Center of the Bible

Nice! Only one small problem with this "'Christian' Urban Legend"!

"Tain't so!"

This gets exactly two facts correct.

The shortest chapter in the Bible is Psalms 117.

The longest chapter in the Bible is Psalm 119.

The King James Bible most familiar to most of us, with the 39 books in the OT and 27 books in the NT, actually has 1,189 chapters.
The center chapter is actually Psalm 117, with 594 chapters before Psalm 117, and 594 chapters after Psalm 117. I guess here one could say, "Close, but no cigar!"

There are 31,102 verses in the KJV. Hence, with an even number there is no one center verse. There are actually two middle verses, namely Psalm 103: 1,2. Ther are 15,550 verses before this, and 15,550 verses after this. This ain't even close!

Not to mention, this is a bit of a misnomer, from the outset. For the KJV as translated and published in 1611 contained what we speak of as the Apocrypha, which would skew this unbelievably as to verses and chapters.

So here is what we really see as to this Urban Legend, and this is what should really happen to it. :tonofbricks:

Ed

 

Nicely done Ed.
You have taken a blessing and made it a curse.
Yet even you in your piousity missed the mark.
The original KJV did NOT contain the Apocrypha any more than my current KJV contains the book of Concordance!:laugh:

 

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_34.asp

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html#fight14

"The King James translators did NOT consider the books to be inspired Scripture, nor did they include them in the canon as such. They merely placed the Apocryphal books BETWEEN the Old and New testament as a historical document, not as Scripture."

 

Is there something in the 1611 that states this?
IOWs If I lived in 1634 and picked up a 1611, would I know that the translators considered the extra books uninspired... if not, then the translators were deceiving.

If so, can someone point it out... not from another book, but from the 1611, or even in the translator's notes in the 1611.

 

"Calling Ed Edwards and TCassidy! Calling Ed Edwards and TCassidy!! Come in, please! Over!"

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

I guess this should be moved to the translations section.

 

Amen, Brother Ed Sutton -- Preach it! :thumbs:

 

Av1611jim: //Nicely done Ed.
You have taken a blessing and made it a curse.//

Actually Sir, you have made a curse of a blessing.
Anyway, it is hard for an untruth to be a blessing;
easy for a truth to be a blessing.

Ed Sutton: //There are 31,102 verses in the KJV.
Hence, with an even number there is no one center verse.
There are actually two middle verses, namely Psalm 103: 1-2 //

Psa 103:1-2 [A Psalme of Dauid.] Blesse the Lord,
O my soule: and all that is within me, blesse his holy Name.
Psa 103:2 Blesse the Lord, O my soule: & forget not all his benefits.

America -- Bless God!!

 

With all respect, I suggest that something based on a falsehood, as to the first facts listed are not "a blessing." And I assure you, I am not hindered by "piousity" in the least. A lot of other things, yes. "piousity", - Sorry, - that don't fit me at all.
As to whether or not the "original KJV" did or did not contain the Apocrypha (regardless of the fact that I personally do not consider it to be "inspired Scripture", by any stretch), I refer you to these links:

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1823

And I'd offer this - King James I said words to the effect of, "I think it's Scripture; I've authorized this Bible; and I'm the King; so in it goes!"

Guess what?? In it went!!

Ed

 

I agree that :godisgood: , absolutely! "Chain e-mails" based on 'urban legend', I personally question, just a wee bit.

Ed

 

Funny, I am showing 31,173 verses in the KJV Bible. Not 31,102

 

Not having that many spare fingers and toes, and being that my collection of millipedes all died, I never counted them myself. :laugh: :laugh: But I did find three unrelated internet sites with this number given, which I cited.

Ed

 

If he said it and it was included, doesn't that mean that it's inspired?

 

This was completely unnecessary.

 

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV1611 Edition):
All Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, & is profitable
for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction,
for instrution in righteousnesse,

IMHO this makes the REAL CENTER of the Bible
at Psalm 2:1-2 just as inspired as the non-center of the
Bibile at Psalm 118:8.

EdSutton: //With all respect, I suggest that something based
on a falsehood, as to the first facts listed are not "a blessing." //

Amen, Brother EdSutton -- you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

 

What is, the thread? The fact that the thread is based on a falsehood? Or my 'suggestion' that this urban legend should be buried under a ton of bricks. With all respect, I again suggest that the idea that one can be "blessed" by falsehood is suspect, at best.
If one is perhaps, wanting me 'sound' more like a few posters I often see on the BB, maybe I can be a bit more Gentile (sic! "This is not a misspelling of 'genteel'!" - Language Cop) in my approach, and call this urban legend "a lie", which is actually what it is. Might you or anyone else prefer that, instead? Just wonderin'!
FTR, I do not see any evidence that Jesus or the Apostles ever condoned any "spiritual falsehoods", but I do see some instances where the Lord opposed "your traditions", which happened to be religious traditions. Often he said, "Of a truth, I tell you..." John says "I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth." Another Scripture says to "Speak the truth in love." A fourth says, "Sanctify them in thy Word; Thy Word is truth." And a fifth speaks of "Handling the Word of God deceitfully." And finally, I believe I read something about where lies originate.

Oh yeah, one more verse -

Now, one question! If Peter and the others (we) did not follow "urban legends", as to The Lord Jesus Christ, and we are warned about "handling the Word of God in a deceitful manner", which the above urban legend does, how come this should be OK, just because someone said they were "blessed" by this? Did I miss something, or do something wrong by saying that "The king has no clothes!", when it seemed obvious, to me anyway, that the king was dressed in only his pot-bellied nakedness?? Am I wrong in doing that? Somehow "Ah 'on't get it!"
Since I assume one is actually getting on my case.
Granted I may deserve that a lot; (If you don't believe that you might ask my lovely and talented bride.) But I just don't see it here. I'll grant one thing. These later responses have or should have been unnecessary, after whomever pointed out the actual facts, IMO.

Ed

 

Amen, Brother EdSutton -- Preach it!

John 8:32 (KJV1611 Edition):

And ye shall know the Trueth,
and the Trueth shall make you free.


Note this does not say "ye shall know the
urban legend and the urban legend will
bless you." :tear: