The 'Lost' Books of the Old Testament
Now and again the claim is made that some church council has purged books from the Bible. Some in the New Age Movement claim books which taught reincarnation were eliminated (a claim that immediately breaks down when one realizes that the Bible has always contained the clearest possible teaching against reincarnation: Hebrews 9:27). Hence, to imply that the Bible originally taught reincarnation, is to claim that the Bible originally contradicted itself.
The Bible itself mentions various books that are not numbered among those which were viewed as inspired of God. For instance, Numbers 21:14, "The book of the Wars of the Lord." Joshua 10:13, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?" II Samuel 1:18 and I Kings 11:41, "'in the book of the Acts of Solomon," II Chronicles 12:15, "the Records of Shemaiah the Prophet and of Iddo the Seer." Willis J. Beecher lists 25 extracanonical books mentioned in Chronicles alone ("Chronicles" Rev. ed., Volume I p. 630). And in I Corinthians 5:9 Paul says, "I wrote you in my letter," indicating that he had corresponded with the Corinthians before the First Epistle to the Corinthians incorporated into our Bibles.
Because the Bible mentions a book or even quotes from it, does not mean that God intended it to be in the Bible. The Bible itself points out that some of it's events are recorded in secular sources. For instance, Esther 10:2, " . . . and all the acts of his power and of his might, and the declaration of the greatness of Mordecai . . . are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia?" This was the official diary and record of the Persian court. (See also Esther 2:23; 6:1).
The New Testament writers also quoted secular authors: Acts 17:28, ". . . as even some of your own poets have said. . ." and Paul quotes verbatim'Phainomena' by Aratus (270BC) and Cleanthes' 'Hymn in Jov,' or 'Hymn to Zeus' by Epimenides Titus 1:12-13, "One of themselves, a prophet of their own said, 'The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.' This testimony is true." and again he quotes from Epimenides. We understand however, that when he quotes from these heathen poets, Paul is not endorsing everything in their writings.
'Paul mentions a letter to the Corinthians which we don't have. We don't have it because we don't need it. It isn't "lost". "Lost" gives the impression we were supposed to have it and can't have it because it is "lost". The God who graciously preserved for us the 66 books we have could have preserved more had it been His will. He didn't, therefore He decided not to. There are other books alluded to in the Scriptures but there are no "lost" books' (Jim McGuiggan, First Corinthians,p. 64).
Those who state that books were lost, must make the following argument. "God was only able to preserve 66 books, not 67, 68, or 69." Now does that make sense? "Is anything too difficult for the Lord?" (Genesis 18:14); "With God nothing shall be impossible" (Luke 1:37). Was God Who created the universe out of nothing (Psalm 33:6), not able to keep more than 66 books in print?
If any books had been deleted from the collection of Scripture that the Jews possessed, the coming of Jesus Christ into the world provided an excellent opportunity for God to set the record straight. Yet Jesus never once condemned or rebuked the Jews for not having the right number of books in their Old Testament. Jesus quoted extensively from the Old Testament. For instance:
The Bible itself mentions various books that are not numbered among those which were viewed as inspired of God. For instance, Numbers 21:14, "The book of the Wars of the Lord." Joshua 10:13, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?" II Samuel 1:18 and I Kings 11:41, "'in the book of the Acts of Solomon," II Chronicles 12:15, "the Records of Shemaiah the Prophet and of Iddo the Seer." Willis J. Beecher lists 25 extracanonical books mentioned in Chronicles alone ("Chronicles" Rev. ed., Volume I p. 630). And in I Corinthians 5:9 Paul says, "I wrote you in my letter," indicating that he had corresponded with the Corinthians before the First Epistle to the Corinthians incorporated into our Bibles.
Because the Bible mentions a book or even quotes from it, does not mean that God intended it to be in the Bible. The Bible itself points out that some of it's events are recorded in secular sources. For instance, Esther 10:2, " . . . and all the acts of his power and of his might, and the declaration of the greatness of Mordecai . . . are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia?" This was the official diary and record of the Persian court. (See also Esther 2:23; 6:1).
