None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration. Most of them confessed non-inspiration.

In the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, the writer states: '' you are intreated therefore to read with favour and attention and to pardon us if in any parts of what we have laboured to interprete, we may seem to fail in some of the phrases''
this above quote goes to show that the writer were nt inspired.

The apocrypha books also support the use of magic and other occultic practices which cannot be attributed to God.

Let me start from the title of this thread and that of the link you provided,
the other thread said" the catholic church did not give us the bible" while your thread read thus " the false and heretic apocryphal books added by the roman catholic church"

Can you tell me how and when the catholic church added the apocrypha to the bible?
Give an instance of any bible that pre-dated the catholic bible without the apocrypha.

Ukuts gp: None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration. Most of them confessed non-inspiration.

In the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, the writer states: '' you are intreated therefore to read with favour and attention and to pardon us if in any parts of what we have laboured to interprete, we may seem to fail in some of the phrases''
this above quote goes to show that the writer were nt inspired.

Was the above written by the writer or the translator?

Ukuts gp: The apocrypha books also support the use of magic and other occultic practices which cannot be attributed to God.

Refrence please.

Ukuts gp: None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration. Most of them confessed non-inspiration.

In the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, the writer states: '' you are intreated therefore to read with favour and attention and to pardon us if in any parts of what we have laboured to interprete, we may seem to fail in some of the phrases''
this above quote goes to show that the writer were nt inspired.

It's a free world. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just as some people will say that the whole of the bible is a big lie and will go further to prove their views with references to books and all what not.

How do you know that the bible you are using is not a fraud? Because the early christians told you so and your church is using it to teach you.

For you to come here and try to condemn the same people that brought you all these christianity thing is quite sad indeed.

Let me ask you one question.

You probably use the King James Version of the bible. Ask your self this. KJV of what? Do you know where the original is? Have you seen it before? Between the version and the authentic which do you think will be the real deal?

Why will someone make a version of the authetic product and then turn round and call theirs the real mcCoy especially when you remember the history of King James and the Catholic Church

Sal C: Was the above written by the writer or the translator?

y do u tink it is nt d writer

Demain_man:

It's a free world. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just as some people will say that the whole of the bible is a big lie and will go further to prove their views with references to books and all what not.

How do you know that the bible you are using is not a fraud? Because the early christians told you so and your church is using it to teach you.

For you to come here and try to condemn the same people that brought you all these christianity thing is quite sad indeed.

Let me ask you one question.

You probably use the King James Version of the bible. Ask your self this. KJV of what? Do you know where the original is? Have you seen it before? Between the version and the authentic which do you think will be the real deal?

Why will someone make a version of the authetic product and then turn round and call theirs the real mcCoy especially when you remember the history of King James and the Catholic Church

the catholic cant claim they wrote the bible. None of the writer of the bible came from rome. Roman catholic have nothing to do with the bible. The jew where the ones who canonise the old testament scripture. ever before the roman catholic was born the scripture have been in use by jew in their synagogue. Even jesus read the scripture in the synagogue

Ukuts gp: y do u tink it is nt d writer

Are you putting words into my mouth. I only asked a question, if you give an answer to my question, i will either agree or disagree and tell you why.
*waiting*

Double post

Ukuts gp: the catholic cant claim they wrote the bible. None of the writer of the bible came from rome. Roman catholic have nothing to do with the bible. The jew where the ones who canonise the old testament scripture. ever before the roman catholic was born the scripture have been in use by jew in their synagogue. Even jesus read the scripture in the synagogue

And the new testament?

Sal C: Refrence please.

the apocrypha describes magical portions which are alleged to drive away demons.
Tobit 6:1-17. This support occultic practices contrary to God's standard

There were scrolls yes. there was no bible yes. The Catholic church canonised the different scrolls and named them and they became a collection of scrolls called BIBLE.

Up to this age more inspired writings are still been discovered by archeologist. These writings contain word of God too but were not found when the bible was been compiled and so could not be used.

So ask yourself this question. Why don't you use this new word of GOD that are being found?

Demain_man: There were scrolls yes. there was no bible yes. The Catholic church canonised the different scrolls and named them and they became a collection of scrolls called BIBLE.

Up to this age more inspired writings are still been discovered by archeologist. These writings contain word of God too but were not found when the bible was been compiled and so could not be used.

So ask yourself this question. Why don't you use this new word of GOD that are been found?

Because the Catholic Church has closed the canon.

