Firstly, I must state at the onset that I do not read the bible, although I was a theological student and lay-preacher for many years, I now only use it for reference purposes.

I do agree that the new translations seem to lose a certain something in their approach, however, we are reliably informed that the newer versions are in fact more accurate in their translation, as it would appear some emphasis on certain words and phrases were in fact lost in the earlier translation.

Translating from one language to another is not easy, translating from one to another to another is even harder. For example much of the new testament was originally written greek, it was then translated into latin by the early monastic scholars, only to be translated into English even later, whereas the new versions were translated direct from the original greek.

So as you all rightly say, its a matter of preference.

Probably the reason for the non-inclusion of the Apocrypha in most bibles, is because it is seen as exactly what it is called, apocryphal i.e. fictional. 

However I do have an excellent copy of "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures".

I got it about 15 years ago from local Jehovas' Witnesses as I wanted something accurate.

The pages are divided into two sections. On the left runs the original Greek with every word having the direct English translation underneath. The right hand section has the text from the "New World Bible".

Mike i find this comment really weird. If these books were found along with the books that were included what makes them fictional and the books that were included fact. There are a few other gospels which were not included because they didn't proscribe to the doctrine of the Roman catholic church at the time, are these also fictional? I assume they had to draw the line somewhere with regards what was and is included in the bible as we know it but it was a human decision that some belonged and some didn't, and to me it had nothing to do with fact or fiction.

The term 'apocrypha' was coined in the 5th century by St. Jerome, it refers to the biblical books included as part of the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament)  but not included in the Hebrew Bible.

Several works ranging from the 4th century BC to New Testament times are considered apocryphal - including Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Sirach, Baruch, 1st & 2nd Maccabees, the 2 books of Esdras, additions to Esther, the Book of Daniel & the Prayer of Manasseh.

The apocrypha have been variously included and omitted from Bibles over the course of centuries. Protestant churches generally exclude the apocrypha; Roman Catholic & Orthodox churches include most of the apocrypha but refer to them as deuterocanonical books.

The Apocrypha is not in the Bible for the following reasons;

1. Not one of the books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are written in Greek, except one which is in latin.

2. None of the Apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration

3. The Apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the hebrew scriptures. In fact the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the Apocrypha after the overthrow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

4. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the 'canonical' scriptures but also themselves. e.g. Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.

5. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

6. It teaches immortal practices such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantations

7. No Apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament, whereas the rest of the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.

8. Because of these and other reasons the Apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and History of the East.

All of this information is easy enough to access. There is a good link here to some more opinion on the Apocrypha.

http://watch.pair.com/apocrypha.html

Hope this is helpful.

Stephen

  Stephen   

And if you look in the back of one of those, there is a very helpful diagram of the original Tabernacle, another of King Solomons Temple, showing everything including the pillars. The really interesting thing is the Chequerd Pavement only appears surrounding Herods Temple. 

I think bible study is a personal thing, and we each of us take whats relevant to us from it.

There are of course as many people that consider the book worthless as there are those that consider it to be the word of God.  Likewise their are several VSL, use by the worlds religions which are available to us and for which we should show equal amounts of respect.

There are also as many academics and historians that can prove much of what we might consider holy or sacred, to be no more than fable or story.  Likewise to the contrary, there are those that can prove the bible to be the unerring word of god.

I am not saying to any brother that he should not read the bible. To gain a greater understanding of ones faith is one excellent study reason.  Study from a masonic point of view is another excellent reason. Seeking comfort during times of distress is another excellent reason, as is seeking inspiration, all of which have been suggested.

Perhaps the brother that made the earnest enquiry should make a note of the version of the bible for which he took his obligation on, and for what has been acceptable for use in his lodge and use that as a starting point.