I bet your KJV 1611 is missing some books

The Apocrapfa was NEVER NEVER accepted by Christians; those are RCC books that,by the way, were canonized by the RCC as HOLY WRIT!!!! And, the MV's underlying text contained it in the Canon...

[ October 24, 2002, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Japheth ]

 

You are correct in saying that the original KJV included the Apocrypha. It was in a separate unit between the Old and New Testaments. It was never mixed with the Bible books or mixed in with the text in any way.

The KJ Translators never believed it to be the Word of God, and they never treated it as the Word of God. They were included due to their accepted historical value. They were never viewed as canonical. To insure that there was no misunderstanding, they listed (7) reasons why the apocryphal books were to be "categorically rejected as part of the inspired canon."

On a side note, the Codex Sinaticus ( a dominant source for the W/H Text from which all MV's are based) also included all of the OT Apocrypha as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas .

 

Once again, I agree with Pastor Bob 63.

 

I think they are wonderful stories. And they may be true stories. But they were stories that give no reference to Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. And I think that is why they were decided to be left out. In other words they were not a witness or testamony to the Trinity at all.


The Apocrypha
Translated and revised and published by World Bible Publishers Inc.

Sherrie

[ October 24, 2002, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Sherrie ]

 

... Oh Brother... Sixy-six times for sixty-six books!... Brother Glen

 

How much?

 

The point remains that the KJV translators included the work. It is not scripture and it has no place in God's word. I am glad my Bible was not the work of Anglicans that added to God's word.

[ October 25, 2002, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Preach the Word ]

 

Nah, hate to bust your bubble, but I have a 1611 Version PRINTED IN '1612'. I think that comes about as close to being a REAL 1611 version as you can get. Besides the fact that you probably can't even read it. For some strange reason, they decided to print it with the apocrypha translated by the same good ole boys who translated the original KJV.

 

Not true. The 72 book canon has continually been used by many in the Christian Community, as are the apocrypha also used my many in Judaism. One of the main disputes among Jews was that they were written in Greek, not Hebrew, as did the remaining OT writings.

The idea that the original 1611 KJV listed the apocrypha separately does not negate that the KJV was written to include the Apocrypha as part of the Bible. However, the KJV listed the books in three sections: The Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Apocrypha.

 

Man, they just don't quit, do they? Does anybody have a concordance in their Bible? How about a Thompson Chain Reference? Anybody have a Scofield Study Bible with marginal notes throughout their Bible? How about a Scofield with an introduction between the Old and New Testaments ?!
If you answered yes to any of the questions above, answer this question. Do you consider those marginal notes, commentary passages, study tools, etc. to be Holy Scripture or just something written by man to be helpful

 

Although I have to be very careful with my 1612 KJV because of the age; I find no indication that the translators did not consider the Apocrypha as part of the canon during the translation. I see no notatations that say they did NOT view them as canon.

Also note that the LXX contained the Apocrypha--the book was quoted several times in the New Testament; however, one reason (among others) for Baptists and Protestants not to use the Apocrypha is because it was never quoted although it was in the very same book that WAS quoted.

This is NOT to say that the apocrypha is the Word of God, BUT it unless there is documentation besides someone's opinion that the KJV translators did NOT consider it as part of the Holy Word. Most KJVO's do not want to admit, but the KJV was not entirely a translation of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew manuscripts, but also a compilation of existing translations, INCLUDING THE VULGATE and the LXX which is quite easy to prove.

[ October 25, 2002, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

"...for Protestants to aver that the deutero-canonical books contain unscriptural material is decidedly a case of unwarranted dogmatism. This conclusion was reached simply because the so-called Reformers , who were clearly antagnonistic toward the Catholic Church, approached the Bible with an a priori notion that it teaches 'Reformed' doctrine. They discarded the deuterocanonical books because in certain instances these books contain decidedly Catholic doctrine, as in the case of 2 Macc. 12.42-46, which clearly supports the doctrine of prayers for the dead and hence of Purgatory: 'It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins.' (2 Macc.12.46). Luther, in fact, wanted to discard also the New Testament books of Revelation and James, the latter which he termed an 'epistle of straw', and which he felt 'had nothing evangelical about it', not doubt because it clearly states that we are saved by faith AND works(cf.James 2.14-26), in contrast to Luther's erroreous 'faith alone' doctrine. Luther was ultimately persuaded by his friends to retain these books...the only challenge to (the Deuterocanonicals) and disregard of (the deut.)occurs when the so-called Reformers arrive on the scene in the 16th century and decide they can simply trash an 11 centuries long continuity regarding the canon's formal existence and a nearly 15 centuries long continuity regarding its practical existence. The fact that ANY individual would come along and single-handedly alter such a continuity regarding so central an issue as which books compromise the Bible should give the sincere follower of Christ SERIOUS PAUSE. Such a follower is compelled to ask,'By whose authority does this individual make such a major change?' Both history and Luther's own writings show that Luther's actions WERE BASED ON NOTHING BUT HIS OWN PERSONAL SAY-SO..."
-from 'Scripture Alone' by Joel Peters, Tan books and publishers, Rockford, Ill.

 

They also included notes from the translators.
How silly can you get? From my understanding, they took it out because people weren't smart enough to grasp the concept that because it was included along with scriptures didn't mean they were including it as part of holy and inspired scriptures themselves.
I have an MacArthur study bible. Oh no, John added to the bible! What a hairy tic!
Aren't there better things you could waste your time on rather than trying to put down God's word?
Gina

 

The sixth and last company of King James’s Bible-translators met at Cambridge. To this company was assigned all the Apocryphal books, which, in those times, were more read and accounted of than now, though by no means placed on a level with the canonical books of Scripture. * Still this part of the Translators had as much to do as either of the others, in the repeated revision of the version of the canonical books.

* The reasons assigned for not admitting the apocryphal books into the canon, or list, of inspired Scriptures are briefly the following.

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

5. The contain fabulous statement, and statments which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

For these and other reasons, the Apocryphal books, which are all in Greek, except one is extant only in Latin, are valuable only as ancient documents, illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.

“The Translators Revived” Alexander McClure 1858

*Note: In 1858 there was no such debate as we are now discussing. The MV's did not begin to be translated until May of 1870.