Some of the teachings in those books are immoral. In Judith 9:10, 13, it says God assisted judith in the telling of lies. The apocrypha books of Ecclesiasticus and wisdom of solomon teaches that morality is based on expedience. In otherwords, according to these books it is right to sin in some situations.

Ukuts gp: the apocrypha describes magical portions which are alleged to drive away demons.
Tobit 6:1-17. This support occultic practices contrary to God's standard

I suppose you are talking about the liver and gall bladder of fish and i don't see anything magical about it, except you want us to believe that Jesus Christ using mud to cure the blind was also a form of magic.

Ukuts gp: the apocrypha describes magical portions which are alleged to drive away demons.
Tobit 6:1-17. This support occultic practices contrary to God's standard

What is magical and occultic about it?

Why did the KJ Bible initially have the deuterocanonical books if they supported evil?

My questions are still unanswered.

Ukuts gp: Some of the teachings in those books are immoral. In Judith 9:10, 13, it says God assisted judith in the telling of lies. The apocrypha books of Ecclesiasticus and wisdom of solomon teaches that morality is based on expedience. In otherwords, according to these books it is right to sin in some situations.

Did God not assist your FATHER Abraham in telling lies too? Is that not immoral? SMH for you

The funny thing is that most of the Christian celebrations (Christmas, easter etc) have paganism origin (the whiteman religion before sef was paganism) yet they 'christians' celebrate it. And now they claim that Catholic Church they use magic

Paganism no be magic?

Demain_man:

Did God not assist your FATHER Abraham in telling lies too? Is that not immoral? SMH for you

where do u get that demonic idea from

Ukuts gp: where do u get that demonic idea from

When asked whose wife Sarah was what was your FATHER Abraham reply? This boy/man, you dey read your bible so? or you just come here just to argue blindly?

Did God rebuke Abraham for that lie?

Ukuts gp: Some of the teachings in those books are immoral. In Judith 9:10, 13, it says God assisted judith in the telling of lies. The apocrypha books of Ecclesiasticus and wisdom of solomon teaches that morality is based on expedience. In otherwords, according to these books it is right to sin in some situations.

Study 1kings 22 concentrate on verse 22 and see how God helped 400 of his prophets tell lies.
According to you that book is false and heretic right?

Demain_man: The funny thing is that most of the Christian celebrations (Christmas, easter etc) have paganism origin (the whiteman religion before sef was paganism) yet they 'christians' celebrate it. And now they claim that Catholic Church they use magic

Paganism no be magic?

magic is satanic and devilish. We dnt practice paganism, if u people are pagans good for u. We follow christ. Our focus is in christ.

italo:

What is magical and occultic about it?

Why did the KJ Bible initially have the deuterocanonical books if they supported evil?

my king jame have none of this books. No king james have those books. ur statement is false

Sal C: Are you putting words into my mouth. I only asked a question, if you give an answer to my question, i will either agree or disagree and tell you why.
*waiting*

it was the writer period

Sal C: Are you putting words into my mouth. I only asked a question, if you give an answer to my question, i will either agree or disagree and tell you why.
*waiting*

it was the writer who made that statement

Sal C: Study 1kings 22 concentrate on verse 22 and see how God helped 400 of his prophets tell lies.
According to you that book is false and heretic right?

are u telling me now that God support lying

Demain_man:

When asked whose wife Sarah was what was your FATHER Abraham reply? This boy/man, you dey read your bible so? or you just come here just to argue blindly?

Did God rebuke Abraham for that lie?

so that scripture tells u dat God was the one who helped Abraham tell lies when God himself condemned lying. So God was contradicting himself abi. And when u look at it closely u will really finds out that sarah was Abraham's sister.

Sal C: I suppose you are talking about the liver and gall bladder of fish and i don't see anything magical about it, except you want us to believe that Jesus Christ using mud to cure the blind was also a form of magic.

open ur eyes and read it very well

Ukuts gp: None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration. Most of them confessed non-inspiration.

In the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, the writer states: '' you are intreated therefore to read with favour and attention and to pardon us if in any parts of what we have laboured to interprete, we may seem to fail in some of the phrases''
this above quote goes to show that the writer were nt inspired.

Now the prologue was not written by the writer but the translators likewise any other book of the bible. The use of "pardon us" in the prologue show that the translation was not done by one person. The word 'interprete' shows the prologue was written by the translator/ interpreters.
Or is it possible to interprete what does not exist?

Ukuts gp: my king jame have none of this books. No king james have those books. ur statement is false

Make research and verify if the first translation of kjv has apocrypha and why.