But I also noticed you said nothing of Jude's verses from the Book of Enoch, quoted as if they were scripture, because they are quoted verbatim. I am sure there are other instances to be found of similar nature.
I am just too lazy to look for them in my notes because I am "over the hump," so to say, with my infatuation with what I once believed wholeheartedly was the pristine word of God, since that's what I was told by very nice people (who also told me about Sanata Claus and then admitted they lied about him).
When you have discovered a thousand reasons to shatter this belief, what will one more do? So, you leave digging to others who are not there—yet. But if you dig, you will get there, sooner or later (and it's quite liberating once you get over the anger). You can be certain of that. Remember: Bible is for believers of truth, not seekers of truth. If you believe, you have no reason to seek. Those who seek doubt.
Now, remember Luke? Luke 4:4 exists in two versions, one of which is a misquote of Deuteronomy 8:3 (and God would not misquote himself, would he?). Or, take Hebrews 8, the author outright changes the OT quote and excludes the tribe of Judah towards the end (for a good Christian reason), and sandwiches New Testament text (!) into the OT prophesy, making it look as if it were part of the OT prophesy.
In fact the entire supposedly "quote" from God (Heb 8:8-13) is an alphabet soup of cherry-picked verses from Jeremiah, Exodus, Luke, 2 Cor, Isaiah and Hebrews (using itself as reference!). Neat, huh?
Many of the OT quotes in the NT are either incorrect or actually made up of several cherry-picked and often unrelated OT verses, yet you don't terat them with the same razor you apply to parallels frawn or quoted from "apocryphal" verses.
But the "apocrypha" are no exception. It's your choice to believe one and reject the other. That's the only citerium that makes some books 'holy" an dother profane; you. And how perfect oruniversally true or divine is that?
Once this is realized, one also realizes the degree of manipulation that took place not only in creating scriptures but also in deriving doctrine from them, and using the same to justify itself.
But the fact is that Christians used the "apocrypha" from the earliest days onward, period. The rabbis at Jamnia (AD 90) rejected Christians scriptures (Septuagint, Epistles and Gospels) not only because they were written in Greek vs Hebrew (and that's another bogus argument, because parts of the OT are written in Aramaic and not in Hebrew and are acceptable to the rabbis—conveniently), but because they also used books the Pharisees did not use, i.e. the "apocrypha."
So, then, whose side are you on? The Apostolic Church of the 1st century or the Pharisees? It was not until Jerome (early fifth century), who was brainwashed by Christ-hating Pharisee rabbis, that anyone in the Church raised objections to the so-called OT apocrypha as being part of the Christian canon, and after him no one until the Lutheran Deformation.
So, the entire Church, starting with the Gospel writers and Paul were in apostasy until Luther stablished "true" Christianity based on, what a surprise, that pristine document called the Bible!?
I never considered Wiki a scholarly source, but it is a good source if you need info fast. It also usually has links to original documents.
I didn’t quote Jude because of how Jude USED the quote.
“12These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. 13They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.
14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” - Jude
Notice, he uses Enoch as an illustration, not as authority for saying it. This is true when Paul quotes the Cretan prophet.
You mention misquotes and cherry-picked quotes. I noticed that when I was in my teens. However, I believe Greek at the time didn’t even have quotation marks - perhaps you can enlighten me on that. However, people back then didn’t take a precise approach to quotes. Often, the general sense was good enough.
As for cherry-picked quotes, we see that in Jewish teachings and in many early church fathers. I’ve read that it was standard practice for Jewish rabbis - again, I’m way out of my area of expertise here, so anyone who wants to correct me is welcome to jump in.
I don’t feel like looking it up, but I believe Augustine covered this in his books on interpreting scripture - dare I say on how to make one’s own personal interpretation of scripture? Of course, that was long before Trent.
I also read about it in an article a month or so ago on interpreting scripture. Like Augustine (IIRC - just got back from a run & don’t feel like digging it out), the guy said to do it rarely, since it is very easy to go astray approaching scripture like that.
“But the “apocrypha” are no exception. It’s your choice to believe one and reject the other. That’s the only citerium that makes some books ‘holy” an dother profane; you.”
This is actually close to the Protestant position. I grant it isn’t logical, but it relies on God’s revelation to an individual. Like the loose interpreting, I don’t recommend folks make a habit of it - some humility in accepting what millions of others have before is called for. But there isn’t any getting around the fact that each individual, in the end, decides what he believes is the Word of God - and if the Bible is correct, each individual will be called to account for the choice he makes.
“If you believe, you have no reason to seek. Those who seek doubt.”
You and I have batted this back and forth between us a fair bit. Those who seek based on REASON doubt. When I was in my 20s, I thought reason could get me to the truth.
I eventually concluded that REASON isn’t adequate, it takes revelation. Reason is like using a 10’ stepladder to paint a 30’ wall - it just doesn’t get you where you need to go. I concluded that reason, by itself, leaves almost nothing but doubt.
We are, after all, told to believe in Jesus - not to think him.