aghaby,
i believe the #is seven. there are seven missing books in the bible. who were they rittern bi?
what r the names of all the books?i no tobia is one or tobeet. i had a lesson on it in sunday school!!
bi the way wat is the exact reason they took them out!!?
well thank u for ur help
/
mahareel
plzz p4m sister in Christ
Comments
The books that I think you are speaking about are the Old Testament Apocrypha (sometimes referred to as the Deuterocanonical books). They are:
* 1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras)
* 2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras)
* Tobit
* Judith
* Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24)
* Wisdom
* Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach)
* Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy (all part of Vulgate Baruch)
* Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
* Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13)
* The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)
* Prayer of Manasses
* 1 Maccabees
* 2 Maccabees
In St. Athanasius' 39th festal letter, he enumerates what the New Testament canon is and includes additional books that could be read for added benefit:
[quote=Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter]Continuing, I must without hesitation mention the scriptures of the New Testament; they are the following: the four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, after them the Acts of the Apostles and the seven so-called catholic epistles of the apostles -- namely, one of James, two of Peter, then three of John and after these one of Jude. In addition there are fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul written in the following order: the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians and then after these the one to the Galatians, following it the one to the Ephesians, thereafter the one to the Philippians and the one to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians and the epistle to the Hebrews and then immediately two to Timothy , one to Titus and lastly the one to Philemon. Yet further the Revelation of John
These are the springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself with the words contained in them. In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them...
But for the sake of greater accuracy I add, being constrained to write, that there are also other books besides these, which have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and which to be instructed in the doctrine of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Teaching [Didache] of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. And although, beloved, the former are in the canon and the latter serve as reading matter, yet mention is nowhere made of the apocrypha; rather they are a fabrication of the heretics, who write them down when it pleases them and generously assign to them an early date of composition in order that they may be able to draw upon them as supposedly ancient writings and have in them occasion to deceive the guileless.
/
mahareel
plzz p4m sister in Christ
In St. Athanasius' 39th festal letter, he enumerates what the New Testament canon is and includes additional books that could be read for added benefit:
[quote=Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter]Continuing, I must without hesitation mention the scriptures of the New Testament; they are the following: the four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, after them the Acts of the Apostles and the seven so-called catholic epistles of the apostles -- namely, one of James, two of Peter, then three of John and after these one of Jude. In addition there are fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul written in the following order: the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians and then after these the one to the Galatians, following it the one to the Ephesians, thereafter the one to the Philippians and the one to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians and the epistle to the Hebrews and then immediately two to Timothy , one to Titus and lastly the one to Philemon. Yet further the Revelation of John
These are the springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself with the words contained in them. In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them...
But for the sake of greater accuracy I add, being constrained to write, that there are also other books besides these, which have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and which to be instructed in the doctrine of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Teaching [Didache] of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. And although, beloved, the former are in the canon and the latter serve as reading matter, yet mention is nowhere made of the apocrypha; rather they are a fabrication of the heretics, who write them down when it pleases them and generously assign to them an early date of composition in order that they may be able to draw upon them as supposedly ancient writings and have in them occasion to deceive the guileless.
this is a great refrence. thanks
Technically speaking, they were never taken out. The Orthodox Church recognizes all the OT Apocryphal texts as canonical. However, the Protestants do not. As such, because most Bibles are printed by Protestants, you will not find them included. If you get your hands on The New Jerusalem Bible of The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), they will contain these books.
/
mahraeel
plzz p4m sister in Christ
so in the end we only have what we have
http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/
The Orthodox Church recognizes all the OT Apocryphal texts as canonical.
When did we make them canonical?
As far as I know, they had always been considered part of the Old Testament canon. This is apparent since during the Holy Pascha Week, we find prophecies and readings from the texts. We often come across passages from the books such as Wisdom of Sirach, and on Bright Saturday, we read the story of Susannah, Psalm 151 and the Prayer of Manasseh among other texts. So, they were always part of the canon. It was the Protestants who took them out. I'm not sure the reasoning behind it, but whatever it was, we no longer find them in Protestant translations of the Bible (namely, the NKJV).
The Deuterocanon
The Deuterocanon books are a part of the Holy Bible.. The Protestants removed them from the Bible saying they were not the word of God, Although there are many evidences and historical proofs to verify them! The Orthodox and Catholic Churches believe in them..
