For Heaven's Sake by Mike Morgan for November 22, 2010

  1. Fred fredburger2
    rook0719  over 13 years ago

    A radiologist IS a physician…..

     •  Reply
  2. Images
    Sugie63  over 13 years ago

    God gives us the brains to figure out how to help people. So miracles are still happening through us .

     •  Reply
  3. Yellow pig small
    bmonk  over 13 years ago

    But the outlay for seeing the Great Physician is rather less than the rest of the staff…

     •  Reply
  4. Missing large
    ponytail56  over 13 years ago

    He forgot about the healing power of God

     •  Reply
  5. Triopia logo
    ChuckTrent64  over 13 years ago

    All those people need to be prayed for too.

     •  Reply
  6. Hp scands 7121620245952
    LoisG Premium Member over 13 years ago

    Honor a physician with the honor due unto him for the uses which you may have of him. For the Lord has created him. For from the most High comes healing, and he shall receive honor of the king. The skill of the physician shall lift up his head. And in the sight of great men, he shall be in admiration. The Lord has created medicines out of the earth. And he that is wise will not abhor them. Was not the water made sweet with wood, that the virtue thereof might be known? And He has given men skill, that He might be honored in His marvelous works. With such does He heal men, and takes away their pains. Of such does the apothecary make a confection. And of His works there is no end. And from Him is peace over all the earth. My son, in your sickness, be not negligent. But pray unto the Lord, and He will make you whole. Leave off from sin, and order your hands to do right, and cleanse your heart from all wickedness. Give a sweet savor and a memorial of the flour, and make a fat offering, as not being. Then give place to the physician for the Lord has created him. Let him not go from you, for you have need of him. There is a time when, in their hands, there is good success. For they shall also pray unto the Lord, that He would prosper that which they give for ease and remedy to prolong life.

    Ecclesiasticus 38:1-14

    Ecclesiasticus is one of the books of the Apocrypha. When Bibles first began to be printed on printing presses rather than by hand, the first Bibles included the books of the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments. The first Authorized King James Bible printed in 1611, as well as Luther’s translation and many other Bible translations which were popular during the beginning of the Reformation era, included the books of the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments.

     •  Reply
  7. Yellow pig small
    bmonk  over 13 years ago

    It depends whose Bible it is, Lois. The Catholic and Orthodox communions simply include it as part of the Old Testament, since it was part of the Greek OT they received, the Septuagint. It was only in the Reformation that the Greek books not in the Hebrew Scriptures (including parts of some books, like Daniel) were separated out into the Apocrypha.

     •  Reply
  8. Hp scands 7121620245952
    LoisG Premium Member over 13 years ago

    Yes, in the handwritten versions, the books of the Apocrypha were included as part of the Old Testament. It was not until books began to be printed with printing presses that the books of the Apocrypha were separated out into their own section and became a special section included between the Old and New Testaments.

    The practice of separating the deuterocanonical material and placing them between the Old and New Testaments was a precedent established by Jerome, translator of the Latin Vulgate Version. Although Jerome left the books of the Apocrypha scattered throughout the Old Testament, as they were placed in the Greek version of the Jewish Bible, called the Septuagint, Jerome noted that those books were not in the Hebrew Bible. In Luther’s translation of the German Bible in 1534, Luther took the hint which Jerome had dropped eleven hundred years before, and began to separate the books of the Apocrypha into a special section, printed between the Old and New Testaments.

    Though not accepted by Protestants as a basis for the establishment of doctrine, and rejected by many scholars because they did not form part of the Hebrew Bible, and most of them have never been found in any Hebrew forms at all, there were still Protestant groups who recognized the books of the Apocrypha as instructive and edifying. Because of their antiquity, these books were included not only in the King James Version, but also in Martin Luther’s German version, and in most translations which were popular at the time of the Reformation. It was Jerome who, about A.D. 400, called the books the Apocrypha, which means the hidden or secret books.

    It did not become a widespread practice to print Bible in which the books of the Apocrypha did not appear at all until about 1827.

    I personally find that it is a shame that so many modern Bibles do not include such astute observations as the thoughts presented in Ecclesiasticus about the importance of physicians and, especially, the observation, that the ability to use medicines to heal as well as the ability to recognize which products of the earth DO have healing properties are God-given gifts which should NOT be overlooked or disregarded.

    Pray, get your life in order, and then TAKE your doctor’s advice - because the Lord has created your doctor and given him the knowledge and experience needed to do what is best for your health! A lot of people would benefit today from remembering that!

     •  Reply
  9. Celtic cross3
    DerekA  over 13 years ago

    I must disagree, about what is being discussed concerning the Apocrypha. The information is not factual and I would suggest reading the information at the following link :

    I believe if anyone is wanting to know actual history it is better to refer to the source documents rather than generalities. You will find excellent end notes supporting the author’s quotations.

     •  Reply
  10. Celtic cross3
    DerekA  over 13 years ago

    I case you do not want to follow the link - I will add the final summary here:

    “The canonical Scriptures are God’s inspired revelation to man. This is the testimony of the Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ. As such, they alone are authoritative in all matters of faith. Rome claims that the Apocrypha should be considered a part of the Old Testament canon as inspired revelation because the Jews did not have a closed canon and this has been the overall view of the Church from the very beginning of the Church age. But Rome’s claims for the canon cannot be supported historically. The survey of the historical evidence can be summed up in the following points:

    The Jews who were entrusted with the inspired Scriptures did not accept the Apocrypha as canonical. Jesus, in particular, did not quote from the Apocryphal books and he stated that the canonical Scriptures were comprised of the three fold division of the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. Many of the early Church fathers followed the Jewish canon in rejecting the Apocrypha from canonical status. The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were provincial Councils which did not have the authority to establish the canon for the Church as a whole. The book of Septuagint I Esdras which was decreed by Hippo and Carthage to be canonical was later rejected by the Council of Trent. The majority view of the leading theologians from the fifth century up to the time of the Reformation followed Jerome in denying the Apocrypha full canoniocal status. Gregory the Great, as the bishop of Rome, taught that the Apocrypha was not canonical. The official biblical commentary of the middle ages used for the training of all theologians taught that the Apocrypha, while useful for reading and edification, was not considered canonical and had no authority for establishing points of doctrine. It was not until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century that the canon was officially and authoritatively established for the Roman Catholic Church. The internal discrepancies which abound in certain books of the Apocrypha disqualify it as truly inspired and canonical. The historical facts demonstrate that Rome’s claims for the Apocrypha are false. They provide convincing evidence that her decrees on the canon, rather than affirming the universal practice of the Church through the ages, were, in fact, given in contradiction to the practice of both the Jews and the majority view of the Christian Church throughout both the patristic and middle ages.”

    Maybe it would be worth reading the article to get the facts and the supporting quotes.

     •  Reply
  11. Hp scands 7121620245952
    LoisG Premium Member over 13 years ago

    While Webster’s article was interesting, the bottom line is that many volumes have been written over the past several centuries which delve into the various controversies which have developed regarding the Apocryphal books. One of the most complete assortments of books dealing with the books of the Apocrypha is available through Christian Book Distributors. To be totally thorough, it would probably be necessary to read a number of these books before arriving at your own decisions regarding the centuries-old controversies regarding this group of books. It would be highly unlikely that the entire topic could be thoroughly covered by a single Internet article.

    A list of books available from Christian Book Distributors on the topic of the books of the Apocrypha can be found at the following link:

    Books of the Apocrypha from Christian Book Distributors

    Search for Apocrypha

    Also, a very interesting timeline regarding the history of the English Bible is available from The Great Site, which is connected with The Bible Museum and appears to be one of the largest dealers in antique and rare Bibles in this country and, quite possibly, in the world. As such, they have done a thorough study of the History of the English Bible and have had many of the original copies of those Bibles available, from which they have drawn their own conclusions.

    A fairly accurate time-line of the various printings of various Bibles can be found at the following link:

    Timeline of the English Bible From THE GREAT SITE

    Following is one of the points about the books of the Apocrypha which is made by the Timeline of the English Bible at the Great Site:

    “Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s! The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination. ”

     •  Reply
  12. Celtic cross3
    DerekA  over 13 years ago

    CBD? I used to buy from them back in the 70’s when it was owned by Jay Green. Now that is a source for mostly religious fluff - like the ad I got this past week for yet another Warren book.

    I find it interesting - to use your phrase - that you did not at least reference a book out of their academic catalog. But since they are really no longer a “Christian” distributor, it makes no difference.

    Further your comment “. It would be highly unlikely that the entire topic could be thoroughly covered by a single Internet article. ” Leads me to believe that although you wanted me to think you read the article - which is actually part of a 3 volume set of books containing a total of about 1100 pages - you dismiss as “a single internet article”.

    The point of the article is that neither Judaism, Rome nor the Protestants have ever considered the Apocrypha Inspired and therefore they are not canonical - any more than an index or concordance is. In fact all hold them to be “extracanonical. In 120 AD Rabbi Akiba stated that he who reads the “outside books” has no share in the age to come. Irenaeus accuses the Marcosians of supporting their errors by the witness “of apocryphal and illegitimate writings”. Origen’s writings are what made the word apocrypha synonymous with “false”. Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th century applied the term specifically to Jewish writings not contained in the Hebrew canon - he even counsels to avoid the apocrypha. Now Jerome is almost the only person supporting the books. All that said there was some discussion over some of the individual books but that does not change the overall tone of the Hebrew and early church fathers over the books. Now Jerome was smart enough to separate out these sections with marginal notes indicating they formed no part of the original texts. Read for edification? Yes - but not for support of ecclesiastical dogma. So if you continue to follow this thread all the way through to the English Bible, it was clearly understood as being without canonical authority denied the rank of scripture.

    Now we could about the relation to the LXX, but by now I would suggest you read the article or buy the set of books. William Webster is a former Roman Catholic and the 3 volume set is titled “Holy Scripture” with some of the volume co-authored by King.

    Your comment on the apocrypha being removed is sort of interesting - to use your word again - as if the Bible is the Inspired Word of God as help by previous Roman Councils - then why not remove the noncanonical books?

    Since you did not appear satisfied with one article - I offer the following and the second link is to a debate.

     •  Reply
  13. Sc000fe15a
    DebJ4  over 13 years ago

    Very useful information, Lois. Thanks for posting!

     •  Reply
  14. Sc00057a6901
    EstrelitaH  over 13 years ago

    Lois - thanks for all of the interesting research about Francis Turretin (1623–1687). I contacted Princeton Seminary about books by and about Turretin’s commentaries. They told me that, over the past several centuries, quite a number of books had been written about Turretin and his Biblical research. So, it seems to me that, in order to get at the meat of Turretin’s original intent, it would be necessary to read several books by and about Turretin and arrive at your own conclusion about the various observations which Turretin had to make. Just reading one commentary about Turretin’s Biblical research would seem to me to be sort of limiting.

    I rather liked the following observation about the various translations of the Bible, which I found when I visited The History of the English Bible at The Great - the web page for the Bible History Museum.

    “As Christians, we must be very careful to make intelligent and informed decisions about what translations of the Bible we choose to read. On the liberal extreme, we have people who would give us heretical new translations that attempt to change God’s Word to make it politically correct. One example of this, which has made headlines recently is the Today’s New International Version (T.N.I.V.) which seeks to remove all gender-specific references in the Bible whenever possible! Not all new translations are good… and some are very bad.

    But equally dangerous, is the other extreme… of blindly rejecting ANY English translation that was produced in the four centuries that have come after the 1611 King James. We must remember that the main purpose of the Protestant Reformation was to get the Bible out of the chains of being trapped in an ancient language that few could understand, and into the modern, spoken, conversational language of the present day. William Tyndale fought and died for the right to print the Bible in the common, spoken, modern English tongue of his day… as he boldly told one official who criticized his efforts, “If God spare my life, I will see to it that the boy who drives the plowshare knows more of the scripture than you, Sir!”

    Will we now go backwards, and seek to imprison God’s Word once again exclusively in ancient translations? Clearly it is not God’s will that we over-react to SOME of the bad modern translations, by rejecting ALL new translations and “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”. The Word of God is unchanging from generation to generation, but language is a dynamic and ever-changing form of communication. We therefore have a responsibility before God as Christians to make sure that each generation has a modern translation that they can easily understand, yet that does not sacrifice accuracy in any way. Let’s be ever mindful that we are not called to worship the Bible. That is called idolatry. We are called to worship the God who gave us the Bible, and who preserved it through the centuries of people who sought to destroy it.”

    Actually, there are several hundred Bible Museums scattered throughout the United States and Europe. I checked with several of them and they, also, state that Bibles printed before 1880 included the books of the Apocrypha. It seems to me that if all of the Reformers had access to the books of the Apocrypha and still engaged in very beneficial ministries, that it would likewise be possible for others to do so in 2010!

    I found that The American Bible Society has a low-cost copy available of the King James Version of the books of the Apocrypha. However, I also rather liked the translation of the Apocrypha which was translated by Edgar J. Goodspeed. Goodspeed’s translation, with the exception of the Latin II Esdras, is based entirely upon the Greek text.

    Again, this has been a most interesting topic. Thank you for bringing it up!

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment