What is your view on the Apocrypha and other extra..

What is your view on the Apocrypha?

13 w

What is your view on the Apocrypha and other extra-biblical books? There has been an increased interest in them. Some believe that it is equal to scripture. Some say they are secondary to scripture, but still worth reading. Some say that they are not worth reading.

Please vote in the poll and let us know your views on this.

Apocrypha is equal to Scripture

Apocrypha is secondary to Scripture

Apocrypha is not worth reading.

11 Total votes

Comment

The apocrypha are secondary because they dont bring anything more to the "religious" table. Yes, they add interesting stories, but they dont add understanding or anything else to Torah, which they shouldn't. Jasher reads like fan-fic if I remember right (israels sons doing par-cor). The calendar in the book of enoch is outdated, which it should be if its authentic from predeluge. Bel & the dragon confirms to the people not to fear idols because they are powerless in all things. The book of Esther is slightly different, with the canon one being a little risque regarding her relationship with mordecai. The apocrypha one makes no mention of improperness. I know there are more examples, but i think you can see my point.

· Reply · 1743953372

1 Reply

My reason for giving them equal credibility is because if we go back and see why the repeated texts of the King James have the crdability they do is because they were the texts that the martyrs that copied them under threat of death and still thought it worth copying and having around so no matter what some men say if it is scripture that came through the hands of people that died trying to pass it on to us and we almost spit on them by dismissing it without hearing it out! because of somones silly opinions
And I only see the promise of Elohim stating that he would preserve his word, not that there would be a book of just truth and that would be his "inspired" word... That seems like a whole other made up mentality...

· Reply · 1744135030

1 Reply

Of course, it is scripture. There is a man-made doctrine that is pretty wicked that promotes the idea that some scripture is not scripture just because they don't like those scriptures. Also, you got the group that says that because it is not canon, it is not scripture. which is one of the worst doctrines that anybody can promote because, as a matter of fact, the Canon is man-made. And last time I checked the Most High Mighty One of Yashar'el did not place anybody in charge to say what is description what is not. In the Brit, it says as all scriptures inspired by the Most High, and when this statement was made, the Brit had not even been compiled yet. This means that Shaul was most likely referring to everything prior to Matthew, including writings that we might not even have at the moment.

· Reply · 1744161260

2 Replies

Many books are in fact part of Torah; the RSTNE.COM has done extensive research to see which ones line up and the ones that dont.

· Reply · 1744198627

I consider the Apocrypha as secondary for now, only because I do not know enough about them yet. What I do know is that the majority of Christian history used a canon that exceeded the 66 book canon. The 66 book canon only started in the 1800s, so we cannot assume that the 66 book canon represents the entire Scriptures. This doesn't mean that we should accept every extra-biblical book under the sun. When I say Apocrypha, I'm only referring to the extra books contained in the Septuagint.

· Reply · 1744239900

What is your view on the Apocrypha?

GidgetsMom

Serge Narivonchik

Joe Pena

Sholiach Moshe Yoseph Koniuchowsky

Mark Price

Frankincense - Hojary Superior (Boswellia sacra)

Exodus, fine art print

Day One, fine art print

Garden of Emunah, fine art print

Eyes of Grace

Bookmark - Num 6:24-26