Originally posted by Stephen III:
And yet the inspired Word of God you reference had in its original margins at least 7 references to the deuterocanonicals.
No, you are wrong. It doesn't have any. I am not a KJVO, like your website portrays. I prefer the KJV, and believe that it is an accurate translation; but I do not believe that it is infallible like Moique does. You have the wrong person there. Only the original manuscripts are inspired--those written by Peter, Paul, John, Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, etc. God inspired the prophets and the Apostles by His Holy Spirit to write down what He wanted them to write down. Those inspired words have been preserved for us in Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, but no translation is either inspired or infallible. In fact it is not even preserved. The Bible is preserved for us in the original languages: Greek and Hebrew.
These originals never had any reference to the deuterocanonicals; no references to the apocrypha at all.
The KJV original translators hardely viewed these references as "bogus", or they would not have cited them!
The KJV translators can put whatever they want in the margins of their Bible. They are just translators and that is all. I have all kinds of notes in my Bible. Some notes from historical sources as well. Does that make them inspired, just because I write them in the margin of my Bible? Well if that is your view, then so be it! But that is not the view of inspiration that the KJV translators had. They could have scrawled cartoons of peanuts and snoopy. Would that be inspired too? What is in the margin is in the margin. It is not inspired. It is simply a note, and that is all. It does not even imply inspiration.
The deuterocanonical books were put between the Testaments for a reason--to show that they were not part of the inspired canon. They were put there purposely, for one's own reading and profit. But they were never inspired, or even considered to be inspired. That is why they were placed in the middle, between the Testaments, as some other editions of the Bible still do to this day.
If the Septuagint was not considered the inspired Word of God why have these references to these books?
The apocrypha was not considered inspired. Neither was the Septuagint considered inspired. The Septuagint was simply a translation of the Hebrew Canon, which was the preserved Word of God. The Septuagint was not; it was a translation, which the orthodox Jew probably had quite a bit of disdain for. References to either the Septuagint or the Apocrypha were put their purely for one's own profit. I might put a cross-reference, or a reference to another book. That doesn't make the other book inspired, it just makes the reference to it profitable to me. I write in my margins all the time. So what!
And why would the original KJV express the view that the Septuagint was the Word of God?
It didn't. The translators expressed that they themselves were making a translation from the original languages. They knew what a translation was. They also knew that the Septuagint was a translation of the Word of God. It is the Word of God in as much as it is a translation of it. But the Apocryphal Books were not in the original Septuagint. They were added in much much later in later editions. The early Jews, conservative Hebrews would never think of doing such a thing. Besides that the Septuagint was written about 250 B.C. The oldest book of the Apocrypha is no older than 200 B.C. It is impossible for any (much less all the books) of the apocrypha to be included in the Septuagint. They were written between 200 B.C. and 100 A.D. Some of them were written after the completion of the New Testament. That in itself tells you that they are uninspired books that could never be part of the Old Testament canon.
DHK
).