• 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!

Why do you believe the bible?

MikeS

New Member
Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Stephen III:
You're preaching to the choir, sir.

It isn't a question of the Bible actually being the Word of God, as you and I agree it is. It is a question of how it is we beleive it to be the Word of God.

How 'bout an answer to the question posed about which KJV was issued in error, the one with the seven books or the one without?
I am not sure which "seven" books you are referring to. If you are speaking of the 13 books of the Apocrypha, even Jerome did not want to accept those in the canon of Scripture. Some of the later editions of Bibles (non-RC) include the Apocrypha--not as part of the canon--but as extra interesting reading. I have in my Bible a dictionary, concordance, maps, Bible chronology, and all kinds of other helps. They are of interest, but they are not inspired, just as the apocrypha would not be inspired. The Jews never considered the Apocrypha inspired, neither the Apostles, the early believers, the Protestants, and not until 1534 were they officially accepted by the Catholic Church. Traditionally there have always been 66 books of the completed canon, though some have disagreed with this number, particularly the Catholics, and some of the more critical and liberal protestants. Conservative, Bible-believing Christians don't have any problem with it.
DHK
</font>[/QUOTE]As Steven III said in an earlier message, the books in question are the 7 deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees, as well as longer versions of Daniel and Esther). Contrary to your assertion, these books were included in every early list of the canon, e.g by the Council of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), and the Third and Fourth Councils of Carthage (397, 418). Furthermore, Jerome accepted the deuterocanonical books, based upon the authority of the Church. It was Luther who "removed" the books, just as he "removed" (rejected the divine inspiration of) James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation.
 

Stephen III

New Member
Thanks MikeS
Your answer of course references the books in question. I guess it is a different thread potentially, but the only thing I would add is that the term "apocrypha" comes from Jerome who as DHK noted was initially oppossed to there being canonical- that is until he saw the African churches were accepting them and then he whole heartedly agreed with the decision to include them and cited them with the introductory formula "God says in the Scriptures" which he used for quotations from the canonical books.

Now DHK that you know which books we are referring to in particular, how 'bout an answer?

Perhaps the term "in error" is to harsh. But seeing that you set the criteria for eliminating certain books from being able to claim God as their inspiration based on the fact that they changed from their original, I would like to hear your rational as to why the KJV doesn't have to meet this same critique.

Let me rephrase the question perhaps then to avoid the appearance that one is stating that the True Originals are in error, or that scripture itself would contain any error.

Try this then: Was the commitee that issued the original KJV that included the seven books guided by the Holy Spirit to include these books?

or conversely,

Was the KJV commitee that revised the original equally guided by the Holy Spirit?
Of course this would bring up many other questions...
Was it the Holy Spirit that changed His mind?
How do we know the canon is complete now?
I could go on...but I think the point is sufficiently made that an outside authority is required to make the claim as to the Bible being the inspired Word of God. Just as it took an outside authority to define the canon in the first place.
And whether Protestants are willing to admit this fact or not won't change the historical fact that they themselves through their "committees" played the outside authority in changing the canon as they saw fit.
 

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
Originally posted by WPutnam:
Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Well, Curtis, no offense intended here, but other then the Orthodox, I consider all sects and denominations who have departed from the Catholic Church since the so called "Protestant Reformation" as Protestants, simply because it is easy for me to do.
No offense percieved, sir. But you may be offended at what I consider the RCC to be. Begins with H and ends with a lot of their followers being sent to hell.


Therefore, bite the bullet if you can, Curtis, and see if you can explain your method of proving the inspiration of scripture

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


I don't need to prove it. It proves it'self. I don't understand how he did it, or even why he would want to save ANY of us, but he does, and he preserved the story, despite many attempts to erase the bible, (even the RCC making laws against reading it, the martyrdom of the translators, even jailing and killing those who preach from it, but it is still there.)


The Bible stands like a rock undaunted
’Mid the raging storms of time;
Its pages burn with the truth eternal,
And they glow with a light sublime.

The Bible stands like a mountain towering
Far above the works of men;
Its truth by none ever was refuted,
And destroy it they never can.

The Bible stands though the hills may tumble,
It will firmly stand when the earth shall crumble;
I will plant my feet on its firm foundation,
For the Bible stands.

The Bible stands and it will forever,
When the world has passed away;
By inspiration it has been given,
All its precepts I will obey.

The Bible stands every test we give it,
For its Author is divine;
By grace alone I expect to live it,
And to prove and to make it mine.

The Bible stands though the hills may tumble,
It will firmly stand when the earth shall crumble;
I will plant my feet on its firm foundation,
For the Bible stands. : Haldor Lillenas, circa 1917


Somebody please say AMEN!!!
 

WPutnam

<img src =/2122.jpg>
Bro. Curtis replied with his way of "proving" the divine inspiration of the Bible:

I don't need to prove it. It proves it'self. I don't understand how he did it, or even why he would want to save ANY of us, but he does, and he preserved the story, despite many attempts to erase the bible, (even the RCC making laws against reading it, the martyrdom of the translators, even jailing and killing those who preach from it, but it is still there.)
Demonstrate exactly how it "proves itself" Bro. Curtis. But then, if you don't "understand how he did it," then what is your basis for believing it? Who attempted to "erase the bible" anyway, when all I see is a Church who husbanded it, colated it, canonized it as scripture and declared it as divinely inspired "God breathed" scripture is the (gulp!) Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

Finally, do you know why the Church condemned certain publications of scripture, Curtis? Tyndales bible, for example, was full of errors, as I understand it, with sidenotes that were anti-Catholic! Yet you would protest the Churches condemnation of it?

