Is there proof that the Apocrypha was in the orginal 1611 KJV? Because all I have ever read and heard is that the translaters of the 1611 KJV considered the apocrypha to not be the inspired Word of God, but rather they believed it to be the words of men, and that they didn't put it in the Bible because of this. I have NEVER heard before that the original 1611 KJV Bible included the Apocrypha.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do you use the 1611 KJV?
- Thread starter Dale-c
- Start date
- Status
Cailiosa said:
We're never too old to learn, are we? Check out http://www.geocities.com/cott1388/kjv.html for a list of the books that were included in the original 1611 KJV. This does indeed show that the KJV used today has been changed from the original 1611 KJV if for no more reason than the omission of certain books that were included in the original.
Remember the old KJVO addage "What is different is not the same." Obviously, what is different is not the same, no matter what KJVO advocates may claim. This is one KJVO idea that blew up in their faces - because it is so very easy to prove that there are differences between the 1611 KJV and the KJV Bibles we use today.
william s. correa said:
Well, at least you got part of it right, Mr. Correa. The mind of Christ doesn't guess! But it's amazing that you perceive the entire KJVO myth as being the mind of Christ - you're putting words in His mouth and that is blasphemy. There is absolutely NO biblical support for the KJVO guesswork and double standards that spawn the KJVO myth.
:wavey: :thumbs: :smilewinkgrin:
I havn't looked at the site yet, I will, but really quick I wanted to say this. There has been changes to the KJV 1611 because back in 1611 the usage of the english language was totally different. Have you ever tried reading and unmodernized version of shakespear? It's almost unreadable because of the way the English language has changed. The KJV 1611 Bible was translated about the same time as Shakespear was writing, so the English was the same type of almost unreadable English. But God has overseen theses changes, they have not changed the meaning of the words, just the words spelling, or the sentance structure. (making it more understandable)
The difference between these changes, and the changes that the other versions have made is that the other versions have changed the actual meaning of the word. In some places they have totally switched the words, putting in things that were the OPPOSITE of what the original God breathed word says.
I will get you the references of these verses as soon as I look at that site.
The difference between these changes, and the changes that the other versions have made is that the other versions have changed the actual meaning of the word. In some places they have totally switched the words, putting in things that were the OPPOSITE of what the original God breathed word says.
I will get you the references of these verses as soon as I look at that site.
OK, I looked at the site, and the thing that really sticks out to me is the fact that the apocrypha is not interspersed with the books of the God Breathed Bible, they are set aside. The Catholics believe that the Apocrypha is the Bible (true word of God) and they have the books of the Apocrypha interspersed with the rest of the scriptures (like the last chapter(s) of Daniel are added on to the portion of Daniel that is in our Bible today.
Now also did you know that in the marginal notes of the original, KJV 1611 AV, they critisize the Apocrypha? That doesn't sound like they take it for God Breathed word to me. In fact to me it sounds like they think it has good historical and interesting reading value, not to mention was it Paul, or Peter that quoted from one of them? I forget, it might not have been either of those two, but I do know that someone in the NT quoted from one of the books of the Apocrypha. That doesn't mean it's scripture, it just means it's interesting and useful reading.
Now about those verses in the other versions that have been changed....
KJV Psalms 10:5 says that the wicked mans ways are grievous.
The NIV, NKJV, ESV all say that the wicked mans ways are prosperous, and the HCSB says his ways are secure.
KJV Ecclesiastes 8 :10 says that the wicked were (there ways) forgotten.
NIV and ESV says that the wicked were praised.
KJV Isaiah 9:3 says that they (the people who walked in darkness) did not increase their joy.
NIV, TNIV, NKJV, ESV, NASB all say they increased their joy. NASB uses gladness instead of joy. (now why would the wicked increase their joy? The wicked cannot have joy!)
KJV Proverbs 26:22 says that the words of the tale bearer are as wounds...
NIV says they are likie choice morsels, NASB dainty morsels, ESV delicious morsels, HCSB choice food.
KJV Hosea 11:12 says Judah yet ruleth with God.
NIV, NASB, Judah is unruly against God.
Now also did you know that in the marginal notes of the original, KJV 1611 AV, they critisize the Apocrypha? That doesn't sound like they take it for God Breathed word to me. In fact to me it sounds like they think it has good historical and interesting reading value, not to mention was it Paul, or Peter that quoted from one of them? I forget, it might not have been either of those two, but I do know that someone in the NT quoted from one of the books of the Apocrypha. That doesn't mean it's scripture, it just means it's interesting and useful reading.
Now about those verses in the other versions that have been changed....
KJV Psalms 10:5 says that the wicked mans ways are grievous.
The NIV, NKJV, ESV all say that the wicked mans ways are prosperous, and the HCSB says his ways are secure.
KJV Ecclesiastes 8 :10 says that the wicked were (there ways) forgotten.
NIV and ESV says that the wicked were praised.
KJV Isaiah 9:3 says that they (the people who walked in darkness) did not increase their joy.
NIV, TNIV, NKJV, ESV, NASB all say they increased their joy. NASB uses gladness instead of joy. (now why would the wicked increase their joy? The wicked cannot have joy!)
KJV Proverbs 26:22 says that the words of the tale bearer are as wounds...
NIV says they are likie choice morsels, NASB dainty morsels, ESV delicious morsels, HCSB choice food.
KJV Hosea 11:12 says Judah yet ruleth with God.
NIV, NASB, Judah is unruly against God.
Also over and over again the other versions omit important things like the fact that it is through Christ that we become the sons of God. Gal. 4:7 should say through Christ.
And I know there is a place where they have taken out Jesus' name and put in Satans.... I'm trying to find it...
And I know there is a place where they have taken out Jesus' name and put in Satans.... I'm trying to find it...
The manuscripts that were used for the NIV and I'm not sure the others were the Alexandrian. Which the Alexandrians were Christians who tried to mix together christianity and their pagan beliefs. I know other versions used this also but I cannot tell you which ones for sure. The KJV used.... I canna remember right now, let me look....
Cailiosa said:
I would be real interested in any clear change of doctrinal truth that is taught by any of the accepted versions. And did you know that the NKJV translators used the same manuscripts as the KJV translators, yet you will find the KJVOist condemning the NKJV.
Bro Tony
Just a word of information---be careful coming on here restating the party line of the KJVOist. They have been here before and each time have been shown the fallacy of their thinking and teaching. The KJV is a wonderful version of the Word of God but so are the NKJV, NIV, RSV etc.
The King James Bible was translated mostly from the Bishop's Bible, the changed very little from this (I believe the Bishops BIble was in Greek) They also used for reference the Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, and Great Bible. I believe all of these came from manuscripts that had been carefully copied as one manuscript wore out... ect another was carefully copied word for word. Jot and tittle for jot and tittle 
I cannot for the life of me remember what that manuscript is called and it could take me a really long time to find it.
I cannot for the life of me remember what that manuscript is called and it could take me a really long time to find it.
Bro Tony said:
I personally believe that only the KJV is the inspired word of God, but I am not here to try and change your belief. I believe that someone can be saved through any other version, and that they can grow, by using those bibles. I just wanted to make ya'll think about it really quick. I know that many KJVO's don't know a lot about what they are talking about, but it would be very very good for anyone curious, to read In Awe of Thy Word, understanding the King James Bible, it's mysteries and history by G.A. Riplinger.
I do think that if you truelly desire to know more about God you will use the KJV, but that's just my opinion.
The translators' treatment of the Apocrypha was a very Anglican approach — not Roman Catholic, not fully Protestant.
First, the translators had been told not to insert commentary into the translation and to stick closely to the Bishops' Bible and other previous editions.
Included in James instructions were commands that "The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishop’s Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit" and "No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text." Redefining the canon was not an option; neither was a "warning" such as Luther and the Geneva Bible translators included.
In addition, there may not have been full agreement among the translators about the canonicity of the Apocrypha, one of the many details the Anglican Church glossed over in the attempt to preserve unity. The majority likely would have considered it scripture, though not necessarily in the same sense as the other books.
The inconsistency is, in fact, enshrined within the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. Article VI, as has been pointed out, describes the Apocrpyha as "the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; ..."
However, Article XXXV endorses a list of homilies" "The second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people."
The homilies, then, expound doctrine. According to the count of Edward Bouverie Pusey (19th-century Anglican priest), the homilies quoted or referred to the apocryphal books 42 times. As an example, Fear of Death says:
"Now the holy Fathers of the olde law, and all faithfull and righte*ous men which departed before our Sauiour Christes ascension into heauen, did by death depart from troubles vnto rest, from the handes of their enemies, into the handes of GOD, from sorrowes and sick* nesses, vnto ioyfull refreshing in Abrahams bosome, a place of all com*fort and consolation, as the Scriptures doe plainely by manifest words testifie. The booke of wisedome saith, that the righteous mens soules bee in the hand of GOD, and no torment shall touch them." (Emphasis added; the marginal note refers to the Book of Wisdom, Chapter 3.)
The actual work of the translators shows that they did take the Apocrpyha seriously, assigning a separate company to make the translation. They included not only Richard Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury until his death in 1610 — a man of whom Lord Clarendon said "if Bancroft had lived, he would quickly have extinguished all that fire in England which had been kindled at Geneva" — but also the Puritan-friendly John Bois, who also served as one of the 12 people assigned for final revision. George Abbott, a translator who succeeded Bancroft as archbishop of Canterbury, "forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment," a stricture aimed at curtailing the popularity of the Geneva Bible.
First, the translators had been told not to insert commentary into the translation and to stick closely to the Bishops' Bible and other previous editions.
Included in James instructions were commands that "The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishop’s Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit" and "No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text." Redefining the canon was not an option; neither was a "warning" such as Luther and the Geneva Bible translators included.
In addition, there may not have been full agreement among the translators about the canonicity of the Apocrypha, one of the many details the Anglican Church glossed over in the attempt to preserve unity. The majority likely would have considered it scripture, though not necessarily in the same sense as the other books.
The inconsistency is, in fact, enshrined within the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. Article VI, as has been pointed out, describes the Apocrpyha as "the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; ..."
However, Article XXXV endorses a list of homilies" "The second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people."
The homilies, then, expound doctrine. According to the count of Edward Bouverie Pusey (19th-century Anglican priest), the homilies quoted or referred to the apocryphal books 42 times. As an example, Fear of Death says:
"Now the holy Fathers of the olde law, and all faithfull and righte*ous men which departed before our Sauiour Christes ascension into heauen, did by death depart from troubles vnto rest, from the handes of their enemies, into the handes of GOD, from sorrowes and sick* nesses, vnto ioyfull refreshing in Abrahams bosome, a place of all com*fort and consolation, as the Scriptures doe plainely by manifest words testifie. The booke of wisedome saith, that the righteous mens soules bee in the hand of GOD, and no torment shall touch them." (Emphasis added; the marginal note refers to the Book of Wisdom, Chapter 3.)
The actual work of the translators shows that they did take the Apocrpyha seriously, assigning a separate company to make the translation. They included not only Richard Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury until his death in 1610 — a man of whom Lord Clarendon said "if Bancroft had lived, he would quickly have extinguished all that fire in England which had been kindled at Geneva" — but also the Puritan-friendly John Bois, who also served as one of the 12 people assigned for final revision. George Abbott, a translator who succeeded Bancroft as archbishop of Canterbury, "forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment," a stricture aimed at curtailing the popularity of the Geneva Bible.
Cailiosa said:
Riplinger and her poor scholarship has been debunked time and time again. If you are going to quote someone, you really ought to chose someone with some credibility. Riplinger's wild claims that the MV's are new age bibles discredits her completely. Also as you state your preference for the KJV (which is wonderful) be careful not to slander the other legitamate versions by inferring they are not the inspired Word of God the same as the KJV.
Bro Tony
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Psa 10:5 (KJV1769 with Strong's Numbers):
His ways1870 are always3605, 6256 grievous;2342 thy judgments4941
are far above4791 out of his sight:4480, 5048
as for all3605 his enemies,6887 he puffeth6315 at them.
The one word quotation from the HCSB is deceitfully SHORT.
Here is more, which shows what the scripture says:
Psalms 10:4-6 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ ):
4 In all his scheming,
the wicked arrogantly thinks:
";There is no accountability,
[since] God does not exist."; 5 His ways are always secure;
Your lofty judgments are beyond his sight;
he scoffs at all his adversaries. 6 He says to himself, ";I will never be moved-
from generation to generation without calamity.";
Obviously it is true that the wicked man has ways that are
'secure'. His thoughts are in error.
Cailiosa: //Heres a good one,
//Many are familiar with Galations 2:20... I am crucified with Christ: Nevertheless I live.
NIV, TNIV HCSB, says.. I NO LONGER LIVE!!!!!!!!!!//
That is a bad one the quotation of the HCSB is DECEITFULLY SHORT.
Here is more that shows the same meaning between
the KJV1611 and the HCSB:
Gal 2:20 (KJV1611 Edition):
I am crucified with Christ.
Neuertheles, I liue, yet not I, but Christ liueth in me,
and the life which I now liue in the flesh,
I liue by the faith of the sonne of God, who loued mee,
and gaue himselfe for me.
Gal 2:19-20
19 For through the law I have died to the law,
that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ;
20 and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.
The life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me
and gave Himself for me.
BTW, one who takes the word of Sister Gail. A. Riplinger (AV Publications)
without checking an annotated KJV, the NIV, TNIV, and HCSB
are NOT good Beroeans.
God's Holy Written word preserved by Divine
Providence for our generation of English users says:
2 Timothy 3:16 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003 / ):
All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching,
for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness,
This scripture does NOT say:
One and only one of the many KJVs is inspired by God and is profitable
for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness,
His ways1870 are always3605, 6256 grievous;2342 thy judgments4941
are far above4791 out of his sight:4480, 5048
as for all3605 his enemies,6887 he puffeth6315 at them.
The one word quotation from the HCSB is deceitfully SHORT.
Here is more, which shows what the scripture says:
Psalms 10:4-6 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ ):
4 In all his scheming,
the wicked arrogantly thinks:
";There is no accountability,
[since] God does not exist."; 5 His ways are always secure;
Your lofty judgments are beyond his sight;
he scoffs at all his adversaries. 6 He says to himself, ";I will never be moved-
from generation to generation without calamity.";
Obviously it is true that the wicked man has ways that are
'secure'. His thoughts are in error.
Cailiosa: //Heres a good one,
//Many are familiar with Galations 2:20... I am crucified with Christ: Nevertheless I live.
NIV, TNIV HCSB, says.. I NO LONGER LIVE!!!!!!!!!!//
That is a bad one
the quotation of the HCSB is DECEITFULLY SHORT.Here is more that shows the same meaning between
the KJV1611 and the HCSB:
Gal 2:20 (KJV1611 Edition):
I am crucified with Christ.
Neuertheles, I liue, yet not I, but Christ liueth in me,
and the life which I now liue in the flesh,
I liue by the faith of the sonne of God, who loued mee,
and gaue himselfe for me.
Gal 2:19-20
19 For through the law I have died to the law,
that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ;
20 and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.
The life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me
and gave Himself for me.
BTW, one who takes the word of Sister Gail. A. Riplinger (AV Publications)
without checking an annotated KJV, the NIV, TNIV, and HCSB
are NOT good Beroeans.
God's Holy Written word preserved by Divine
Providence for our generation of English users says:
2 Timothy 3:16 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003 / ):
All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching,
for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness,
This scripture does NOT say:
One and only one of the many KJVs is inspired by God and is profitable
for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness,
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Ed Edwards said:Here is where you see a picture of
the Henderson KJV1611 Edition reprint:
http://www.baptistbookworld.com/shop.php?c=c102&n=764430&i=1565631625&x=The_KJV_Bible_1611_Edition_Genuine_Leather_Black
That is a tad pricy though
There is a picture of the Nelson KJV1611 Edition reprint at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0840700415/103-6944488-3743864?v=glance&n=283155
BTW, the original was in Gothic fount and
the two above reprints use a Roman fount.
That makes it lot easier to read.
Thank you for the information Brother Ed.
You would think everybody would read every post so they
would know what was going on.
Yes, both these reprints do contain the
Original KJV1611 Ediotion of the Bible complete with
Apocrypha.
The Bishops' Bible (1568) was an English translation that borrowed from the Geneva and other translations (including the Rheims New Testament and the Latin Vulgate.Cailiosa said:
The translators for the most part used the 1550 printed edition of the Stephanus Greek New Testament, not manuscripts.I believe all of these came from manuscripts that had been carefully copied as one manuscript wore out... ect another was carefully copied word for word. Jot and tittle for jot and tittle
Perhaps you are referring to the Textus Receptus, which is really a compilation of predominantly Byzantine text-type documents (the name was coined in 1633 but is commonly used to designate any such compilation, although differences exist among the various versions.)
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Cailiosa: //Have you ever read her books?//
Do a Google search on:
Riplinger site:baptistboard.com
you will find 220 hits.
Yes, we have read her books. We also were good
Beroeans and checked her scripture references.
Some of them have the same error book after book.
Some of them decietfully use the Written Word of God
found in the many lovely Bibles that God has richly
lavished upon the English Speaking World.
Do a Google search on:
Riplinger site:baptistboard.com
you will find 220 hits.
Yes, we have read her books. We also were good
Beroeans and checked her scripture references.
Some of them have the same error book after book.
Some of them decietfully use the Written Word of God
found in the many lovely Bibles that God has richly
lavished upon the English Speaking World.
"BTW, one who takes the word of Sister Gail. A. Riplinger (AV Publications)
without checking an annotated KJV, the NIV, TNIV, and HCSB
are NOT good Beroeans."
I have looked all of those verses up in my KJV before posting them, and several years ago when I had an NIV I looked them up to, I know that they have switched them around. The other versions unfortunatly I have not been able to look up, as I don't have one but I fully intend to.
BTW what is a Beroeans?
Also, all scripture is given by inspiration by God.. How can something that changes the meaning from what it is intended by God, be scripture? There is whole verses taken out of other translations, how can that be scripture?
I don't take all of my information from Gail Riplinger, I do admire all the hard work she has done, in trying to get the truth out, of course ya'll don't believe it's truth, but oh well, I may be wrong, you may be wrong we will find out when we see Him.
Also the biggest issue here is not nessasarily what manuscript it came from, but wether the translaters used that manuscript in the way God intended it. I can take a manuscript of anything I want and change it anyway I want. If you want to know if the Bible you are using is correct or not then look at BOTH.
without checking an annotated KJV, the NIV, TNIV, and HCSB
are NOT good Beroeans."
I have looked all of those verses up in my KJV before posting them, and several years ago when I had an NIV I looked them up to, I know that they have switched them around. The other versions unfortunatly I have not been able to look up, as I don't have one but I fully intend to.
BTW what is a Beroeans?
Also, all scripture is given by inspiration by God.. How can something that changes the meaning from what it is intended by God, be scripture? There is whole verses taken out of other translations, how can that be scripture?
I don't take all of my information from Gail Riplinger, I do admire all the hard work she has done, in trying to get the truth out, of course ya'll don't believe it's truth, but oh well, I may be wrong, you may be wrong we will find out when we see Him.
Also the biggest issue here is not nessasarily what manuscript it came from, but wether the translaters used that manuscript in the way God intended it. I can take a manuscript of anything I want and change it anyway I want. If you want to know if the Bible you are using is correct or not then look at BOTH.
- Status