All Doves:

As I have posted articles and a few on the SDA cult obviously have shaken the tree on theological matters, it has netted some interesting responses.  In analyzing the remarks by the responses to my expose on the SDA Aberrations, especially my comments upon their prophetess co-founder Ellen G. White ruffled some feathers and it appears we have some SDA posters/followers on this site.  I know that the other "Pre-Wrath-Rapture-Babble" site leans toward their SDA celebrities, so much so, I still believe they are secret closet Adventists at the "Pre-Wrath-Rapture-Babble" site, despite their denial.  There are just too many connections to not believe they are hiding their closet SDA leanings, as obvious as the 'Leaning Tower of Pisa'.  The same folks keep pushing on their readers the spurious documents known as the Apocrypha.  They would have you believe that Jesus Christ quoted from them and sanctioned them as well.  Got some news for you concerning the "Hidden Book", which was the term Ellen G. White referred to the Apocrypha by.  Yes, the SDA 'fruitcake' Ellen G. White, proclaimed the "HIdden Book" for the last days.  More later, but first the truth about the Apocrypha.

The organization 'Computers for Christ' at Stanford University, long ago ran the books of the Apocrypha against the computer "Heptadic" Signature of God in computer analysis, which subsequently proved them to be spurious and frauds.  Not a single book of the Catholic Apocrypha contained the "Heptadic" Signature feature of "seven" in its root text.  This fact should have settle the issue years ago.  They are not God-inspired!!!!

But getting back to the KJV Bible translators, that translated the Apocrypha and included them in the original 1611 KJV Bible, they did so not for the reasons that most of us would have thought.  The translators of the KJV Bible DID NOT BELIEVE the Apocrypa were the inspired work of God.  They were simply translated and included as history or historical background of the "Inter-Testimental Period" between the close of the Old Testament Canon and the New Testament era, a period that is known as the "Silent era" where God did not speak through prophets.

In a clear statement about the Apocrypha that is actually found in the Church of England's creed, 'The Thirty-Nine Articles' of the Anglican Church, which DOES NOT BELIEVE the Apocrypha is canonical Scripture nor inspired by God.  Later editions of the KJV Bible did remove the Apocrypha.  The Church of England was in a bitter historical dispute with Rome, and permitted the books to be left in to appease Catholics and the RCC.  Here are the reasons the Church of England removed the Apocrypha after a few editions of the KJV Bible:

1.  Not one of the books referred to, as the Apocrypa, were in the Hebrew language.  All but one, was in Greek, and the lone exception was in Latin.  That alone raises 'red' herrings. 

2.  Not one claims to be divinely inspired, or from the Creator.

3.  These books were never sanctioned or acknowledged as Sacred Scriptures by the Jewish religious community, and certainly never sanctioned by the Lord Jesus Christ.

4.  The church for the first four centuries (400 years) did not include, or allow the Apocrypha works to be accepted as Canon.

5.  The Apocrypha contained fables, statements, which contradicted not only the Canonical Scriptures but themselves as well.

6.  It teaches doctrines of variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead (this is the basis for why the Roman Catholic Church prays for the dead) and sinless perfection.

7.  It teaches immoral practices such as lying, suicide, assassination and theological incantations.

The 57 men commissioned to translated the KJV Bible were unanimous in their opinion of the Apocrypha as being spurious documents.  The names of the 57 men that translated the KJV Bible are listed in the British Museum in London, England.  Despite many trying to justify the acceptance of the Apocrypha, there is absolutely no proof that the translators of the KJV Bible privately or publicly endorsed the Apocrypha. 

The Seventh Day Adventist magazine 'Adventist Heritage' Vol. 12, No. 1 Winter 1987 ran an interesting story concerning the Apocrypha in the belief and teachings of Ellen G. White.  Apparently, from the story, SDA cult leader Ellen G. White did revere the Apocrypha and it was used and read by Adventists, and that the SDA cult did so until about 1888, at which time they began to distance themselves from the readings of the Apocyrpha, and denouncing it as coming from the Catholic Bible.  Mrs. White is quoted as saying, "I saw that the Apocrypha was the hidden book, and that the wise of these last days should understand it."  That same article quoted Mrs. White stating that the 2nd book of Esdras contained special teachings and important truths for those that keep God's law and commandments and they will benefit and probably no others.  Joseph Bates an early SDA leader felt the same way about 2nd Esdras in 1849.  Apparently there are many SDA members today that feel like 2nd Esdras, including the closet SDA that took issue with my posts on Ellen G. White and the spurious books of the Apocrypha.  One needs to remember Ellen G. White had only a third-grade education.