The Bible stands like a rock undaunted
’Mid the raging storms of time;
Its pages burn with the truth eternal,
And they glow with a light sublime.
Thanks to the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH! A canon of scripture that existed for about 1,000 years (starting from the time the canon was established in the late 3rd century) to the time of Luther, who decided that the deuterocanonicals had to be removed from the Old Testament.

The Bible stands like a mountain towering
Far above the works of men;
Its truth by none ever was refuted,
And destroy it they never can.

The Bible stands though the hills may tumble,
It will firmly stand when the earth shall crumble;
I will plant my feet on its firm foundation,
For the Bible stands.

The Bible stands and it will forever,
When the world has passed away;
By inspiration it has been given,
All its precepts I will obey.

The Bible stands every test we give it,
For its Author is divine;
By grace alone I expect to live it,
And to prove and to make it mine.

The Bible stands though the hills may tumble,
It will firmly stand when the earth shall crumble;
I will plant my feet on its firm foundation,
For the Bible stands. : Haldor Lillenas, circa 1917
Too bad the author is dead (I presume), as I would love to see what he would say concerning that period of time between Pentecost and until ink first touched papyrus in the writing of the New Testament, and tell us where the authority and source of faith, doctrine and morals are.

He would have to be reminded, I suspect, that the Old Testament contains no words that came out of the mouth of Jesus in the "good news" - The Gospel of Christ.

I would then wonder if he would have glowing words to say about the very Church who preserved the bible for him as we see it today...

Somebody please say AMEN!!!
Sure - AMEN!

Amen that we had an authoritive Church who could preserve it for you, even declare it as authoritive, as only an authoritive Church, one founded by Christ who gave it awesome authority, could do such a thing!



God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.

(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)
 

tragic_pizza

New Member
Originally posted by WPutnam:
Too bad the author is dead (I presume), as I would love to see what he would say concerning that period of time between Pentecost and until ink first touched papyrus in the writing of the New Testament, and tell us where the authority and source of faith, doctrine and morals are.

He would have to be reminded, I suspect, that the Old Testament contains no words that came out of the mouth of Jesus in the "good news" - The Gospel of Christ.

I would then wonder if he would have glowing words to say about the very Church who preserved the bible for him as we see it today...
Where to start, where to start... Paul's first Epistle probably predated the Gospel of Mark by a few years; still, you're only talking a couple of decades, if that, between Pentecost and when ink touched papyrus. So I'm a little foggy on exactly why this is an important point for you.

As to the Good News, have you not read Isaiah? The Psalms? Any of the major or minor prophets, all of whom promised the redemption of God and the coming Messiah?

I realize that your aim is to somehow make the Church that parent of Scripture or some such, but it just doesn't wash. The Church is, at best, the custodian of Scripture, or at least it was until the printing press was invented and most people learned to read...
 

WPutnam

<img src =/2122.jpg>
Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WPutnam:
Too bad the author is dead (I presume), as I would love to see what he would say concerning that period of time between Pentecost and until ink first touched papyrus in the writing of the New Testament, and tell us where the authority and source of faith, doctrine and morals are.

He would have to be reminded, I suspect, that the Old Testament contains no words that came out of the mouth of Jesus in the "good news" - The Gospel of Christ.

I would then wonder if he would have glowing words to say about the very Church who preserved the bible for him as we see it today...[qb]
Where to start, where to start... Paul's first Epistle probably predated the Gospel of Mark by a few years; still, you're only talking a couple of decades, if that, between Pentecost and when ink touched papyrus. So I'm a little foggy on exactly why this is an important point for you.</font>[/QUOTE]Er, ah, Tragic-pizza, I don't give a hoot about when whose gospel writing came first. What I am concerned with is that period of time when NO ONE had written a thing yet!

In other words, there was a period of time between Pentecost and when the first writing began that was to become the New Testament!

Where was the "authority" then, Tragic_pizza!

As to the Good News, have you not read Isaiah? The Psalms? Any of the major or minor prophets, all of whom promised the redemption of God and the coming Messiah?
(Sigh!) Tragic_pizza, did you really read my message? The the writings of Isaish have any of Christ's words there? Isaiah certainly prophasized the coming of the Messiah, but not one word from Christ's mouth (since he was not born yet) do you see in Isaish's writings, right!

I realize that your aim is to somehow make the Church that parent of Scripture or some such, but it just doesn't wash. The Church is, at best, the custodian of Scripture, or at least it was until the printing press was invented and most people learned to read...
Tragic_pizza, you don't get it, do you? Where was the New Testament the day after Pentecost, the week after Pentedost, a year after Pentecost, 10 years after Pentecost? Some scholars think that the writing of the New Testament did not start until after A.D. 70, albeit some now think it occurred within the "eyewitness period" to about 30 years after Pentecost.

And before that happened, whence was the "authority" Christians were to go by as their source of faith, doctrine and morals?

Remember, the Old Testament is still with them, and certainly, much is contained therein that doctrine can hang, but there is nothing of Christ's new covenant that is specific in the Old Testament that can be derived specifically, until the coming of the New Testament.