The New Testament writers also quoted secular authors: Acts 17:28, ". . . as even some of your own poets have said. . ." and Paul quotes verbatim'Phainomena' by Aratus (270BC) and Cleanthes' 'Hymn in Jov,' or 'Hymn to Zeus' by Epimenides Titus 1:12-13, "One of themselves, a prophet of their own said, 'The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.' This testimony is true." and again he quotes from Epimenides. We understand however, that when he quotes from these heathen poets, Paul is not endorsing everything in their writings.
'Paul mentions a letter to the Corinthians which we don't have. We don't have it because we don't need it. It isn't "lost". "Lost" gives the impression we were supposed to have it and can't have it because it is "lost". The God who graciously preserved for us the 66 books we have could have preserved more had it been His will. He didn't, therefore He decided not to. There are other books alluded to in the Scriptures but there are no "lost" books' (Jim McGuiggan, First Corinthians,p. 64).
Those who state that books were lost, must make the following argument. "God was only able to preserve 66 books, not 67, 68, or 69." Now does that make sense? "Is anything too difficult for the Lord?" (Genesis 18:14); "With God nothing shall be impossible" (Luke 1:37). Was God Who created the universe out of nothing (Psalm 33:6), not able to keep more than 66 books in print?
If any books had been deleted from the collection of Scripture that the Jews possessed, the coming of Jesus Christ into the world provided an excellent opportunity for God to set the record straight. Yet Jesus never once condemned or rebuked the Jews for not having the right number of books in their Old Testament. Jesus quoted extensively from the Old Testament. For instance:
Genesis -- Matthew 19:4-5; Isaiah -- Matthew 13:14;
Exodus -- Matthew 22:32; Daniel -- Matthew 24:15;
Leviticus -- Matthew 5:43; Hosea -- Matthew 9:13;
Deuteronomy -- Matthew 4:4; Jonah -- Matthew 12:40;
I Samuel -- Matthew 12:3; Micah -- Matthew 10:35;
I Kings -- Matthew 12:42; Zechariah -- Matthew 26:31,
Psalms -- Matthew 21:16; Malachi -- Matthew 11:10;
'Jesus considered every section of the Old Testament, "Law and Prophets" and "Law, Prophets, and Psalms" (Luke 24:27,44), to be prophetic of Him.He believed that inspiration extended from Genesis through Chronicles (Matthew 23:35; which was tantamount to saying "from Genesis to Malachi", since the arrangement of Books in the Hebrew placed Chronciles and not Malachi at the end of their Old Testament. This indicates that Jesus considered the Old Testament complete and finished after Malachi wrote. He personally authenticated the persons and events from Eden (Matthew 19:5), Jonah in the "whale" (Matthew 12:40); including the prophet (Matthew 24:15), Noah and the flood (Luke 17:27), and the destruction of Sodom (Luke 17:29). . . Jesus not only defined the limits of the canon (standard of inspired books of the Jews). . . but He laid down the principle of canonicity, namely, the canon consists of that which is the "Word of God".The word "canon" simply means recognized standard. Illustrative of this point are Jesus' references to the Old Testament as the "Word of God" (Mark 7:13), as that which "God said" (Matthew 19:5), or as that which was uttered "by the Spirit" (Matthew 22:43)' (Geisler/Nix, A General Introduction To The Bible, p. 134)
In addition, someone has pointed out that most of the controversial passages in the Old Testament are referred to by Jesus Himself or the Apostles, for example, the creation, fall, flood, miracles of Moses (crossing the Red Sea - I Corinthians 10:1-2), and Elijah, and Jonah in the great fish. Which has moved one writer to conclude, "If these major miraculous events are authentic, there is no difficulty in accepting the rest of the events of the Old Testament" (Geisler/Nix p. 86)
In all this "commentary" upon the Old Testament, Jesus never once mentions or quotes from a book that we don't possess. Geisler notes, 'For both the Old and New Testaments there are certain books that were accepted by everyone, some books that were later disputed, and some that were rejected by all. There is no category of books initially accepted and later thrown out' (When Skeptics Ask, p. 154)
'Pseudepigrapha' is the name given to a number of false writings, written between the period of 200BC and 200AD. These are books that were rejected by virtually everyone. Again, we need to note, they were never "lost," both Jews and Christians knew about the existence of these books.
