Starship Asterisk*

Thank you craterchains,

but the Aprocrypha has not been accepted as the revealed Word of God within the Canon of Scripture

Spurious writings
The word "apocrypha" came finally to mean "false, spurious, bad, or heretical."

This meaning also appears in Origen's prologue to his commentary on the Song of Songs: De scripturis his, quae appellantur apocryphae, pro eo quod multa in iis corrupta et contra fidem veram inveniuntur a majoribus tradita non placuit iis dari locum nec admitti ad auctoritatem. [4] "Concerning these scriptures, which are called apocryphal, for the reason that many things are found in them corrupt and against the true faith handed down by the greater ones, it has pleased them that they not be given a place nor be admitted to authority." (Translation by a Wikipedia editor.)

it is not wise to base arguements on such foundations

Lin x

Also, II Esdras 5:37
"picture of a voice"

Concerning the Aprocrypha

An excerpt from the Preface of Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Apocrypha, An American Translation, published October 1938 and The Complete Bible, An American Translation, October 1939, which may explain why some people have not heard of The Second Book of Esdras, but are well advised to obtain a copy and start studying.

The Apocrypha formed an integral part of the King James Version of 1611, as they had of all the preceding English versions from their beginning in 1382. But they are seldom printed as part of it any longer, still more seldom as part of the English Revised Version, and never at all in the American Standard Bible.

This is partly because the Puritans disapproved of them; they had already begun to drop them from printings of their Geneva Bible by 1600, and began to demand copies of the King James Version omitting them, as early as 1629. And it is partly because we moderns discredit them because they did not form part of the Hebrew Bible and most of them have never been found in any Hebrew forms at all.

But they were part of the Bible of the early church, for it used the Greek version of the Jewish Bible, which we call the Septuagint, and these books were all in that version. They passed from it into Latin and the great Latin Bible edited by St. Jerome about A.D. 400, the Vulgate, which became the Authorized Bible of western Europe and England and remained so for a thousand years. But Jerome found that they were not in the Hebrew Bible, and so he called them the Apocrypha, the hidden or secret books.

It must not be supposed, however, that Jerome gathered them into a group and put them at the end of his Old Testament version. On the contrary, they are scattered here and there through the Vulgate, much as they are through the Greek Bible. They are also scattered through the versions made from the Vulgate – the Wyclif – Purvey English translations and the old German Bible, both products of the fourteenth century. It remained for Luther to take the hint Jerome had dropped eleven hundred years before, and to separate them in his German Bible of 1534 from the rest of the Old Testament, and put them after it. This course was followed the next year by Coverdale, in the first printed English Bible, of 1535; and the English Authorized Bibles, the Great Bible, the Bishops’ and the King James, all followed the same course. The Catholic English Old Testament of 1610, however, followed the Vulgate arrangement and left them scattered among the books which we include in our Old Testament. It still contains them, but on the Protestant side both British and American Bible societies more than a hundred years ago (1827) took a definite stand against their publication, and they have since almost disappeared.

So like science, religionists manipulate, deceive and lie.

Hi FieryIce,

i believe that APOD & our discussion group here is for scientific discussion & amongst such debates, insights into the origins of the Universe will naturally include God's Word & the knowledge imparted to us relating to Creation

discussions relating to Theology & Word of God are of vital importance but do not seem appropriate to this site

Godly men have been led to discern that the Scripture are the books of the Old and New Testment, such are as given by inspirtation from God, containing all things necessary to be believed and done that God may be worshipped and our souls saved.

we know that these writings are the word of God by the testimony of God's Spirit, working faith in our hearts to close with that heavenly majesty and clear divine truth, that shines within them

let Scripture interpret Scripture
Lin x

just leave all the religious BS on the door and read the book with an open mind and understanding of modern technologies, now imagine (if you can) and take that technology to the point of creating such as we see.

No religion needed, just appreciation and thanks, for being able to comprehend and understand what was wrote. No religions needed, no churches needed, but, have it your way as thousands of other religions do.

To me the bible is one of the most technologicaly advanced books that mankind can only now with todays sciences comprehend.
But you can still go to any church yah wants to.
Norval

Isn't it the blog's moderator who is responsible for keeping the postings on topic?

APOD will be out ... Character Assassination ® Us ... in.

craterchains wrote: To me the bible is one of the most technologicaly advanced books that mankind can only now with todays sciences comprehend.

You'd have a hard job understanding anything more advanced than Ladybirds 'My first book of space' then . But seriously what does this statement mean Norval? I doubt you know, you just said it for a reaction. Give me an example of technology in the Bible that I can't understand. The water into wine machine? The bring me back to life machine? The 5 loaves multiplier? Walk on water shoes?

hey Cosmo,
Chris Angel has walk on water shoes

Dr. Skeptic wrote:Isn't it the blog's moderator who is responsible for keeping the postings on topic?

APOD will be out ... Character Assassination ® Us ... in.

Character Assassination ® Us is obviously very in.

Norval

cosmo_uk wrote:

craterchains wrote: To me the bible is one of the most technologicaly advanced books that mankind can only now with todays sciences comprehend.

You'd have a hard job understanding anything more advanced than Ladybirds 'My first book of space' then . But seriously what does this statement mean Norval? I doubt you know, you just said it for a reaction. Give me an example of technology in the Bible that I can't understand. The water into wine machine? The bring me back to life machine? The 5 loaves multiplier? Walk on water shoes?

Those are good starters, but, can you duplicate those technologies?

What does the statement mean? Just what it says.

Norval

hey Cosmo,
Chris Angel has walk on water shoes

Have you ever seen his show on A&E network?

Wednesday nights at 10:00pm (in the US) don't know about other venues

http://www.crissangel.com/indexFlash.html

http://crissangel.com/data/generic_site ... video.html#
(play the second video option with Chris floating in mid air. It has a 1/2sec clip of his walk on water)

No way that guy really can walk on water

The stunt took about 45 seconds for him to walk 25' or so accross the pool surface with people swimming in front of, behind, and beneath him as he progressed.
The building float was awsome to. About 2 minutes to float 100' or so from the top of a tall warehouse building, accross a parking lot, on to the top of another building.

Since I don't have tv, I had to call a friend and ask what that was about.

They said the guy is totally disgusting.

Norval

Craterchains, eh?

Religion is science without the truths.

When did this forum become a platform for religious belief, for any agenda? If I told you what I believe to be the origins of the universe, that's one thing, but this ripping apart of each others beliefs is neither educational nor productive. I could tell you what I think of the outlandish claims that I have read here, or I can give scientific evidence of a belief. Why must I tear apart someone elses beliefs, unless I feel threatened by them. Beliefs are very different than facts, evidence, logic, or understanding. Crackpots exist, it's been proven, why argue with them? I came here to read and learn, difficult to do when all I get is banter about nothing...

You can intellegently argue/debate an idea or theory w/o character defacement, I haven't been coming here long, but I was enjoying this thread and a couple others until things got strange, when was the last actual statement about anything scietific, oh wait I know, "walk on water shoes."

I do not presume to know a lot, this is why I don't just spout uninformed thoughts, I do however know that the intellegence level of the posts has dropped drastically when my ten year old leans over my shoulder and laughs at what is being posted.

Great point Cowboy.
This particular thread probably belongs on the Asterisk Cafe pages but when was the last time you tried to have an intelligent conversation there??? Most threads get lost in adverts and Porn there.

Well this is as close as it actually gets to walking on water

http://www.hammacher.com/publish/72182.asp

What really gripes my ass is when one tries to have a logical and reasonable discussion on what the book, the bible, states in simple to understand terms, and everyone has to go and spout their religious beliefs! I wish they would just fut the shuck up and read it in context of this discussion and not of their respective religious beliefs.

FieryIce and I have tried to show, and have, that the bible contains some amazing and highly technical material, and all of it proving true, that should be considered when it comes to a discussion of "The Origins of the UNIVERSE".

I agree, RELIGION does not belong here, and I for one aint the least bit religious and for the record consider "those types" total loser idiots. Can't anyone discuss the merits of the content of the bible with out their "religious beliefs" getting all wadded up?

Guess not, , ,

Norval

Well Norval,
For a lot of people it is difficult to separate one from the other considering that many religious beliefs are based on the words ifrom the scriptures in that particular book and that most people are fervent when it comes to their particular beliefs.

It is problematic at best to try and discuss anything that may have a basis in religion without there being any potential controversy. Even religious schollars find agreement tenuous at times when discussing certain aspects of the interpretation of the words of scripture among those of a single faith.

This board has many different beliefs and faiths represented so I wouldn't count on any "Origin" discussion to be carried out without certain conflicts arising from personal opinions being voiced nor without religion entering into the picture.

craterchains wrote:FieryIce and I have tried to show, and have, that the bible contains some amazing and highly technical material, and all of it proving true, that should be considered when it comes to a discussion of "The Origins of the UNIVERSE".

I have read, and in some cases reread, this thread, (and some others just in case I missed something of which I was unsure), can you just one at a time please, tell me Norval, what bible verse coraltes to this technology that you are claiming? Don't take it personal, I just want to know, I have not found what you stated is here. I want to find some evidence of this one way or the other....

Maybe yah should ask for help from your ten year old?

, , , or try bottom of page 15, or second post on page 16?

Norval

Hello Craterchains

I found this link,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it does not mean I agree with it.

But! you may find it interesting

Where Did The Universe Come From?
New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God
A Seminal Presentation by Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross, given in South Barrington, Illinois, April 16, 1994


http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

craterchains wrote:2 Esdras chpt 4 1-12 should do.

II Esdras 4:5
RSV with Apocrypha
I said, "Speak on, my lord."
And he said to me, "Go, weigh for me the weight of fire, or measure
for me a measure of wind, or call back for me the day that is past."

Norval

Because I am really dumb, please give it to me in english, where is the technology, without the religion?