But wait, what about before it was written? To whom did Christians go for their source of faith, doctrine and morals, the Old
Testament being the fulfilled covenant? In other words, when Christ ascended to the Father in heaven, His gospel was somewhere, wasn't it?

Where was it, Tragic_pizza?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.

(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Stephen III:

Now DHK that you know which books we are referring to in particular, how 'bout an answer?

Perhaps the term "in error" is to harsh. But seeing that you set the criteria for eliminating certain books from being able to claim God as their inspiration based on the fact that they changed from their original, I would like to hear your rational as to why the KJV doesn't have to meet this same critique.
BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA
Inasmuch as the fourteen apocryphal books have been placed in the Canon of the Old Testament by the Roman Catholic Church, and have been rejected by Protestants, it is necessary that the canonicity of these books be considered. If these books are a part of the Scriptures, are canonical, we have no right to exclude them, and if the claims made for their canonicity are erroneous they should be rejected. It is at this point the question can be most appropriately considered.

The Fourteen Books
The word Apocrypha signifies “secret” or “hidden” and is applied to a class of writings relative to portions of the Old Testament, and to similar writings in connection with the New Testament. The following are the Old Testament books of The Apocrypha.
1. I Esdras. 2. II Esdras. 3. Tobit. 4. Judith. 5. Additions to the book of Esther. 6. The Wisdom of Solomon. 7. Ecclesiasticus (the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach). 8. Baruch. (Ch. VI – the Epistle of Jeremy). 9. The Song of the Three Holy Children (The Prayer of Azarias and the Song of the Three). 10. The History of Susanna. 11. The History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon. (9, 10, and 11 are the additions to the book of Daniel.) 12. The Prayer of Manasses, King of Judah. 13. I Maccabees. 14. II Maccabees.
These books were included as a part of the Old Testament Canon by the Council of Trent, 1546 A. D. It is true they were assigned a somewhat inferior rank. They are rejected by the Protestant Church as wholly spurious and not to be allowed even an inferior place in the Sacred Canon.

The Hebrew Canon
The Scriptures of the Old Testament constitute the national literature of the Jews. What is of first importance is what they regarded as their sacred Canon, the full number of writings of which it consisted. There are four general divisions of the Hebrew Scripture: the Law, or Pentateuch, the Historical Books, the Poetical Books and the Prophets. These appeared at different stages of their history, and consequently individual books wer prepared and preserved before there was a collection.
In the reign of Josiah (642 – 611 B.C.), while the Temple was being repaired, the book of the Law was found. The fact that prophetical writers made use of the works of each other, as in the case of Jeremiah who made use of Isaiah, and the use Daniel made of Jeremiah (Dan. 9:2, 11, 13), clearly shows that these works were in a specific form and available. The references to the sacred writers, following the Exile also proves that the Scriptures had been preserved during period of the Captivity (Ez. 6:18; Ne. 8:1).
Josephus, the Jewish historian, who was born about 37 A.D., was fully competent to state what constituted the Old Testament Canon, the Scriptures as recognized by the Jews. He positively declares that the last of the sacred books was written during the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia. The reader is referred to our studies in Ezra and Nehemiah. The following statement by Josephus is noteworthy: “Although so great an interval of time has now passed, not a soul has ventured to add or to remove or to alter a syllable, and it is the instinct of every Jew, from the day of his birth, to consider these Scriptures as the teaching of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully lay down his life in their behalf.” And his enumeration and description of these books how that they were the same as those of the Old Testament as we now have it.
The New Testament does not leave us in doubt as to what constituted the Scriptures of the Old Testament. This was clearly indicated by our Lord when He said that all things must be fulfilled which were written “in the law of Moses, and the prophets and the psalms concerning” Himself. The prophets included the historical books, and in the Hebrew Bible the Psalms is the first book in the third division. “With few exceptions, the New Testament quotes directly or refers to all the books of the Old Testament and that is especially true of the various groups of books. Thus they have the highest sanction and acceptance of our Lord and His apostles which establishes for all time their divine and authoritative character.”

The Apocrypha in the Septuagint
If the evidence against the canonicity of these books is conclusive, how did they get into the Bible? They were never, at any time, given a place in the Hebrew Bible, and that fact is of supreme significance when the question is raised as to how they got into the Bible. From time to time they were admitted into the Septuagint Version (283 – 30 B.C.) which is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and was used in Alexandria in Egypt almost exclusively by the Greek-speaking Jews as the Word of God. It was either because of lax views of canonicity, or for the convenience of using these books ecclesiastically, that they were admitted to this version.
This admission of these books is explained in a satisfactory manner by Bissell: “The Septuagint version becoming, subsequently, to the great mass of Gentile Christians, as well as to such Jews as did not understand Hebrew, the authoritative standard, the limits of the true original canon were almost wholly effaced. And in additions to the uncritical character of the period, the difficulty was, for a time, still further enhanced by the controversies carried on between the Jews and Christians, each appealing to his own copy of the Scriptures. The fact, too, that the early translations of the Scriptures into the vernacular of the people, like the Old Latin, were made from the Septuagint, helped to fasten upon and make hereditary in the Church the Alexandrian confusion and mistake.”

The Apocrypha Uncanonical
These books are rejected because they are not in any Hebrew collection of the Scriptures, and they are not in the Hebrew collection because they were regarded as uncanonical. And this is abundantly supported by the important fact that they never had the recognition of Christ, His apostles and other New Testament writers. In his treatment of the view that there are reminiscences of passages in the Apocrypha in some passages of the New Testament, the scholarly Westcott says, “At least, the point may be considered as well established, that nothing like an authentication of the Apocrypha can be predicated of the New Testament writers, even admitting an acquaintance on their part with its literature, and occasional evidence they were somewhat influenced by it.”
It is universally admitted that these books formed no part of the Hebrew Canon. Bleek admits that they are nowhere expressly quoted in the New Testament and makes the further valuable statement that “Among the Palestinian Jews no writing was adopted into the Canon of which it was known that it had not been composed until later than about one hundred years after the end of the Exile.
Thus for example, the book of Jesus Sirach (Ecclus., c. 210-180 B.C.) found no acceptance because its late origin was known; nor did it claim for itself any higher antiquity; as also; the Greek translator, the author’s grandson, expressly distinguishes his grandfather’s book from the canonical writings.” What is true of this book applies to all the Apocrypha since none of these writings were much, if at all, older than Ecclesiasticus.
In brief, the fact that these books are in the Septuagint version in no sense renders them canonical, and the fact that they are excluded from the Hebrew collection is sufficient reason why they should be rejected as uncanonical.

The Date of these Writings
The date of 2Esdras has been placed about 30 B.C. There is no certainty as to the author or date of Tobit and Judith. Esther has been assigned to about 165 B.C., and The Wisdom of Solomon to the close of the first century B.C. Eclesiasticus has been assigned to about 180 B.C., and Bel and the Dragon to the time of the Ptolemies. There is no certainty s to the date of The Prayer of Manasses, and from internal evidence Baruch may have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem, 70 A.D. The date of 1Maccabbees is placed after 135 B.C., and 2Maccabbees sometime after 161 B.C.
It will be seen that there is very little certainty s to the date of these writings, and that from the dates assigned they fall in the last half of the period from Malachi to Christ. The book that is the greatest historical value is 1Macabbees. It gives the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes from 175 B.C., and carries the history of that period to the death of Simon Macabaeus in 135 B.C.

Attitude of the Early Fathers
It is a significant fact that the best of the early Fathers adopted the Hebrew Canon as giving the authoritative Scriptures of the Old Testament. Augustine repeatedly stated the distinction between the Hebrew Canon and the Apocrypha, and in discussing a passage in II Maccabees declared that the book did not belong in the Hebrew Canon to which Christ bore witness.
Rufinus positively asserts that “The books of the Hebrew Canon are the inspired Scriptures.” While Origen thought there were passages in the Apocrypha that were cited by the New Testament, he emphatically declared, “But this will give no authority to apocryphal writings, for the bounds which our fathers have fixed are not to be removed; and possibly the apostles and evangelists, full of the Holy Ghost, might know what should be taken out of those writings and what not. But we, who have not such a measure of the Spirit, cannot, without great danger presume to act in that manner.”
That these books are spurious as the canonicity, and have no right to a place in the Word of God, abundantly established. In rejecting these books the Protestant Bible takes the proper Scriptural position in maintaining that the Hebrew Canon contains the only Scriptures of the Old Testament recognized by our Lord and the New Testament writers.
Because this is found in the middle of my Bible it must be inspired just as you consider your Apocrypha inspired. I like "My Apocrypha" better.

DHK
 

MikeS

New Member
Originally posted by DHK:
Because this is found in the middle of my Bible it must be inspired just as you consider your Apocrypha inspired. I like "My Apocrypha" better.

DHK
Well, lacking any source of divine revelation regarding your canon, I guess "found in the middle of my Bible" is as good a method of discernment as any.

(And that ain't good!)
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by MikeS:
Well, lacking any source of divine revelation regarding your canon, I guess "found in the middle of my Bible" is as good a method of discernment as any.

(And that ain't good!)
No, it isn't. But unfortunately that is as far as some people's thinking or discernment goes these days.
:(
 

Stephen III

New Member
I remember a bumper sticker that read " If you can't baffle them with brilliance, befuddle them with BS." and towards that end your last post DHK is well deserving of this sort of praise but not to run it into the ground but you've not answered the question?

Lets save the discussion of whether the canon should include the seven books referenced for another thread.

The question strictly pertains to the fact that the original KJV DID INCLUDE the seven books shall we. So again the question is: Which KJV's issuance was Holy Spirit lead and which one was issued in error? Simple question, ....no need to muddy the waters with half-baked contentions that Christ or the apostles rejected the Septuagint etc....we can save that for another thread.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Stephen III:

The question strictly pertains to the fact that the original KJV DID INCLUDE the seven books shall we. So again the question is: Which KJV's issuance was Holy Spirit lead and which one was issued in error? Simple question, ....no need to muddy the waters with half-baked contentions that Christ or the apostles rejected the Septuagint etc....we can save that for another thread.
Please provide a link to give evidence that the apocrypha was contained in the KJV.
Generally speaking the KJV went through a number of revisions to correct various spelling and type-setting errors. Even in recent editions there are some minor changes made. Historically the apocrypha has never been included in the canon of Scripture. Remember that the majority of the KJV translators were high Anglican/Catholic background. Thus the translation itself shows some deference to the politics of the time. For example the word ekklesia was translated church instead of assembly, and baptidzo translated baptism, instead of immersion. These translational decisions were politically motivated. If there was an early edition of the KJV that contained the Apocrypha, I am sure that it would have been out of the influence of some of high Anglican/Catholic influence. But the purpose of a revision is to weed out error, isn't it?

KJV Changes

[ July 27, 2003, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]
 

Carson Weber

<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi DHK,

You wrote, "Historically the apocrypha has never been included in the canon of Scripture."

Historically, you are incorrect.

The Synod of Hippo, which was held in North Africa in 393 produced the following in Canon 29 of its proceedings:

“Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in the church under the title of divine writings. The canonical books are:---Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings [i.e., 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings], the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon [i.e., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus], the twelve books of the Prophets [i.e., Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi], Isaiah, Jeremiah [including Baruch], Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras [i.e., Ezra, Nehemiah], two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:---the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church [i.e., the Roman church] shall be consulted.”

75 years before the Protestant Reformation at the Council of Florence - Feb. 4, 1442 - we witness the promulgation of the following decree in its Eleventh Session:

“[T]his sacred ecumenical council of Florence . . . professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament -- that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel -- since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows. Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings [i.e., 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings], two of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees . . . [they go on to list the 27 New Testament books we all accept today].”

The Protestant International Bible Commentary says:

"Even if one holds that Jesus put His imprimatur upon only the 39 books of the Hebrew OT, as is implied above, he must admit that this fact escaped the notice of many of the early followers of Jesus, or that they rejected it, for they accepted as equally authoritative those extra books in the wider canon of the LXX9 . . . Polycarp [one of John's disciples], Barnabas, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen--Greek and Latin Fathers alike--quote both classes of books, those of the Hebrew canon and the Apocrypha, without distinction. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his City of God (18.42-43) argued for equal and identical divine inspiration for both the Jewish canon and the Christian canon." (1)

Marvin Tate, an Old Testament professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote the following:

“It seems clear that the Protestant position must be judged a failure on historical grounds, insofar as it sought to return to the canon of Jesus and the Apostles. The Apocrypha belongs to this historical heritage of the Church.” (2)

DHK, perhaps a retraction on your part would be appropriate?

1. Gerald F. Hawthorne, “Canon and Apocrypha of the Old Testament,” International Bible Commentary, ed. F.F. Bruce, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 37, 35

2. Marvin Tate, “Old Testament Apocalyptica and the Old Testament Canon,” in Review and Expositor 65, 1968, 353.
 

Clint Kritzer

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by DHK:
Please provide a link to give evidence that the apocrypha was contained in the KJV.
Actually, on this one, he's correct, DHK.

Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The translators were organized into six groups, and met respectively at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Ten at Westminster were assigned Genesis through 2 Kings; seven had Romans through Jude. At Cambridge, eight worked on 1 Chronicles through Ecclesiastes, while seven others handled the Apocrypha. Oxford employed seven to translate Isaiah through Malachi; eight occupied themselves with the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.


http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html
Here's a link that shows all 80 Books in the original: http://ebible.org/bible/kjv/

You may find this of interest as well: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whydidkjv-apocrypha.html

The apocrypha wasn't removed from the KJV until 1885 by the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury.

[ July 27, 2003, 02:51 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi DHK,

You wrote, "Historically the apocrypha has never been included in the canon of Scripture."

Historically, you are incorrect.
No, I am not incorrect. My position is well laid out above. And I have nothing to recant.

The Synod of Hippo, which was held in North Africa in 393 produced the following in Canon 29 of its proceedings:

“Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in the church under the title of divine writings. The canonical books are:---Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings [i.e., 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings], the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon [i.e., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus], the twelve books of the Prophets [i.e., Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi], Isaiah, Jeremiah [including Baruch], Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras [i.e., Ezra, Nehemiah], two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:---the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church [i.e., the Roman church] shall be consulted.”
And your point is?? Many of the early church fathers were not in agreement. As pointed out already: Origen did not agree with the Apocrypha being in the Canon; Jerome didn't think it should be there, and even the Jewish historian Josephus thought that the books were bogus. Your Council's decision in the light of history is meaningless.

75 years before the Protestant Reformation at the Council of Florence - Feb. 4, 1442 - we witness the promulgation of the following decree in its Eleventh Session:

“[T]his sacred ecumenical council of Florence . . . professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament -- that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel -- since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows. Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings [i.e., 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings], two of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees . . . [they go on to list the 27 New Testament books we all accept today].”
An ecumenical council doesn't speak for true Bible Believers. It never has. Of course this was a Catholic Coucil wasn't it? Catholics duly carrying out there duty to preserve their heresies.

The Protestant International Bible Commentary says:

"Even if one holds that Jesus put His imprimatur upon only the 39 books of the Hebrew OT, as is implied above, he must admit that this fact escaped the notice of many of the early followers of Jesus, or that they rejected it, for they accepted as equally authoritative those extra books in the wider canon of the LXX9 . . . Polycarp [one of John's disciples], Barnabas, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen--Greek and Latin Fathers alike--quote both classes of books, those of the Hebrew canon and the Apocrypha, without distinction. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his City of God (18.42-43) argued for equal and identical divine inspiration for both the Jewish canon and the Christian canon." (1)
And so? The editor of the International Bible Commentator says that some of the early church fathers held to the opionion that the Apocrypha was inspired. Of course his information is not all that accurate, I notice. For in his list he quotes Origen, who thought that the Apocrypha should not be included in the canon as far as I know.

Marvin Tate, an Old Testament professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote the following:

“It seems clear that the Protestant position must be judged a failure on historical grounds, insofar as it sought to return to the canon of Jesus and the Apostles. The Apocrypha belongs to this historical heritage of the Church.” (2)

DHK, perhaps a retraction on your part would be appropriate?
No recant here--especially based on that questionable piece of logic or the lack therof. Circular reasoning works so great with you guys. The only history is Catholic history. The Apocrypha isn't found in Protestant history only in Catholic history, therefore it belongs in the Bible, for the only Bible and the only truth comes from the Catholic Church. Around and around and around you go, chasing your own tail. It's inspired because it is in the Catholic Bible; and therefore the Protestants are wrong. Great logic!

The Bible belongs to the historical heritage of believers everywhere, not just "the Church, aka, the Catholic Church, but to early believers that constituted local assemblies of believers. Ephesians, Colossians, and Galatians, for example were never written to the Catholic Church, but rather churches.
Jesus, nor any of the Apostles ever quoted from any of the Apocryphal books.
It is the failure of the Catholics to recognize the fact that the Jewish Old Testament canon was complete in 450 B.C. The Jews would not accept any book written after 450 B.C. There was a period of over 400 years silence when God did not speak to anyone (as a prophet). The world waited. Then after 400 some years John the Baptist appeared. All those frivilous books of the Apocrypha were written in that intertestamental period. They are not in the Jewish canon. They never were. If they are not in the Jewish canon, they are not in the Old Testament. If they are obviously not in the Old Testament, someone has done some serious tampering with the Word of God. The Catholics are in grave danger of adding to the Word of God, that which ought not to be added. These are Old Testament additions. The Old Testament canon was closed by the Jews in 450 B.C. Even the Septuagint was written in 250 B.C., and almost all the Apocrypha was written after that date. That one point alone shows that these books are entirely fake, uninspired, bogus.
DHK
 

Stephen III

New Member
As this tread and a few others presently are centered around biblical authority, or specifically just how it is we know the bible to be the inspired "Word of God", I think the diversionary tactics used to avoid the obvious are amusing.

Let's shelve or move the debate on the Canon and which books should be included or not to another thread, and stick with the thread topic noted above.

First off- Thanks Clint for the references on the KJV original.

I am still looking for someone to answer the question as to how the Original KJV could be issued with the deuterocanonicals and subsequently removed and from whence the authority to make these changes came.
The reason I would like to delve into this is that I believe that the Protestants who claim the Bible as their proof that the Bible is their sole authority (Sola Scriptura?) and prooves in and of itself to be divinely authored (a flawed extention of the inerrancy issue), are being hypocritical.
In as much as they are willing to accept the extra-biblical opinion of a committee to establish the bible canon of the version most readily utilized in Protestant circles. And not just the latest but I'm quite sure had they been around they would have accepted the original! How is it the fickleness of these committees viewed as binding? Was both of their authorities biblical in its' origin?
It is logical to ask the obvious, given this inconsistent inclusion /removal then: How do you know the KJV canon is complete NOW?!!

I ask again for the record: which commitee was guided by the Holy Spirit? We know the Holy Spirit would not counter itself. And does not the inerrancy of scriptire extend to the canon itself. The original version committee would have claimed inspiration to come up with a different version than the next committee that also claimed divine inspiration.

And Protestants today wholeheartedly accept THAT committee's decisions -(can you say extra-biblical, I knew you could...)

That in and of itself shows that the Protestant perspective of believing the Bible to be the sole authority on matters of faith and morals (or whatever Sola-Scriptura definition you'd prefer)is flawed as they are more than willing to accept the definitions of an extra-biblical authority just in defining WHAT makes up scripture.

The obvious is that it is proper and logical to have an outside authority to determine the canon. (for you won't find a list of the books to include in scripture itself)And the logical authority is not the individual, or we'd have a lot more BOM's, Korans, etc.
The Church is the obvious authority, the question is which church. Scripture points to that fact that the church has this responsibility as being "the pillar and foundation of truth" and the practical everyday use of the KJV by protestants is an aknowledgement of the fact that an authority is required.

I suppose it would be off-topic to further this train of thought by asking: If an extra-biblical authority is required to decide just what makes up the Bible, where does this authority end? We know we cannot specifically add to scripture of take away , but how about guiding in the understanding and interpretation of scripture? And shouldn't this guidance come in a definitive and binding way so as not to have suffer fickleness of men. Isn't that one way the Holy Spirit was promised to the church?

Just my thoughts....

God Bless

Stephen
 

Stephen III

New Member
DHK wrote:
The Apocrypha isn't found in Protestant history only in Catholic history, therefore it belongs in the Bible, for the only Bible and the only truth comes from the Catholic Church. Around and around and around you go, chasing your own tail. It's inspired because it is in the Catholic Bible; and therefore the Protestants are wrong. Great logic
Now as you have been proven to be utterly wrong in your assumption how 'bout that recantation? ;)

Or better yet, Since the decision to include and the decision to exclude were part of the Protestant process of deciding the KJV Canon, in light of this authority being extra-biblical how do we know that authority was from God? (God's not fickle you know!)

And drop the Catholic/Anglican committee influence angle for as we see in the preface of the original version if their was a prejudiced position influencing the process it was done from a protestant perspective!!

Quote fro website Clint provided:

"A dedicatory epistle to King James, which also enhanced the completed work, recalled the King's desire that "there should be one more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue." The translators expressed that they were "poor instruments to make GOD'S holy Truth to be yet more and more known" while at the same time recognizing that "Popish persons" sought to keep the people "in ignorance and darkness."

Really reeks of anti-protestantism there DHK now doesn't it.
laugh.gif
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Stephen III:


I am still looking for someone to answer the question as to how the Original KJV could be issued with the deuterocanonicals and subsequently removed and from whence the authority to make these changes came.
Stephen,
I hope this information will shed some light on the answer to your question.
The Apocrypha
Another objection to the KJV concerns the Apocrypha. When first published, the Apocrypha was placed between the Old and New Testament.
This was common for English Bibles in those days. However, the KJV translators did not consider the Apocrypha inspired Scripture. They placed it between the Testaments, indicating that they regarded it valuable only as historical record and for edification, not for doctrine. The same is true of other early English versions. For example, on the opening page of the Apocrypha in the Geneva Bible we read:

These books that follow in order after the prophets unto the New Testament are called Apocrypha--that is, books which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion, save inasmuch as they had the consent of the other Scriptures called canonical to confirm the same, or rather whereon they were grounded; but as books preceding from godly men, [which] were received to be read for the advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of the history, and for the instruction of godly manners: which books declare that at all times God had an especial care of His Church, and left them not utterly destitute of teachers and means to confirm them in the hope of the promised Messiah; and also witness that those calamities that God sent to His Church were according to His providence, who had both so threatened by His Prophets, and so brought it to pass for the destruction of their enemies, and for the trial of his children. [15]

Likewise, the translators of the KJV did not give the Apocrypha the respect they had given the Holy Scriptures. Their relative disregard for these books is not expressed in an explicit disclaimer, as in the Geneva Bible, but can be seen in the way they are presented in the first edition of 1611. In addition to placing the Apocrypha between the Testaments (rather than interspersing them with the canon as was Roman Catholic practice), the translators did not mention the Apocrypha at all on the title page, which simply reads, “The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New.” The listing on the table of contents page refers to them only as “The Bookes called Apocrypha” and segregates them, as in the text, from the Old and New Testaments. Additionally, both the Old and New Testaments have elaborate engravings placed before each Testament; the Apocrypha does not. The running heads that adorn the tops of the pages in the canon with summaries of the contents (e.g., in Genesis, “The creation of man”; “The first Sabbath”; “Mariage instituted”) are replaced in the Apocrypha by generic running heads that read only “Apocrypha” throughout and do not summarize. Further, the translators of the KJV did not malign the canonical books of the Bible the way they did the Apocrypha. At 1 Esdras 5:5 the margin states,

“This place is corrupt,” an allusion found nowhere in either of the Testaments. The additional chapters to the Book of Esther are entitled “The rest of the Chapters of the Booke of Esther, which are found neither in the Hebrew, nor in the Calde.”
Revisions And Printing Errors Another popular argument used to oppose the KJV is to ask which edition of the KJV is being used, implying that the KJV has been substantially changed. If extreme changes in the text have occurred, there would be justification for additional revisions. The truth, however, is that the text has not really been changed. The revisions of the KJV dealt with the correction of early printing errors or the modernization of the text as it regards spelling and punctuation. The verses have remained the same.

There have been four major revisions of the KJV. They took place in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769.
The 1762 revision was the work of Dr. Paris of the University at Cambridge. The work of this revision laid the foundation for most modern editions of the text. He greatly enhanced the use of italics (which in the KJV denote supplied words not in the original languages) and modernized most of the spelling. His edition also added several marginal references. The 1769 edition came from Oxford, and was the work of Dr. Blayney. In this edition, several additional revisions were made in correcting earlier printing errors, spelling, and expanding marginal and introductory notes. This edition has become the standard by which modern texts are printed.
An example of differences in spelling may be seen in this comparison of Ga 1:1-5 from a 1612 edition of the KJV and a current one. Note, however, that the text remains the same.
1612 Edition:

1. Paul an Apostle not of men, neither by man, but by Iesus Christ, and God the
Father, who reised him from the dead, 2. And all the brethren which are with me, vnto the Churches of Galatia: 3. Grace be to you and peace, from God the Father, and from our Lord Iesus Christ; 4. Who gaue himself for our sins, that he might deliuer vs from this present euil world, according to the will of God, & our Father. 5. To whom be glory for euer and euer, Amen.

Current Editions:
1. Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) 2.
And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: 3. Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, 4. Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: 5. To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Other revisions sought to correct printing errors.
Sometimes the printer omitted a word or words were printed twice. These were corrected in order to produce the text as the translators gave it.[16]
The 1632 edition, for example, left out the word “not” in the Commandment “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” thus earning it the nickname
The Wicked Bible. Even today with computerized checking of the text, printing errors can occur.
This does not invalidate the preserved word of God or prove the KJV is corrupt. After all, one finds these same errors of transmission within the host of existing Greek manuscripts. Yet, it does not nullify the doctrine of preservation for the original reading still can be found despite copyists’ mistakes. It does mean that sometimes printers have made mistakes and the four major revisions of the KJV have sought to correct such errors.
"Printers have persecuted me without cause." (Ps 119:161). Or so it reads in a 1702 edition of the KJV. One of the great misconceptions about the Authorized Version concerns the diverse errors printers have made throughout its history. Some have concluded that to correct its printing mistakes is to change the text. This, however, is not the case. Others have thought so highly of the King's Bible as to think that the printers were free from error. This, also, is not so. Printers have made quite a few errors in editions of the Authorized Version.