'Apocrypha' is the name applied to a group of books, mostly written during the intertestamental period.
I Esdras (about 150BC) - draws considerably from Chronciles, Ezra and Nehemiah, and tells of the restoration of the Jews to Palestine after the Babylonian exile. It adds much legendary material.
II Esdras (100AD) -- contains seven visions.
Tobit (second century BC) - emphasizes the Law, clean foods, ceremonial washings, charity, fasting, prayer, and states that almsgiving atones for sin. It is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel (722BC) as well as when Jeroboam revolted against Judah (931BC - a period of 209 years), yet his total life-span was only 158 years (Tobit 14:11; cf. 1:3-5).
Judith (middle of the second century BC) -- Contains sub-Biblical teachings. Judith was assisted by God in a deed of falsehood (Judith 9:10,13); and historical error. Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar as reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon (Judith 1:1) "William H. Green concisely summarizes this evidence, as he writes, 'The books of Tobit and Judith abound in geographical, chronological, and historical mistakes, so as not only to vitiate the truth of the narratives which they contain, but to make it doubtful whether they even rest upon a basis of fact" (Geisler/Nix).
Additions to Esther (about 100BC) -- The additions have long prayers attributed to Moredecai and Esther, with a couple of letters supposedly written by Artaxerxes.
The Wisdom of Solomon (about AD40).
Ecclesiasticus or, The Wisdom of Sirach (about 180BC) -- Somewhat like Proverbs and contains practical advice. Yet it and the "Wisdom of Solomon" both teach a morality based on experience.
Baruch (about AD100) -- Claims to be written by the scribe who served Jeremiah.
Bel and the Dragon -- A chapter which is added to the book of Daniel.
Song of the Three Hebrew Children -- Follows Daniel 3:23, borrows heavily from Psalm 148.
The Prayer of Manasseh -- Claims to be the prayer of the wicked king Manasseh.
I Maccabees (First century BC) -- Records the exploits of the three Maccabean brothers.
II Maccabees -- A parallel account treating only the victories of Judas Maccabeus. Teaches prayers for the dead (II Maccabees 12:45-46), which contradicts the Scriptures (Hebrews 9:27; Luke 16:25-26).
Even the "Jews" Did Not Accept these Books. The Apocrypha was excluded from the Talmudic Jewish canon, around the time of the first century.
Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20BC-AD40), quoted the Old Testament extensively, but he never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired. Josephus (AD30-100), the Jewish historian, excludes the Apocrypha in numbering the books of the Old Testament.
The Babylonian Talmud says, "After the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel." (Tractate "Sanhedrin" 7a, 24). He did, and during His absence the "Jews" compiled the Satan-inspired Talmud, which, said Jesus, "makes the Word of God of no effect" (Mark 7:13). In Jewish circles these "outside books" were known as "writings which do not defile the hands", (i.e. were not considered as "holy"). One writer said, "Interestingly enough, the apocryphal writings of Judaism survived more as the result of the activities of Christians than through any serious interest on the part of the Jews." (Zondervan Pictorial Encylopedia "Apocrypha," p. 205).
The Masoretes excised these books because they were Edomite "Jews" and these books in the original Greek are very explicit in matters of race, especially the missing portions of Esther, I Esdras, Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach. The four Maccabees document how the Edomite Jewish usurpers gained control of the temple and gained political power in Judea during the revolt of Judas Maccabee. The Edomite "Jews" obviously wanted to suppress this information because it shows clearly and factually, that they are usurpers impersonating the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Thus, every one of these books and every Scripture contained in the Greek Septuagint is detrimental to the Edomite, Talmudic "Jews."
