The word "monogenes" is often translated "only begotten," based on breaking it down into the part "mono" meaning one or only and "genes" which is assumed to come from the word meaning to beget. However, it is quite possible for "genes" to have nothing to do with begetting, and instead simply mean "kind." There are those who think that "monogenes" would be better translated "one of a kind." Rather than Jacob/Jesus being the only begotten son of Abraham/God, it may just mean that he is a very special son that is valued above all others.
---
Young Literal Translation is definitely a better rendering of Genesis 1:1. It is important to remember that bible verses are rarely complete sentences. Genesis 1:1 does not stand alone and does not describe the act of creation at all, but only the timing of Genesis 1:2.
It is certainly an ancient Judeo-Christian doctrine that God created the entire universe ex nihilo, but this is not based on Genesis.
Augustine denied that the Genesis account was about actually creating out of nothing, on the grounds that Sirach 18:1 states "He who lives forever created all things at the same time."
Maimonides clearly taught that ex nihilo creation of all matter in the universe happened in a single instant that preceded the Genesis account of how God took 6 days to form that matter into the world that we know today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha
I think my version has Jeremiah and Ecclesiasticus, but no Maccabees, Esdras, Tobit, Judith, or Prayer of Manasses. Not sure about the Daniel passages.
So confusing!
Pretty sure the Song of Susanna is a Stephen King novel heh
I suspect you just have the standard protestant canon. That does not contain Ecclesiasticus, but merely Ecclesiastes. Those are very different books despite the similar name.
Ecclesiasticus just means "church book" and is a nickname given to the book because it was quoted in homilies so often during the middle ages. Its proper name in the Latin Vulgate was "Liber Iesu filii Sirach" ("Book of Joshua Son of Sirach"). It sometimes is called the Wisdom of Sirach, the Proverbs of Sirach, or "The Book of the All-Virtuous Wisdom of Joshua ben Sira." The second century BC Jewish scribe named Yehoshua ben Sira may have written these ethical teachings, but it seems more likely that he merely compiled them from older sources. The original Hebrew text has been lost (although fragments were found with the Dead Sea Scrolls), but we still have the Greek translation made by the author's grandson. (I personally quite like most of the portions of this book which I have read and consider it more authoritative than most of the apocrypha. It is quite possible that some of ben Sira's sources were not nearly as good as others though.)
Jeremiah is in the standard bible, but what we generally think of as that book today is only a fraction of that the ancients considered it to be. The book of Lamentations, also called the Lamentations of Jeremiah, was included in it too. Jeremiah wrote through a scribe named Baruch, who is sometimes considered to be a prophet in his own right. He continued writing after his master's death, and his writings were typically all grouped together with Jeremiah too. (I generally like what I have read in the book of Baruch.)
Similarly, Nehemiah acted as the scribe of Ezra. What we now consider the separate books of Exra and Nehemiah were traditionally combined as a single book called Ezra or Esdras, which was latter split in two. 1 & 2 (or 3 & 4) Esdras were basically sequels to this. (I have not read them so I cannot give a strong opinion.) Ethiopian churches have even more sequels to Ezra, which no one else takes seriously.
It seems kind of hard to reject the book of Wisdom without also rejecting the Gospel of John, as the latter draws so heavily from the former. Unless you consider Wisdom chapter 2 to be contain prophecy, then it is clear that John's account of the trial of Jesus plagiarized this apocryphal text. The Wisdom of Solomon (which incidentally was definitely not written by Solomon, or within centuries of his lifetime, or in a language he would have spoken) was very important for developing Logos Theology (as was Sirach). (Philo of Alexandria basically just switched the grammatically feminine word for Wisdom to the grammatically masculine word Logos in order to make a connection between Wisdom and the Messiah.)
I do not think highly at all of the Apocryphal portions of Daniel. When I read them in the Vulgate I found such an abrupt change to a simpler and inferior writing style that I could not take them seriously. The part about The Idol Bel and the Dragon seems particularly preposterous. It involves Daniel slaying a dragon, which upsets the priests that worship this beast. Story of Susanna is about girl whom a couple older men tried to rape and then falsely accuse of sexual immorality in order to have her killed. Daniel served as the judge, found her innocent, and had the false witnesses punished. Song of the Three Children is just a basic song a praise, of no great significance.
Tobit and Judith are obviously work of fiction, and not even particularly good fiction. They are religiously themes novels that are full of anachronisms and have superstitious elements that conflict with things Christ taught. I cannot take them seriously.
I don't think highly of the additions to Esther that are never found in the Hebrew either.
No one really takes the Prayer of Manasses seriously. It is a nice enough sounding prayer, but it is odd for it to be given by such a wicked king, and it is not found in any Hebrew manuscripts or even most Greek ones.
I tend to think that 1 Maccabees is a very good historical document for the time period. It provides valuable background information, but has no really significant theological implications. While we do not have any Hebrew original, the Greek version has enough Hebrew idioms and a good enough understanding of the geography of Israel to believe it was written in Hebrew in Israel.
2 Maccabees is full of Greek idioms, shows a poor understanding of Geography, and is mostly focused on reinterpreting historical events to fit the Pharisaic worldview. It seems to be mostly quoted to support the idea of praying for souls in purgatory, but it really fails at even that. I do not think it is of much value.
I do not have any English language bibles that contain the deuterocannon, so most of it that I have read I have read only in Latin.
Edit: I just realized that actually do have an (Early Modern) English Language Apocrypha in my facsimile of the original 1611 edition of the King James Version. I guess I can read books like "I & II Efdras," "Judeth," "Ecclefiafticus," and the "Wifedome of Solomon."
(I know those are long Ss rather than Fs, but they are not at all the most significant differences in orthographical conventions. My grandfather specifically got these facsimiles because they were hard to read; several people at his church were KJV-only types who insisted that we should stick to the 1611 version, and he wanted to see how quickly they would change their mind when they got headaches trying to make any sense of the text they idolized. I myself generally don't have that much trouble with the non standard spelling and orthography, but I find the lack of page numbers really annoying. I usually prefer to stick with Latin.)
Well it hardly is the worst that happens in the bible. For example in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul (or Peter, don't recall now) asks some financial help from a wealthy couple for his attempt to establish christianity in their region. The couple accept to give him the help, and say that they gave a significant part of their fortune.
It turns out though that they only gave a smaller part of their fortune, so they instantly fall dead, iirc with the apostle scolding them just before they die.
The story in question does not begin with an apostle asking for financial help for expanding into a new region. This was when the Church was still isolated to the city of Jerusalem. It begins by stating how the early church members was so generous that the rich freely volunteered whatever they had which was needed in order to help their poor brethren.
It then goes on to specifically mention how Barnabas freely chose to sell all of his land and give the entire the proceeds to the church. (It may be worth noting that Barnabas was from the tribe of Levi, and that the Law of Moses strictly forbids Levites from owning any land. For Barnabas being a landowner was sinful, and giving the proceeds can be seen as an act of penance. There was nothing wrong with non-Levites owning land though.)
Ananias and his wife Sapphira saw how popular this made Barnabas and were jealous. They wanted the social status this gained him, but without loosing all that money. They thus sold their land and donated part of the proceeds, keeping some but claiming that they were giving all.
Peter specifically told them that the land was their property and that there would have been nothing wrong with keeping it or with keeping the proceeds of the sale. The sin here was they they specifically tried to deceive God/ the church in order to make themselves look more generous and holy than they really were. It is also possible that by claiming to give so much they expected others to share more with them than they really needed. There would have been nothing but praise had they honestly claimed to be donating only a portion of their wealth.
They were given opportunities to confess, but instead lied about it. Sapphira did so even after she saw her husband dead.
It stills seems like an major overreaction, but it is not quite as bad as you portray it.
When you get to acts it's all explained. According to the gospel's and acts, after Jesus rose from the dead and before he ascended into heaven he promised the 12 apostles that God would send a helper to them called the spirit. Then later in acts during the feast of Pentecost this spirit descended and caused them all to proclaim Jesus in a whole bunch of languages, which is where speaking in tongues comes from. The holy spirit didn't exist before then, just like Christ didn't exist in the old testament except as a prophesy. The holy spirit then is basically a spiritual extension of God and Christ that comes to earth to give spiritual guidance to the followers.
Christians have traditionally viewed all three persons of the Trinity as co-eternal. The Paracletes (that term is used to describe both Christ and the Holy Spirit) existed long before they came to Earth. It is also quite common to believe that frequent Old Testament mentions of "The Angel of the Lord" are actually Christophanies, non-physical pre-incarnate manifestations of the second person of the trinity. The Gospel of John identifies Jesus with the Logos, and claims that all things were created though the Logos. Christ must have existed from the beginning, long before the incarnation as Jesus.
There no indication either way as to whether or not they went to heaven or hell. The only thing we can go on is what the Bible does say - those who put their trust in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins go to heaven; those who don't, don't.
When this was written Christians had not yet come to believe in such notions as the soul going to heaven or hell after death based on whether they trusted in Christ.
They believed that we all go to Hades to wait for the Bodily Resurrection on Judgement Day. When Christ returns he shall judge everyone, deciding who should be granted eternal life (not in heaven but on the New Earth) and who should go unto the second death.
It may also be worth noting that Jesus said that those who do things worthy of punishment but do not realize that they are doing wrong with receive only light punishment, while those who willfully sin in full knowledge that it is wrong will be shown no such clemency. This may imply that at least those who never heard of Christ yet still tried to be good may be offered a chance at salvation after they die.
The only persons who are explicitly damned in scripture are those hypocrites who claim to follow Christ yet whose actions show a lack of Christian Love.
