Tag Info

There are no direct quotes, at least, not in the sense that, for example, Isaiah is quoted, but there are certainly several allusions and parallel passages. Here is a list of some of them from both NT and OT (and yes, I am well aware that some of those are debatable). As to "other books quoting them," it should be noted that neither Song of Songs, Esther, ...

A more ecumenical answer: They weren't considered equal because they had been considered of dubious origin for quite some time. Back when the Vulgate was being put together Jerome made the points that The original Hebrew for those texts could no longer be found* Jews of the late first century onward did not consider them canonical. Others in the Church ...

These books of the Bible were accepted as part of the canon (part of the Bible). These books have been around for a long time. First of all, the books called apocrypha are related to the Old Testament. The New Testament is accepted with its 27 books among the major Christianity branches (Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals). The Old Testament Canon was ...

I think the other answers so far are missing the force of the question. Obviously we wouldn't include something in the canon just because it was found in the dead sea scrolls, or because it was written in Hebrew. But finding older, Hebrew-language copies of a text (Sirach, for example) whose canonicity is already in dispute could be an argument in its favor. ...

It should be noted that the Apocrypha is still included in the Catholic versions of the Bible. They are just omitted in Protestant Bibles. As David Laberge pointed out, these books were never recognized by the Jews as being authoritative or on the same level as Scripture. The 1611 version of the King James Bible--which was widely used by Catholic and ...

The Dead Sea Scroll find was not so much finding a copy of a book as it was finding a library. The texts found included canonical, deuterocanonical, apocraphal and other unrelated works from the time. The find had significant implications for dating other texts and verifying the integrity of some manuscripts, but did not hold any implications for the scope ...

I'm hesitant to give an across-the-board answer, but there is a well-established principle in understanding Scripture that applies somewhat here. It was included in an earlier answer of mine addressing the question of what we are to take literally as opposed to figuratively in Scripture, from a Fundamentalist standpoint. First: [Because the Bible is ...

I think sometimes Protestants confuse the infallibility of the Bible with the Bible being the source of the Truth in describes. Truth is not Truth because its in the Bible. Truth is in the Bible because it it Truth. And just because something is not in the Bible doesn't make it not Truth. All humans have an inherent inkling of Truth "written on our ...

No, the Dead Sea Scrolls have no effect on the Protestant view of Old Testament canon. Let's take a look at what different books are included: Old Testament (protocanonical) books Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah etc. Deuterocanonical books Letter of Jeremiah, Wisdom of Sirach etc. Other writings Book of Noah Book of Giants Testament of Naphtali Community ...

The scripture records the thoughts of God and at times that includes referencing the opinions of men. When God refers to our thoughts it makes them no better, it only means God condescends to us through his word. For those who believe that the words of scripture are actually chosen words of God, no writing can be compared to scripture. The Bible is a book ...