There is a book called "Singularity" publ in 1982, it is a story about a boy who discovers a type of time travel at the reverse end of a black hole, there is a great deal of technology in that book too, if you read it right...I don't see how a book in and of it self, without religion proves anything, including just "technology" yet you give nothing except this book to back up your claim. If there is no religion in it, the book was not divinely inspired, thus causing it to be just a book, no scientists, no proof, unless you can provide something that backs up your claims that has credibility.

mybluecowboy wrote:When did this forum become a platform for religious belief, for any agenda? If I told you what I believe to be the origins of the universe, that's one thing, but this ripping apart of each others beliefs is neither educational nor productive. I could tell you what I think of the outlandish claims that I have read here, or I can give scientific evidence of a belief. Why must I tear apart someone elses beliefs, unless I feel threatened by them. Beliefs are very different than facts, evidence, logic, or understanding. Crackpots exist, it's been proven, why argue with them? I came here to read and learn, difficult to do when all I get is banter about nothing...

You can intellegently argue/debate an idea or theory w/o character defacement, I haven't been coming here long, but I was enjoying this thread and a couple others until things got strange, when was the last actual statement about anything scietific, oh wait I know, "walk on water shoes."

I do not presume to know a lot, this is why I don't just spout uninformed thoughts, I do however know that the intellegence level of the posts has dropped drastically when my ten year old leans over my shoulder and laughs at what is being posted.

Agreed

FieryIce wrote:Also, II Esdras 5:37
"picture of a voice"

Concerning the Aprocrypha

An excerpt from the Preface of Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Apocrypha, An American Translation, published October 1938 and The Complete Bible, An American Translation, October 1939, which may explain why some people have not heard of The Second Book of Esdras, but are well advised to obtain a copy and start studying.

The Apocrypha formed an integral part of the King James Version of 1611, as they had of all the preceding English versions from their beginning in 1382. But they are seldom printed as part of it any longer, still more seldom as part of the English Revised Version, and never at all in the American Standard Bible.

This is partly because the Puritans disapproved of them; they had already begun to drop them from printings of their Geneva Bible by 1600, and began to demand copies of the King James Version omitting them, as early as 1629. And it is partly because we moderns discredit them because they did not form part of the Hebrew Bible and most of them have never been found in any Hebrew forms at all.

But they were part of the Bible of the early church, for it used the Greek version of the Jewish Bible, which we call the Septuagint, and these books were all in that version. They passed from it into Latin and the great Latin Bible edited by St. Jerome about A.D. 400, the Vulgate, which became the Authorized Bible of western Europe and England and remained so for a thousand years. But Jerome found that they were not in the Hebrew Bible, and so he called them the Apocrypha, the hidden or secret books.

It must not be supposed, however, that Jerome gathered them into a group and put them at the end of his Old Testament version. On the contrary, they are scattered here and there through the Vulgate, much as they are through the Greek Bible. They are also scattered through the versions made from the Vulgate – the Wyclif – Purvey English translations and the old German Bible, both products of the fourteenth century. It remained for Luther to take the hint Jerome had dropped eleven hundred years before, and to separate them in his German Bible of 1534 from the rest of the Old Testament, and put them after it. This course was followed the next year by Coverdale, in the first printed English Bible, of 1535; and the English Authorized Bibles, the Great Bible, the Bishops’ and the King James, all followed the same course. The Catholic English Old Testament of 1610, however, followed the Vulgate arrangement and left them scattered among the books which we include in our Old Testament. It still contains them, but on the Protestant side both British and American Bible societies more than a hundred years ago (1827) took a definite stand against their publication, and they have since almost disappeared.

So like science, religionists manipulate, deceive and lie.

Not meaning to bad mouth anyone or step on toes but

at this website http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... &version=9
with many online versions of the bible (although I haven't checked them all) I cannot find the book of Esdras referenced anywhere. this is the best list I can find for listed books
Books Chapters
Genesis 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
Exodus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Leviticus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Deuteronomy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Joshua 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Judges 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Ruth 1 2 3 4
1 Samuel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
2 Samuel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1 Kings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
2 Kings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 Chronicles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
2 Chronicles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Ezra 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Nehemiah 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Esther 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Psalm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
Proverbs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Ecclesiastes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Song of Solomon 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Isaiah 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
Jeremiah 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
Lamentations 1 2 3 4 5
Ezekiel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
Daniel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Hosea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Joel 1 2 3
Amos 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Obadiah 1
Jonah 1 2 3 4
Micah 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Nahum 1 2 3
Habakkuk 1 2 3
Zephaniah 1 2 3
Haggai 1 2
Zechariah 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Malachi 1 2 3 4
Matthew 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Mark 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Luke 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
John 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Acts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Romans 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1 Corinthians 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
2 Corinthians 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Galatians 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ephesians 1 2 3 4 5 6
Philippians 1 2 3 4
Colossians 1 2 3 4
1 Thessalonians 1 2 3 4 5
2 Thessalonians 1 2 3
1 Timothy 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 Timothy 1 2 3 4
Titus 1 2 3
Philemon 1
Hebrews 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
James 1 2 3 4 5
1 Peter 1 2 3 4 5
2 Peter 1 2 3
1 John 1 2 3 4 5
2 John 1
3 John 1
Jude 1
Revelation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

What version of the bible is the book of Esdras in?

(apologies for the long winded post)