However, they cannot hide the fact that Christ and His Apostles and the first century Christians used and read these books in their Greek Septuagints. The New Testament confirms that the New Testament authors were familiar with the Apocryphal books. Here are a few of many allusions and paraphrases drawn from the Apocrypha:
In addition, someone has pointed out that most of the controversial passages in the Old Testament are referred to by Jesus Himself or the Apostles, for example, the creation, fall, flood, miracles of Moses (crossing the Red Sea - I Corinthians 10:1-2), and Elijah, and Jonah in the great fish. Which has moved one writer to conclude, "If these major miraculous events are authentic, there is no difficulty in accepting the rest of the events of the Old Testament" (Geisler/Nix p. 86)
In all this "commentary" upon the Old Testament, Jesus never once mentions or quotes from a book that we don't possess. Geisler notes, 'For both the Old and New Testaments there are certain books that were accepted by everyone, some books that were later disputed, and some that were rejected by all. There is no category of books initially accepted and later thrown out' (When Skeptics Ask, p. 154)
'Pseudepigrapha' is the name given to a number of false writings, written between the period of 200BC and 200AD. These are books that were rejected by virtually everyone. Again, we need to note, they were never "lost," both Jews and Christians knew about the existence of these books.
'Apocrypha' is the name applied to a group of books, mostly written during the intertestamental period.
I Esdras (about 150BC) - draws considerably from Chronciles, Ezra and Nehemiah, and tells of the restoration of the Jews to Palestine after the Babylonian exile. It adds much legendary material.
II Esdras (100AD) -- contains seven visions.
Tobit (second century BC) - emphasizes the Law, clean foods, ceremonial washings, charity, fasting, prayer, and states that almsgiving atones for sin. It is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel (722BC) as well as when Jeroboam revolted against Judah (931BC - a period of 209 years), yet his total life-span was only 158 years (Tobit 14:11; cf. 1:3-5).
Judith (middle of the second century BC) -- Contains sub-Biblical teachings. Judith was assisted by God in a deed of falsehood (Judith 9:10,13); and historical error. Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar as reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon (Judith 1:1) "William H. Green concisely summarizes this evidence, as he writes, 'The books of Tobit and Judith abound in geographical, chronological, and historical mistakes, so as not only to vitiate the truth of the narratives which they contain, but to make it doubtful whether they even rest upon a basis of fact" (Geisler/Nix).
Additions to Esther (about 100BC) -- The additions have long prayers attributed to Moredecai and Esther, with a couple of letters supposedly written by Artaxerxes.
The Wisdom of Solomon (about AD40).
Ecclesiasticus or, The Wisdom of Sirach (about 180BC) -- Somewhat like Proverbs and contains practical advice. Yet it and the "Wisdom of Solomon" both teach a morality based on experience.
Baruch (about AD100) -- Claims to be written by the scribe who served Jeremiah.
Bel and the Dragon -- A chapter which is added to the book of Daniel.
Song of the Three Hebrew Children -- Follows Daniel 3:23, borrows heavily from Psalm 148.
The Prayer of Manasseh -- Claims to be the prayer of the wicked king Manasseh.
I Maccabees (First century BC) -- Records the exploits of the three Maccabean brothers.
II Maccabees -- A parallel account treating only the victories of Judas Maccabeus. Teaches prayers for the dead (II Maccabees 12:45-46), which contradicts the Scriptures (Hebrews 9:27; Luke 16:25-26).
Even the "Jews" Did Not Accept these Books. The Apocrypha was excluded from the Talmudic Jewish canon, around the time of the first century.
Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20BC-AD40), quoted the Old Testament extensively, but he never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired. Josephus (AD30-100), the Jewish historian, excludes the Apocrypha in numbering the books of the Old Testament.
The Babylonian Talmud says, "After the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel." (Tractate "Sanhedrin" 7a, 24). He did, and during His absence the "Jews" compiled the Satan-inspired Talmud, which, said Jesus, "makes the Word of God of no effect" (Mark 7:13). In Jewish circles these "outside books" were known as "writings which do not defile the hands", (i.e. were not considered as "holy"). One writer said, "Interestingly enough, the apocryphal writings of Judaism survived more as the result of the activities of Christians than through any serious interest on the part of the Jews." (Zondervan Pictorial Encylopedia "Apocrypha," p. 205).
The Masoretes excised these books because they were Edomite "Jews" and these books in the original Greek are very explicit in matters of race, especially the missing portions of Esther, I Esdras, Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach. The four Maccabees document how the Edomite Jewish usurpers gained control of the temple and gained political power in Judea during the revolt of Judas Maccabee. The Edomite "Jews" obviously wanted to suppress this information because it shows clearly and factually, that they are usurpers impersonating the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Thus, every one of these books and every Scripture contained in the Greek Septuagint is detrimental to the Edomite, Talmudic "Jews."
However, they cannot hide the fact that Christ and His Apostles and the first century Christians used and read these books in their Greek Septuagints. The New Testament confirms that the New Testament authors were familiar with the Apocryphal books. Here are a few of many allusions and paraphrases drawn from the Apocrypha:
Romans 1:18-20 from Wisdom of Solomon 13:1 2
Romans 9:3; 10:1 from Prayer of Manasseh, 8-9 3
I Corinthians 2:10-16 from Judith 8:14 4
Hebrews 1:3 from Wisdom of Solomon 7:26 5
James 3:5-9 from Sirach 5:13 6
Revelation 8:2 from Tobit 12:15.
Unlike many of the books in the Bible like I Corinthians 14:37, Galatians 1:11-12, Ephesians 3:3-5 and II Thessalonians 2:2; 2:15; 3:14 (where Paul even warns the Thessalonians concerning "false letters"), there is no claim within any book of the Apocrypha that it is inspired of God.
'The Council of Trent (AD1545-1563) was the first official proclamation of the Roman Catholic Church on the Apocrypha, and it came a millennium and a half after the books were written, in an obvious polemic against Protestantism. Furthermore, the addition of books that support "salvation by works" and "prayers for the dead," only twenty-nine years after Luther had posted his Ninety-five Theses, is highly suspect' (Geisler/Nix, p. 172) 'It had been quoted against Luther in support of the Roman Catholic position (e.g. II Maccabees 12:45-46, which favors prayers for the dead), and then added a few years later in a counter-Reformation attempt to refute Luther' (p. 176). And we need to note that the Roman Catholic Church did not accept "all" of the Apocrypha. Only 12 of the 15 books were accepted, and at least one of these omitted books (II Esdras) is AGAINST prayers for the dead (II Esdras 7:105).
Now this presents an interesting dilemma for the advocates of the idea that: "The Catholic Church edited and removed books from the Bible". If that is true, then why do Catholic Bibles have more books in them than other translations? How can the charge of "removing books from the Bible" be seriously entertained when the facts are that Bibles used in the Catholic Church contain more books and not less books than Bibles used in non-Catholic churches?
Nevertheless, because the Apocrypha is not Scripture does not mean that it possesses no value. It provides a most valuable source of information about the history and religion of the "Jewish" nation in the period between both Testaments.
In the Septuagint and Vulgate canons the Apocrypha is integrated with the other books of the Old Testament. And even the first Protestant Bibles and the original King James Version did not omit them. However the King James Version translators moved these books to the end of the Old Testament, setting them off as questionable, because like the other early Protestant Bibles it was based upon the Hebrew Masoretic Text, which excises all of these books, as well as the extended portions of Daniel and Esther. The most basic, most original source of Scripture is the Septuagint, used and authenticated by Jesus and His disciples, and written in the international language of the day. This proves that some of the words we find in the Old Testament today are substitutes.
The Jewish Massoretes well knew what they were doing to the Septuagint when they used it for the basis of their "New Hebrew," Masoretic Text - even to omitting over one third of the Book - selectively editing it over the centuries.
So many take the current corrupted Masoretic Text as being the true Old Testament and the basis for all following translations and editions. Even Strong's Concordance, thought to be properly and cohesively edited, did NOT resort to the Septuagint for confirmation of proper word use, by comparing the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text with ancient Hebrew or with the Greek language used in the Septuagint. They simply accepted the Masoretic Text as always valid - when it is not!