The Roman Catholic Church declared at the Council of Trent on April 8, 1546, that - "If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema..."  With those words, the Roman Catholic Canon of Scripture finally was set in concrete, more than 1,200 years after the Roman bishops, with the backing of Constantine, declared themselves authority over all the Christian church.  Historically, this was the first council in the Western Church to officially define the Canon of Scripture.  With their decision, the Council of Trent pointed to two regional councils which met under Augustine's leadership in Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD).  The bishops of the Council of Trent claimed these councils formally defined the Canon as including the Apocrypha.  What was wrong with the Council of Trent claim, was these regional councils were not authorized to speak for the church as a whole, and the endorsement they gave the Apocrypha was quite different than what the RCC claims.

The important point of all this is that Jesus Christ nor any of the New Testament writers ever once quoted from the Apocrypha.  There are 263 quotations and 370 references to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to the Apocrypha.  Rome even acknowledges that the Jews did not accept the Apocrypha, for it was not even part of the Hebrew Bible. 

Officially speaking, the British and Foreign Bible Society decided to completely exclude the Apocrypha from the Bible on May 3,1827.  There is a movement within the Roman Catholic Church to in the near future introduce a Bible for the world that will include the Apocrypha.  The RCC document 'Declaratio Dominus Iesus' reaffirms the church's historic position that they alone have the fullness of truth and authority to define what is truth.  This is so provocative to Protestants, and that it is hardly possible that it can be even discussed until after the Pre-Tribulation Rapture.  None the less, the plans are to introduce a Bible for the World that will include the spurious books we call the Apocrypha.  It is possible that it will be introduced around the 400th anniversary of the Reformation, to symbolically celebrate the end of the Church 400-year division, when it is likely that the pope will officially recognize that the Reformation is over for Protestants.  Consider how revolutionary this is by a brief synopsis of Church doctrine from the Apocrypha:

We will have the doctrine of purgatory from the Book of Wisdom.
We will have the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul in the Book of Wisdom.
We will have angels who were at one time human beings from the book of Tobias.
We will have the doctrine of alms-giving to purge sin - buying of indulgences also from the book of Tobias.
We will have magic instead of miracles.  That sounds like something straight from the occult, in glaring contrast to     Jesus Christ's miracles.
The book of Judith teaches monasticism.
The book of Ecclesiasticus teaches that much prayer will bring pardon.
The book of Baruch tells us the dead can pray to God.

Need I say more about what is coming for the One-World-Church?

Keep in mind that the books of the Apocrypha were already in existence at the time of Jesus Christ.  Yet they were not quoted as Scripture by Him or the apostles, nor included in the New Testament.  Despite bogus claims there is not one quotation from the Apocrypha in the New Testament.  When the New Testament talks about Scripture, it only deals with the 'three-fold division' of the Bible as found in the Hebrew Bible - the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.  Rabbis never quoted from the Apocrypha as divine authority but is used merely for historical purposes as background information to events found in the Scriptures.

The Apocrypha was used alongside the writings of the early Church Fathers.  Manuscripts of the Septuagint had them as an 'addendum' or appendix to the Canonical Old Testament.  Philo, a Jewish philosopher in 40 AD quotes from the Old Testament and recognizes the 'three-fold division' of the Bible. 

The early church fathers were not supportive of its acceptance.  Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement specifically mention the New Testament only as inspired.  Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, as well as Origin and Jerome later rejected the Apocrypha.  No Roman Catholic or early Christian was required to believe that the Apocrypha, until 1,500 years later at the Council of Trent.  Most scholars of church history believe it [the spurious books] was Rome's reaction to Reformation and the movement to getting back to the Scriptures that were God-breathed.

Unbeknownst to many, the Septuagint also included the Apocrypha as an appendix as part of its Canon.  So this is where the issue becomes sticky-wicky for the Church today.  If it can be proven that Jesus read from the Septuagint, then people would be forced to accept these spurious books and its doctrines. At least this is what they are attempting to prove and justify.  But herein lies the hypocrisy.  Supporters of the Septuagint have long enjoyed faulting the KJV Bible translators for having originally including it in the KJV.  I have explained their reasons previously.  But in their zealousness to find fault with the KJV Bible translators, they overlooked or "forgot" this, if they ever knew it at all. 

An important point to remember, if Jesus were to have quoted the Apocrypha, the act of doing so would have presented additional problems for Himself.  Jesus used Old Testament prophecy to show the Jews why the Jews had rejected Him.  All of his efforts to deal with the Jews would have suffered severely by even so much as quoting from the Apocrypha.  His arguments would have not carried any weight if He and the Jews did not believe that the Scriptures quoted were inspired and part of the Canon.  The Jews did not accept the Apocrypha in any way and for Jesus to have quoted from it He would have blundered in his dialogue with the Jews.  The fact is, there are those within the RCC and others attempting to resurrect the Apocrypha as part of the coming One-World-Church.