It was not until 1519 that there arose a huge uncalled-for controversy about how many books the Bible contains. Is it 73, as Orthodox and Catholics claim, or 66, as Protestants hold? In other words, do the books of Tobit, Judith, 1+2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch, indeed belong to the Bible, or are they not inspired and should not be contained therefore in the Sacred Scriptures? These disputed books are referred to as the "deutero-canonical books" by Orthodox & Catholics, and as the "apocryphal books" by Protestants.
The question is a relevant one, one that divides Orthodox & Catholics and Protestants still to a great extent. Since Protestantism is based on Sola Scriptura, "Scripture alone," the issue about the deuterocanon is extremely significant since it puts into question the very essence of Scripture.
In a brief way, now, let me present the Protestant position by summarizing their main points:
1. The Jews themselves only have 39 books in their Old Testament, that is without the deuterocanonicals.
2. The Council of Trent added the 7 deuterocanonical books to the Bible in 1546.
3. Jesus never quoted from the deuterocanonical books, so they aren't inspired.
Before I go off into answering their assertions, let me point out that one of the best books to consult in defense of the Orthodox & Catholic position here is Mark. P. Shea, By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition (Huntington, IL: Our Sunday Visitor, 1996). Former Protestant Mark Shea deals with all the issues involving biblical authority, and he explains how he could not remain a Protestant after he had researched the origins and essence of the Bible, and especially the epistemological problems revolving around it, that is, the "How do I know?" questions.
To answer the Protestant assertions:
In response to #1.
Read the rest from this website
http://www.st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocanon/Deuterocanon-Apocrypha_El-Asfar_El-Kanoneya_El-Tanya__0-index.html
Secondly, why did St. Jerome refuse to use it in his Vulgate version? In addition, I have read that Origen had denied their inspiration.
Also, I have read that Peshitta (2nd century Syriac Bible) did not contain them. Furthermore, it has not been proven that the Septuagint had the Deuterocanon. In contraposition, however, the Qumran scrolls had them.
Perhaps, repudiation will easily come when we understand when the OT books were accepted as canon.
Our Orthodox Church prefer to refer to them as the " canonical books omitted by the Protestants."
/
mahraeel
-plzz p4m sister in Christ
From St Takla Haymanout, Alexandria, Egypt...
2. The Council of Trent added the 7 deuterocanonical books to the Bible in 1546.
This emphasises that there are only 7 deuterocanonical books. Therefore, what are Maccabees 3 and 4 classedas? surely they cannot be deuterocanonical books also?
look at http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/ I cannot understand where these other books came from!
Regards,
Doogie
One's approach to the matter of the development of the Scriptural canon in the OO Church should vastly differ from one approaching the matter from an EO or even an RC perspective given our very different histories.
Given that there is no accurate, coherent and scholarly account of the development of the Scriptural canon from an OO perspective, I can understand why some would unwittingly present a viewpoint with an EO or RC slant.
I think, generally speaking, OO's have been very less concerned with many historical and theological issues that have become the subject of extensive investigation and theorising in the EO, RC, and Protestant Churches, and more focused on developing and promoting the simple piety of the faithful. I generally see this as an advantage of our Church in the wider scheme of things.
As the OO Church has spread throughout the diaspora, particularly throughout those regions largely influenced by the renaissance and the so-called enlightenment, members of the congregation have been practically conditioned to develop a more inquisitive and curious mindset and unfortunately, the Church's scholarship has not yet caught up with the needs of her congregation in this regard.
1- Tobit: Contains of 14 chapters, and it follows The Book of Nehmia in order.
2- Judith: Contains of 16 chapters, and it follows Tobit in order.
3- Esther: The rest of the Book of Esther, and contains chapters from 10 to 16.
4- Wisdom: For Solomon the King, and contains of 14 chapters, and it should be after The Book of the Songs of Songs.
5- Joshua Son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus): Contains of 51 chapters, and it follows The Wisdom of Solomon in order.
6- Baruch: Contains of 6 chapters, and it follows The Book of Lamentations of Jeremiah in order.
7- Daniel: The rest of The Book of Daniel, and contains of the rest of Chapter 3, in addition to two extra chapters: 13, 14.
8- First of Maccabees: Contains of 16 chapters, and it follows The Book of Malachi in order.
9- Second of Maccabees: Contains of 15 chapters, and it follows The Book of Second Maccabees in order.
10- Psalm 151 After Psalm 150 by King David the prophet
/
mahareel
plzz p4m sister in Christ