and dissension among Catholics and Protestants. Paul has choice words for those who lead such dissension among the community.
 
Perhaps this thread should be called "Errors in Some People's Reading of the Deutero-Canonicals". It is interesting: Some non-Christians point to seeming inconsitancies in the Gospel narratives as proof that the Bible is not inspired scripture. Of course, we all know that is not true. So trying to use that same line of logic against the books listed above fails for the same reason. People can come up with a list of errors in the New Testament that is just as impressive as the one above. But the error is in their reading, not in the New Testament. And the same is the case here.
 
Is it true that the smoke from a fish's heart when burned, drives away evil spirits? Of course not. Such a superstitious teaching has no place in the word of God.
Do you hold up the same criticisms when the Gospels record Jesus spitting in the dirt to make mud and wiping it over the eyes of a blind man?
 
I'm going to lock this topic, just for now. I want to review this and ask some questions of other mods and admins regarding the RCC's acceptence of the aprocrypha. Not that this isn't an interesting subject and worth studying, it's just that it might be more appropriate elsewhere.
 

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top