Bible Discussion Thread

The Book of Ecclesiasticus is like the Book of Mormon - not inspired of God.

Dear all friends in Jesus. Why do we then use references to a book that is not mentioned in KJV, i wondered but thought it was a typo. So wrong of me! .D

God bless us in due time for His revelations. Acts 4:13-31

Marke i agree but the book of Ecclesiates is a different book and truly inspired of God....I love Ecc. 11 : 5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the Spirit, Nor how the bones do grow in the womb of she that is with CHILD, Even so thou knowest not the works of God who makest ALL

..... Gal. 4 : 19 KJV...My lil children of whom i travail in Birth till CHRIST IS FORMED IN YOU...And the mystery of the Kingdom of God is Christ in you...Unless you receive the Kingdom of God as a lil Child you will in NO wise enter there in....In my mind Ecclesiates 11 : 5 is a picture of the new Birth....Christ is gonna be formed in us which is the H.G. that Child of Promise...Thats y he has to know us thats when that good seed is sown in our hearts initiating a birth of Christ in us...the H.G.

.....Thats y Peter is saying being Bornagain of an incorruptible seed even by the WORDS OF GOD that liveth and abideth for ever...Meaning the living words....Its that living word that forms Christ in us....Which is spirit and life the H.G. as that which is born of the spirit is spirit which is our new innerman the H.G. that Child of Promise.

....Whosoever receiveth one such CHILD in my NAME receiveth ME....In that this heavenly Child comes in HIS NAME implies he is the Father of these Children....The babes and sucklings he mentions are his Children which are Spirits the H.G. that are gonna be formed in us via his good seed the word....And in that they are the Children of PROMISE they are gonna be as the Stars of HEAVEN IN MULTITUDE....God Almighty swore by Himself when he made that Promise.

....But this Ecclesiaticus Book is a different book which is in the Catholic bible that i know nothin about.

The book of Ecclesiates and the book of Ecclesiaticus are 2 different books

Ecclesiastes is inspired of God, Ecclesiasticus is not.

The entire book about the Preacher is for guidance. I would absolutely say that it is inspired by the Most High God. See Ecclesiastes 10:14

God bless us all with His Wisdom in His time for all of us. Jesus loves us and i in you through Christ. John chapter 6 and 7

John 7:17

Let's look at just a couple of comments on this subject...

Adame Clarke:

The book, entitled Koheleth, or Ecclesiastes, has ever been received, both by the Jewish and Christian Church, as written under the inspiration of the Almighty; and was held to be properly a part of the sacred canon. But while this has been almost universally granted, there has been but little unanimity among learned men and critics as to its author. To Solomon it has been most generally attributed, both in ancient and modern times.

John Gill

This book has been universally received into the canon of the Scriptures, by Jews and Christians. The former, indeed, had once some controversy a about it; and they thought to have hid it, or put it among the apocryphal books; because, at first sight, some things seemed contradictory to each other b, and to incline to heresy c, atheism, and epicurism, and to assert the eternity of the world d: but they better considered of it; and when they observed those passages were capable of a good sense, and that the whole agreed with the law of God, they changed their minds e. And so likewise it has been rejected by some heretical persons, of the Christian name, as Theodore and Mopsuest, and others; and by deists, and some deistically inclined. But it carries in it such internal evidences of a divine original, as cannot well be denied; it delivers out and inculcates such divine instructions, concerning the duties of men to God, and one another; concerning the contempt of the world, and the carnal pleasures of it; the fear and worship of God, and a future judgment; as none but the wisdom of God could suggest. There are various things in it which seem to be referred to by Christ and his apostles; at least there is an entire agreement between them: among the many things that might be observed, compare Ecclesiastes 11:5 with John 3:8; and Ecclesiastes 11:9 with 2 Corinthians 5:10; and Ecclesiastes 7:20 with 1 John 1:8.

Let us remember 1 Timothy 3:16!

I believe several books have been written that Christian scribes rejected over the years as not being worthy of inclusion in the word of God. I believe God has used men to transcribe, copy, and translate the word of God over the years and that we can find a certain body of manuscripts all along the way that has been generally accepted by true believers as the inspired word of God.

The book of Eccleasticus is not one of those books that Bible scholars have enthusiastically recognized down through history as part of the inspired word of God.

Kay,

There is the book of Ecclesiastes in the canon, but

Ecclesiasticus, is a different book, and placed among the Apocrypha. I think this is so.

I do not agree with textual critics who refuse to believe God has preserved His words through the ages we now have translated in the KJV. I don't subscribe to the idea that the Apocrypha was preserved by God, the Sinaiticus was preserved by God, the Vaticanus was preserved by God, and so forth.