The substitution or mis-application of words is evident, for example, when we examine the use of one common English word, "stranger" for many different Greek and Hebrew words.
Both the Greek and Hebrew words for the "stranger" are found to be similar in nature and characterization, and at least four primary root words with several other adverbs are found in both languages.
Each word is distinctive, clearly defining the "stranger's" relationship to the Israelites, which in some cases, was detrimental, and an association was forbidden. Brother Branham explained this in his exposition of original sin and the Serpent's seed.
This becomes very clear when each Greek and Hebrew word describing a "type" of stranger is analyzed, as it defined racial aspects and foreign or alien characteristics, genetic and historical associations, particularly the physical Serpent's seed. For the sceptics, this is another of many proofs that the physical Serpent seed did come through the Flood in Noah's ark as taught by Moses, Jesus and Brother Branham.
Study the various Greek and Hebrew definitions for our word "stranger", in Strong's Concordance and you will discover that the present-day fuzzy logic of the English word "stranger" pushed by Judeo-Christian churches has paved the way for the promotion and celebration of diversity and multiculturalism, a euphemism for multi-racialism, which is accursed of God.
Because, and significantly, English has only one word to describe the "stranger", and it refers to someone unknown who should be accepted at face value, treated fairly, offered hospitality, given the run of the house and the nation, and accepted for what he is, regardless of his background, genetic makeup or religion. But this is NOT what the Bible teaches in the original tongues in either the Old or New Testaments.
This understanding is absolutely contrary to Bible teaching despite perceived New Testament contradictions. Even English from Greek translations lose these different Greek definitions of a stranger, because there were no other English words that could be used to distinguish racial, genetic strangers such as the Serpent's seed from foreign aliens and from kindred who were strangers.
So today non-Christians goad Christians by asserting that to be "Christian" one must welcome all strangers and give them our best. But we are wrong to do so. God is very clear in distinguishing various classes of "stranger". Strong's lexicon has encouraged the error because they failed to compare the several Greek words for strangers to the Hebrew used by the cunning Masoretes. When it suited their purposes the Masoretes changed the type of stranger as one not to be associated with for one that could be affiliated, thus changing the entire meaning of the Book, chapter and verse, that uses the word stranger. Simultaneously they deflected any negative onus from the "Jews," equating them with the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, which they are not.
A good example is found in Isaiah 56 where the Masoretes changed the Septuagint's Greek word for a kinsman stranger, "allogenes," to the counterpart of a Hebrew word that refers to the Serpent's seed who have no kinsman Redeemer. They used the Hebrew "nokriy," an alien, non-Adamic racial stranger, rather then the proper Hebrew word "ger" which describes a kinsman stranger, coordinates with "allogenes" in the Septuagint, and is an acceptable stranger!
The use of the word "nokriy" in this verse implies that God had accepted Cain and demands that the Israelites accept and respect this Cainite "stranger" whereas God had told Israel to utterly slay them whenever they were found in the Promised Land (Deuteronomy 7). And God told Moses that if Israel did not utterly destroy them He would do unto Israel as He thought to do unto them (Numbers 33:55-56). Whereas the Septuagint stated it correctly, the Masoretic Text changed it to accommodate the "Jews" who knew that they were themselves "nokriy"!
A complete reversal of the purpose of God resulted from the Masoretes injecting this wrong word in Isaiah, and Strong's failure to take his research back to the Septuagint Greek or original Hebrew text.
Some classes of "stranger" such as the "nokriy" or the "zuwr" are not to be married. On their return from Babylonian captivity Ezra commanded the Israelites to put away their Serpent seed (nokriy) wives and any children born of them (Ezra 9-10). Study these chapters which confirm Genesis 6:1-4 and demonstrate that the children of a nokriy woman by an Adamic man will be nokriy (i.e. Serpent's seed), and that the wife Noah brought through the Flood with him was Serpent's seed and not the mother of his three sons.
Multiculturalism is an outworking of the perversion of God's Word by the Masoretes. The unfortunate fact that English has only one word for stranger made us vulnerable to this false doctrine spread by the Judeo-Christian churches. The sin of miscegenation, a violation of God's Law and once a crime, is now almost mandatory.
It is important we recognize the bias and distortions that have crept undetected into the letter of the Bible, and identify the clever children of Cain who have perpetrated this blasphemy. Today we are reaping the whirlwind of poor scholarship, yet most Bible students persist with errors, like holding that the King James Version of the Bible is especially inspired or taking the words Brother Branham spoke without taking them back to Scripture and entering into the same Spirit as the Prophet to understand what he meant. For "precept must be upon precept, and line upon line."
Outside influences have changed our Bibles and our doctrines to deflect our focus from the true faith. Praise God for sending us a prophet with THUS SAITH THE LORD in these last days whose ministry restored the apostolic faith and finished the mystery of God. nl205.htm
'The Council of Trent (AD1545-1563) was the first official proclamation of the Roman Catholic Church on the Apocrypha, and it came a millennium and a half after the books were written, in an obvious polemic against Protestantism. Furthermore, the addition of books that support "salvation by works" and "prayers for the dead," only twenty-nine years after Luther had posted his Ninety-five Theses, is highly suspect' (Geisler/Nix, p. 172) 'It had been quoted against Luther in support of the Roman Catholic position (e.g. II Maccabees 12:45-46, which favors prayers for the dead), and then added a few years later in a counter-Reformation attempt to refute Luther' (p. 176). And we need to note that the Roman Catholic Church did not accept "all" of the Apocrypha. Only 12 of the 15 books were accepted, and at least one of these omitted books (II Esdras) is AGAINST prayers for the dead (II Esdras 7:105).
Now this presents an interesting dilemma for the advocates of the idea that: "The Catholic Church edited and removed books from the Bible". If that is true, then why do Catholic Bibles have more books in them than other translations? How can the charge of "removing books from the Bible" be seriously entertained when the facts are that Bibles used in the Catholic Church contain more books and not less books than Bibles used in non-Catholic churches?
Nevertheless, because the Apocrypha is not Scripture does not mean that it possesses no value. It provides a most valuable source of information about the history and religion of the "Jewish" nation in the period between both Testaments.
In the Septuagint and Vulgate canons the Apocrypha is integrated with the other books of the Old Testament. And even the first Protestant Bibles and the original King James Version did not omit them. However the King James Version translators moved these books to the end of the Old Testament, setting them off as questionable, because like the other early Protestant Bibles it was based upon the Hebrew Masoretic Text, which excises all of these books, as well as the extended portions of Daniel and Esther. The most basic, most original source of Scripture is the Septuagint, used and authenticated by Jesus and His disciples, and written in the international language of the day. This proves that some of the words we find in the Old Testament today are substitutes.
The Jewish Massoretes well knew what they were doing to the Septuagint when they used it for the basis of their "New Hebrew," Masoretic Text - even to omitting over one third of the Book - selectively editing it over the centuries.
So many take the current corrupted Masoretic Text as being the true Old Testament and the basis for all following translations and editions. Even Strong's Concordance, thought to be properly and cohesively edited, did NOT resort to the Septuagint for confirmation of proper word use, by comparing the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text with ancient Hebrew or with the Greek language used in the Septuagint. They simply accepted the Masoretic Text as always valid - when it is not!
The substitution or mis-application of words is evident, for example, when we examine the use of one common English word, "stranger" for many different Greek and Hebrew words.
Both the Greek and Hebrew words for the "stranger" are found to be similar in nature and characterization, and at least four primary root words with several other adverbs are found in both languages.
Each word is distinctive, clearly defining the "stranger's" relationship to the Israelites, which in some cases, was detrimental, and an association was forbidden. Brother Branham explained this in his exposition of original sin and the Serpent's seed.
This becomes very clear when each Greek and Hebrew word describing a "type" of stranger is analyzed, as it defined racial aspects and foreign or alien characteristics, genetic and historical associations, particularly the physical Serpent's seed. For the sceptics, this is another of many proofs that the physical Serpent seed did come through the Flood in Noah's ark as taught by Moses, Jesus and Brother Branham.
