Welcome!  You are at, which is the general forum for  Persons are invited to post on Bible and Theology (widely interpreted).  Some postings may be chosen to be reposted on  Give & receive love here. If you post here, please do not use "Anonymous" or the like. Choose your own screen names, but do not use one that you know is already being used by someone else. Please: 

1. You may debate with any ideas posted, but do not post objections to the topic, style, spelling, use of capital letters, or grammar of anyone's posting.  For example, you may debate whether the moon is made of green cheese, but kindly refrain from reviling a poster by telling him that it is politically incorrect to discuss green cheese.   

2. Do not post complaints or attacks vs. other posters.  

3. No obscene language,cuss words, or blasphemy may be used.   

4. Send complaints privately by e-mail to  If your posting is deleted, it could be because it violates forum rules or is just chosen for a short run on the forum.  

  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If you want the password, register your screen names by e-mail, as password may be needed again if problems arise on the Forum. CHECK OUT THE search function, which is good: it checks the content of the postings.

Note that if you paste onto the Forum, for some reason Bravenet may change your quote marks and apostrophes into something else, like little boxes or funny U's.   Thanks for coming, participating, and for showing love .

Start a New Topic 
View Entire Thread
Apocrypha is a Misnomer

I am well aware of what the Tanakh is.
The greek LXX is not in any way irrelevant, it is what was used by the early Church.

I don't have much time right now so I'll send you here:

Please read ALL of what they have there and more importantly, be open to FACTS and don't let your bias get in the way.

Once again, this discussion was ACTUALLY to see if sola scriptura was in the Bible (a point you still have not proven) though I will be happy to oblige your tangent point. You can have your questions answered on the site above.

Apocrypha or Deuteros

Arch, I am going to call them the Apocrypha. I don't share the mistaken idea of canonization that you have.

"The greek LXX is not in any way irrelevant, it is what was used by the early Church."

Arch, the LXX is irrelevant. You cannot prove that the early Church considered the apocrypha God's Word even if it was part of the LXX. Neither can you prove that all the books in the LXX mss of AD IV-V were considered part of one LXX in AD I. You cannot prove that Early Christians believed that the apocrypha was part of God's Word. But the LXX is irrelevant.

To draw logical inferences you have to reason from self-evident truths, axioms. Practically speaking, between 2 persons discussing a subject, you can reason from common ground, even if the common ground is not axiomatic.

It is axiomatic, self-evident that the 66 books are God's Word.
It is also common ground between the two of us.
That the practices of the early church were God's practices is not axiomatic, not self-evident. It is not self-evident that what the early leaders of Christendom wrote was God's Word.

You can reason from 2 axioms:
1) the God of the 66 Books exists and
2) the 66 Books is the word of God.
If u find those truths self-evident & affirm them, you can do a lot of theology.

It is not self-evident to me or axiomatic that the Early Church was infallible or that everything uttered in the Early Church by its leaders is God's Word.

I do not judge God's Word by the Early Church, but the Early Church by God's Word.

As far as I am concerned, I defend my POV, not what you think sola scriptura means. MY POV is that
1) it is self-evident that the 66 books are God's Word.
2) I have never seen and do not know of any other source of God's word readily & commonly available to men or myself.
If you have proof that something else is God's Word, you should present it.

You refer me to a site. I refer you to the Bible. If you have not yet read it through, why not start now. Get your highlighter out & mark Bibliology & Soteriology. I have done that. I marked every passage on God's Word itself (revelation, prophetic process, Thus saith the Lord, etc.) in yellow & salvation in pink.

Let the Word of God dwell in you richly.

Arch, I have been reading it over & over since 1960, marking it, studying it. I know what it says about salvation & bibliology. I know it never refers to the apocypha. It appears to me that the Lord Jesus refers to and endorses the Tanakh as such (using formulae), but not the apocrypha nor the traditions of the elders.


Oh, interesting how that works, here let me put up my own axiomatic truths:

1) The God of 73 books exists and
2) The 73 books of the BIble are the Word of God

Do you concur?
If not then I am not bound to hold to your "axiomatic" truths either.

Re: Deuterocanonical

I have read the apocrypha; it is not self-evident that they are the Word of God. If you claim they are, I deny it. And that is where they argument may end. You have to affirm or deny axioms for yourself.

However, if it be found that clearly statements in the apocrypha contradict the Bible, then you have a problem.

So have you read the Bible & the apocrypha & see no difference? Or are you in fact talking thru your hate; you never read either?


I see no difference between the canonical and the deuterocanonical texts.
They both seem to be the exact Word of God to me and over 1 billion other Catholics in the world.
I am sorry if you lack the ability to see that.

Re: Deuterocanonical Are you ducking the question?

Have you read all the Bible through?
Have you read the apocrypha through?

I doubt that 1 percent of the papists have ever read the Bible through.

Arch, I think I have asked you if you have read the Bible through a number of times now; are you ducking or did I miss the answer?

Re: Deuterocanonical

You honestly cannot distinguish Bel and the Dragon from the Bible?

Re: Deuterocanonical

You honestly don't see that they are one and the same?

As for your question: actually, now that I think about it, I have not read ALL of the Psalms or Proverbs. Other than that, I'm pretty sure I've got everything.
So in short, technically no, I have not read ALL of the Bible.
However, I have read so many NEUTRAL and UNBIASED commentaries on the Bible that I am fairly confident I've come across EVERY verse from the Bible in some manner!

Thanks for Your Honesty

have you read the apocrypha?

Let the Word of God dwell in you richly.
I suggest you read the whole thing & mark 2 subjects: 1) Bibliology (yellow high light), 2) soteriology (pink high light). I have done that.
By Bibliology I mean all the statements about God's Word, thus saith the Lord, scripture, and the like.

I hope that you can see a qualitative difference between the Bible & the apocrypha, between the Bible & ecclesiastical fathers.