Roman Catholics argue that the early church fathers quoted from these books and looked at them as Scripture.  They also argue that church counsels throughout the ages have always confirmed their Canonicity; therefore, this shows they should be regarded as God's Word.  The problem with this is, the early church fathers were Roman Catholic themselves.  And, the church counsels they refer to were Roman Catholic Church counsels.  So what we have here is Roman Catholics using earlier Roman Catholics to prove their point.  In Colossians 2:8, Paul warned against this kind of thing (the traditions of men).

Another argument that is being used for the Apocrypha is that the apostles quoted from the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), which contained the Apocrypha and used it as their Bible, and therefore they viewed the Bible as the Word of God.  Now, it does appear that the apostles quoted from the Septuagint, because many (not all) of the quotes in the New Testament follow the wording of the Septuagint.  But, this does not dictate (or demand) that the apostles accepted the Apocryphal writings as Scripture.

In fact, nowhere in the New Testament is there to be found one quote from any book in the Apocrypha.  This is typically understood, but there are those who say there are many "references" to the Apocrypha to be found in the New Testament, thus supporting the idea that the Apocrypha was accepted by the Apostles, as the Word of God. A man by the name of James Akin runs a web site that gives a list of 300 so-called references which supposedly are passages to be found in the New Testament that are from the Apocrypha.  He claims to have obtained this list from pages 800-804 in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th edition (Novum Testamentum: Greece et Latine, published by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft).  Textual experts dismiss all but one as being remotely possible as a direct quote.  Textual critics dismiss Mr. Akin's claim and state that only one of the 300 so-called references bears the slightest resemblance to Scripture.  Note the fact that the quoted Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is a carbon copy of the corrupt Wescott & Hort Critical New Greek Text

In the last year or so there has been a slow but evident drum beat for people to examine and read the Apocrypha, but it is an orchestrated disinformation effort, much like the Kenneth Copeland ecumenical movement to bring Charismatics and Evangelicals back under the fold of Rome.  Keep you ears tuned to the various efforts being implemented to foster ecumenical unity causes.  They are everywhere in case you have not noticed.

There are many reasons for rejecting any effort to subscribe to Rome's agenda of achieving a One-World-Bible and consider the list below that has been compiled by Protestant scholars from around the world that are aware of how the world is being manipulated on this matter:

1.  There is not sufficient evidence that they were reckoned as Canonical by the Jews anywhere.

2.  The LXX (Septuagint) design was literary (not theological), to build the library of Ptolemy and the Alexandrians.

3.  All LXX manuscripts are Christian and not of Jewish origin.  With a 500 years difference between translation and existing manuscripts.  That is more than enough time for Apocryphal books to slip in under the cover of darkness.

4.  LXX manuscripts do not all have the same Apocryphal books and names.

5.  During the 2nd Century AD the Alexandrian Jews adopted Aquila's Greek version of the Old Testament without the Apocryphal books.

6.  The manuscripts of the Dead Sea makes it clear no Canonical book of the Old Testament was written later than the Persian period.

7.  Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 BC-40 AD), quoted the Old Testament prolifically, and even recognized the 'three-fold classification', but he never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired writings.

8.  Josephus (30-100 AD), a Jewish historian, explicitly excludes the Apocrypha, numbering the books of the Old Testament as 22 neither does he quote the Apocryphal books as Scripture.

9.  Jesus and the New Testament writers never once quote the Apocrypha, although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost the entire book of the Old Testament.

10.. The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (90 AD) did not recognize the Apocrypha.

11.  No canon or council of the Christian church recognized the Apocrypha.

12.  Many of the great fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha - for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

13.  Jerome (340-420 AD), the great scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon.

14.  Not until 1546 AD in a polemical action at the Counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545-1563) did the Apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church. 

Having majored in church history, in seminary, I was required to take a course on the Apocrypha and I previously had a number of books in my personal library containing the many books of the Apocrypha.  From everything that I have read and am aware of what is happening in textual studies today, the resurgence has come at the bidding of Rome.  THIS IS A VATICAN EFFORT TO SHORE UP CHURCH WALLS AND SUPPORT FALSE ROMAN CATHOLIC DOCTRINE.  BEWARE OF ANY SITE THAT ENCOURAGES BELIEVER TO INVESTIGATE THE APOCRYPHA.  Its all a ploy of Roman Catholic disinformation and deception.

Blessings,

Pastor Bob