Study the various Greek and Hebrew definitions for our word "stranger", in Strong's Concordance and you will discover that the present-day fuzzy logic of the English word "stranger" pushed by Judeo-Christian churches has paved the way for the promotion and celebration of diversity and multiculturalism, a euphemism for multi-racialism, which is accursed of God.
Because, and significantly, English has only one word to describe the "stranger", and it refers to someone unknown who should be accepted at face value, treated fairly, offered hospitality, given the run of the house and the nation, and accepted for what he is, regardless of his background, genetic makeup or religion. But this is NOT what the Bible teaches in the original tongues in either the Old or New Testaments.
This understanding is absolutely contrary to Bible teaching despite perceived New Testament contradictions. Even English from Greek translations lose these different Greek definitions of a stranger, because there were no other English words that could be used to distinguish racial, genetic strangers such as the Serpent's seed from foreign aliens and from kindred who were strangers.
So today non-Christians goad Christians by asserting that to be "Christian" one must welcome all strangers and give them our best. But we are wrong to do so. God is very clear in distinguishing various classes of "stranger". Strong's lexicon has encouraged the error because they failed to compare the several Greek words for strangers to the Hebrew used by the cunning Masoretes. When it suited their purposes the Masoretes changed the type of stranger as one not to be associated with for one that could be affiliated, thus changing the entire meaning of the Book, chapter and verse, that uses the word stranger. Simultaneously they deflected any negative onus from the "Jews," equating them with the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, which they are not.
A good example is found in Isaiah 56 where the Masoretes changed the Septuagint's Greek word for a kinsman stranger, "allogenes," to the counterpart of a Hebrew word that refers to the Serpent's seed who have no kinsman Redeemer. They used the Hebrew "nokriy," an alien, non-Adamic racial stranger, rather then the proper Hebrew word "ger" which describes a kinsman stranger, coordinates with "allogenes" in the Septuagint, and is an acceptable stranger!
The use of the word "nokriy" in this verse implies that God had accepted Cain and demands that the Israelites accept and respect this Cainite "stranger" whereas God had told Israel to utterly slay them whenever they were found in the Promised Land (Deuteronomy 7). And God told Moses that if Israel did not utterly destroy them He would do unto Israel as He thought to do unto them (Numbers 33:55-56). Whereas the Septuagint stated it correctly, the Masoretic Text changed it to accommodate the "Jews" who knew that they were themselves "nokriy"!
A complete reversal of the purpose of God resulted from the Masoretes injecting this wrong word in Isaiah, and Strong's failure to take his research back to the Septuagint Greek or original Hebrew text.
Some classes of "stranger" such as the "nokriy" or the "zuwr" are not to be married. On their return from Babylonian captivity Ezra commanded the Israelites to put away their Serpent seed (nokriy) wives and any children born of them (Ezra 9-10). Study these chapters which confirm Genesis 6:1-4 and demonstrate that the children of a nokriy woman by an Adamic man will be nokriy (i.e. Serpent's seed), and that the wife Noah brought through the Flood with him was Serpent's seed and not the mother of his three sons.
Multiculturalism is an outworking of the perversion of God's Word by the Masoretes. The unfortunate fact that English has only one word for stranger made us vulnerable to this false doctrine spread by the Judeo-Christian churches. The sin of miscegenation, a violation of God's Law and once a crime, is now almost mandatory.
It is important we recognize the bias and distortions that have crept undetected into the letter of the Bible, and identify the clever children of Cain who have perpetrated this blasphemy. Today we are reaping the whirlwind of poor scholarship, yet most Bible students persist with errors, like holding that the King James Version of the Bible is especially inspired or taking the words Brother Branham spoke without taking them back to Scripture and entering into the same Spirit as the Prophet to understand what he meant. For "precept must be upon precept, and line upon line."
Outside influences have changed our Bibles and our doctrines to deflect our focus from the true faith. Praise God for sending us a prophet with THUS SAITH THE LORD in these last days whose ministry restored the apostolic faith and finished the mystery of God. nl205.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment