1. 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!

I bet your KJV 1611 is missing some books

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Daniel Dunivan, Oct 24, 2002.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 2
  1. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,864
    Likes Received:
    1,098
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thank you.
     
    #21 rsr, Oct 28, 2002
  2. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    “The Translators Revived” Alexander McClure 1858
    </font>[/QUOTE]I don't understand something about the 7 points provided - the reference you provided is almost 250 years 1611. Are these 7 points from the *translators themselves*, or are they what Alexander McClure thinks? If McClure is quoting the translators, there must be a reference in his book about where he got his information. Can you check this?
     
    #22 BrianT, Oct 28, 2002
  3. try hard

    try hard New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me pose another question relating to this topic to get some of you to think:

    Which one of you takes a bible with the apocrapha in it to church, holds it up, and says "This is the word of God"? I suppose that many people were doing that with the 1611.

    The apocrapha hadn't been considered part of the canon by the Roman Catholics till recently before the Kjv was translated. Then, it shows up in the 1611 as "an extra". That makes absolutely no sense. :(

    Maybe it was included between the old and new testament because that was when it was written. Did that ever cross anybody's mind? :confused:
     
    #23 try hard, Oct 28, 2002
  4. try hard

    try hard New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nevertheless, the apocrapha was included in the 1611. The 1611 never said that the apocrapha was not the word of God.

    Therefore, if someone who had never read the bible, picked up the 1611 and started reading it, would believe that the apocrapha was the Word of God. The apocrapha teaches false doctrine. I think if I didn't believe the apocrapha was the word of God and was heresy, I wouldn't include it with my bible. Just a thought....
     
    #24 try hard, Oct 28, 2002
  5. Siegfried

    Siegfried Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Horror of horrors! Of course not!

    All those (per)versions add to the Word of God! All I need is my 1611 in the Old English, and I'll be just fine. If people needed any of that garbage to understand the Bible, God would have given it to them back then.

    (Tough luck for the poor folks in 1610, though.)

    :rolleyes:
     
    #25 Siegfried, Oct 28, 2002
  6. Daniel Dunivan

    Daniel Dunivan New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2002
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    try hard,

    The apocraphal books were not necessarily all written during the time between the two. A books like Tobit or Sirach possibly arrived before the last six chapters of Daniel. However, the KJV translators likely didn't know this.

    I haven't held up a bible with the apocrapha in it and said this is the word of God, in so many words, but I have used one with it included between the Testaments for preaching--NRSV.
     
    #26 Daniel Dunivan, Oct 29, 2002
  7. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Brian,
    I was unable to find where McClure received his information. It is not in the preface of the 1611. Perhaps it is in a later writing of one of the translators. I'm sorry I couldn't be of further help.
     
    #27 Pastor_Bob, Oct 30, 2002
  8. Prince of Preachers

    Prince of Preachers New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    the Apocrapha was included in the Bible as historical Backround durring the "silent Years" of the Bible. Not One of them say Thus Saith The Lord. God did not inspire them.PLUS, if they were supposed to be in the Bible then it would make the Bible falliable. you see it includes the Prayers to the Dead, contardictary statements and many other things like that.
     
    #28 Prince of Preachers, Nov 6, 2002
  9. Daniel Dunivan

    Daniel Dunivan New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2002
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Prince,

    You come to these books with this notion. Many would say that books like Esther never even mention God (Oh, except in the deutro-canonical form). Additionally, many would say that if you honestly read the Protestant canon, then it contains contradictions as well. Sorry, but it is by usage in the Christian community alone (as was pointed out above, the fact that these books are in Greek may have something to do with it) that certain books are accepted or rejected--it's not based on quality, theology, or historical accuracy. Its all about whether the community recognizes them as inspired.
     
    #29 Daniel Dunivan, Nov 7, 2002
  10. wjrighter

    wjrighter New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2002
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    0
    to: daniel; you know when i was 28 i looked up & asked God, was this all there is to life? sure glad kevin had his bible w/ him,don't know what kind it was-just know it led me to Jesus.

    ain't you glad about that? i am
    i.h.s.
    bill
     
    #30 wjrighter, Nov 8, 2002
  11. Daniel Dunivan

    Daniel Dunivan New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2002
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Truly, wjrighter! [​IMG]
     
    #31 Daniel Dunivan, Nov 8, 2002
  12. try hard

    try hard New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    If it was ok for the 1611 bible to have the apocrapha included in it(aka between the testaments :rolleyes: ) then why not have it included in the kjv of today :confused: ????

    As long as it's between the new and old testaments, it should be ok. [​IMG]
     
    #32 try hard, Nov 9, 2002
  13. try hard

    try hard New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am too [​IMG] But I am so glad it was a new kjv that didn't include the apocrapha, otherwise I wouldn't have known that the apocrapha was not the word of God.
     
    #33 try hard, Nov 9, 2002
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,401
    Likes Received:
    555
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Just some thoughts in the discussion on including the apocrypha in the AV.

    The baby-baptizing Anglican priests who translated the AV1611 included the apocryphal books because every other translation previously (remember, the AV1611 is just a revision of older English translations).

    Did they equate it with "inspired" scripture? My facsimile of the 1611 shows those books in a separate section (OT, Apoch., NT) BUT in the daily guide for "reading of scriptures", guess what?

    They included daily readings from Apocryphal books!

    Now, if I said we will read the following scriptures:
    John 1 on November 10th
    John 2 on November 11th
    John 3 on November 12th
    Bob 1 on November 13th
    John 4 on November 14th
    You would all rise up and try to stone me. Why? Because I am de facto equating words of the NT with words that are not inspired (by Bob).
     
    #34 Dr. Bob, Nov 10, 2002
  15. JonHenry

    JonHenry New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2002
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll read Bob 1 on the 13th... if I can find it... it doesn't seem to be in my Bible... of course I exclusively use the KJV 1609 which contains unfinished revisions of previous versions. Bob, do I need to update to a KJV 1610?
     
    #35 JonHenry, Nov 10, 2002
  16. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,401
    Likes Received:
    555
    Faith:
    Baptist
    [​IMG] :rolleyes: [​IMG]
     
    #36 Dr. Bob, Nov 10, 2002
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 2
Loading...