Replies

Here is another article giving a reason, or I should say, an elaboration on the errors cited in the previous post on why the Apocryphal books are not inspired and cannot be included in the canon.

Please take a second look and judge for yourself. Let's take some examples, starting with the book of Sirach which teaches that almsgiving makes atonement for sin. “Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins...Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sin” (Sirach 3:3, 30).

Now it is the constant teaching of the Law that atonement is made by a blood sacrifice. For example Leviticus 17:11 states: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”

The good professor has a problem with language. Lev. 17:11 does NOT state that the ONLY way to atone for sin is through blood. In his rush to condemn the Deuterocanonicals because HE KNOWS they are not Scriptures, he makes a very basic mistake, assuming that Lev. 17 is an absolute rule.

But Sirach teaches that honouring parents and giving alms atones for sin. Sirach teaches that a person can be justified by another method apart from substitutionary sacrifice.

So does 1 Timothy 2! Or is this also not part of Sacred Scriptures???

Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety. 1 Tim 2:15

For I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. Yea rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.” However, the Bible teaches that all are born with original sin.

Jeez! Apparently, the professor isn't able to understand that the passage is speaking about GOD'S WISDOM - refering to the Son of God, in Christian language... The Church Fathers LOVED Wisdom because they saw within this book references to the Logos before the Incarnation...Or does the professor believe that the Logos, the Wisdom of God, was born with original sin? Perhaps you should actually read what some of these guys write before you post them, BD...

Sirach 12:4-7 advices,Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner. Do well unto him that is lowly, but give not to the ungodly; hold back thy bread, and give it not unto him... give unto the good, and help not the sinner.”

Again, the professor hasn't read the Psalms - many of them speak in the exact same way...

There are also historical errors in the apocrypha. For example, Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted (931 B.C.) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 B.C.). These two events were separated by over 200 years and yet the total lifespan of Tobit was 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)! Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7) when in fact he was the king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:1).

Perhaps Tobit is a historical novel, rather than a literal historical book, much like Esther. Thus, if so, they are not "errors". It is meant to teach God's people about God. If the author decides to use this as a background for his teaching, it is still inspired by God.

Unfortunately, the doctor has already predetermined that the Deuterocanonicals are not Scripture, and then sets out to "prove it". Normally, if the doctor remembers anything from school, one is to be open minded and go where the evidence points, not steer it in the direction of your pet project. His work is not worthy of being read if I have so easily refuted it - and I am not even a doctor...

Regards