The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube


From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Please observe discussion policy and use talk pages only for reviewing articles.

why aren't any of the apocrealy books like enoch linked here in a diffrent table or the books the catholics have that prostenstas don't?? unsigned comment by Montana (talkcontribs)

The books of the Apocrypha are part of this article, and an answer to your question as to why they are not considered part of the Bible is included. Karajou 08:31, 25 November 2007 (EST)
"Original manuscripts can be found in the oldest written languages on Earth, and it also contains one of the longest running genealogical sequence known to exist, spanning approximately 4,000 years."
No original manuscript exists for any ancient literature.--Tsommer (Tony) 18:26, 30 April 2012 (PDT)
Well, the Apocrypha for the most part aren't seen from the Dead Sea Scrolls - with two exceptions. 1 Enoch and Jubilees had numerous copies found from the Dead Sea Scrolls, 25 and 21 respectively.
Furthermore, the book of Jude makes a quote similar to the book of Enoch, further complicating things. If preservation is to be considered a proof of inspiration, those two books might merit further examination. Otherwise though, I don't think the Apocrypha show any signs of inspiration, and even 1 Enoch may not be entirely preserved (missing chapters); suggesting if there was a factual core, it may have been added to later. It is interesting that the number of preserved manuscripts for those two books is right up there with Genesis, Isaiah, Exodus, and Leviticus though, at least from the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, 1 Enoch was considered lost for centuries until its recent rediscovery.
Both 1 Enoch and Jubilees are excluded from the Hebrew Bible canon, the Tanakh.
--Jzyehoshua 03:10, 3 May 2012 (PDT)

As with the "Biblical canon" article, I am wondering if I could submit a revision of the "Bible" article for everyone's consideration. This is not meant to denigrate anyone's efforts thus far, just to perhaps give us an opportunity to do more with the article.BibleCanon (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2015 (EST)