The first edition of the KJV is often called the "He Bible" because of the printing error that occurred at Ru 3:15. Here, the first edition read “he went into the city” instead of “she went into the city.”

The corrected edition is sometimes referred to as the "She Bible." The number of printing errors in the first few decades of editions caused William Kilburne to write a treatise in 1659 entitled, Dangerous Errors in Several Late Printed Bibles to the Great Scandal and Corruption of Sound and True Religion.

Other misprints in the 1611 edition included Exodus 38:11 where "hoopes" was used for "hooks" and Le 13:56, "the plaine be" for "the plague be." In Ezr 3:5 the printer repeated the word "offered" twice. The running head over the fourth chapter of Micah reads “Joel” instead of its proper name of Micah. "He" is used instead of "ye" in . In Eze 24:7, the text was to read, "She poured it not upon the ground"; however, the Royal Printer left out the word “not.” In 1 Esdras 4 the running head reads “Anocrynha” instead of “Apocrypha,” and several of these headings misnumber chapters immediately afterwards in 2 Esdras.

Between the printing conditions and the style of print, it can be easily understood why such errors occurred. Below are listed five passages where printing errors occurred in the 1611 edition. Even when we make adjustment for the differences in orthography and calligraphy it takes careful reading to locate these printing mistakes
Ge 10:15-18
And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, And the Jebusite, and the Emorite, and the Girgasite, And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.
Ex 14:10
And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and, behold, the Egyptians marched after them; and they were sore afraid: and the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and, behold, the Egyptians marched after them and they were sore afraid: and the children of Israel cried out unto the LORD.
Le 17:14
For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
Jer 22:3
Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiler out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.Mt 16:25,
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his his life for my sake shall find it. [17]

Other editions contained similar errata. In 1653 one edition read, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God" in 1Co 6:9. An 1801 edition misreads Jude 1:16 as,
"There are murderers, complainers, walking after their own lusts." The word "murmurers" should have been used. "Discharge" is used instead of "charge" in an 1806 KJV printing at 1Ti 5:21, and "wife" was changed to "life" at Lu 14:26 in an 1810 edition.

Even though errors occur occasionally in print, they are detected and corrected in later editions.
For example, notice how this 1638 edition changes the text of Ac 6:3, yet it is now corrected to read as the 1611 edition read.

1611 edition:
Wherefore brethren, looke ye out among you seuen men of honest report, full of the holy Ghost, and wisedome, whom we may appoint ouer this businesse.

1638 edition:
Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the
Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom ye may appoint over this business.

Current edition:
Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
An example of a printing error found in some current editions is located in Jer 34:16. Here there is a difference in two editions, the one from
Cambridge and the one from Oxford.

Cambridge edition:
But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.

Oxford edition:
But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.
Is the correct reading “whom ye” or “whom he”? After all, both appear in various editions of the King James Version, depending on if they follow the Cambridge edition or the Oxford edition. This problem has nothing to do with preservation or the effectiveness of the KJV as a translation. It has to do with the correction of a printing error still in existence. The original edition of 1611 reads “whome yee had set at libertie at their pleasure.” According to John R. Dore, “The University of Oxford did not begin to print Bibles until the year 1675, when the first was issued in quarto size; the spelling was revised by Dr. John Fell, Dean of Oxford.”[18] Cambridge, agreeing with the edition of 1611, first began printing KJV Bibles in 1629 by Thomas and John Buck. Although one cannot prove that this error is the fault of Dr. John Fell in his 1675 Oxford edition, we can state that considerable time had passed before the error was introduced, and that the error was limited to the editions published by Oxford or those based on the Oxford edition. This has nothing to do with the issue of Biblical preservation, for the correct reading is found in the original edition, the Cambridge edition, and current editions based on either the original 1611 or Cambridge editions.

It must be asserted that the text of the KJV has come to us unaltered. What has changed is the correction of printing errors, changes in punctuation and italics, and changes in orthography and calligraphy.
This was verified by the American Bible Society in a report published in 1852 (after the fourth major revision of the KJV took place) entitled Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers. An additional report was issued in 1858 by the American Bible Society titled, Report of the Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers of the American Bible Society. Apart from the changes just listed, the reports stated that “The English Bible as left by the translators has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text.”[19] John R. Dore, also attests to this. In a study published by the Royal Printers in 1888, Dore stated, “That pearl of great price, the English Bible of 1611, remained so long without alteration, that many of us had forgotten that it was only one of a series of versions.”[20]The Influence And Durability Of The Authorized Version
King James may not have been a great king; he may not have even been a good king. He did something, though, that no other monarch has ever done. He gave us the word of God in such a fashion that it has lasted for four hundred years.
“Crowned With Glory,” by Dr. Thomas Holland
 

Stephen III

New Member
Thanks DHK!,

The article was very detailed and I appreciate the effort you placed in finding this.

The emphasis I guess I was looking for was not so much on whether the books belonged or not.
That perhaps could be a separate thread.

But in keeping with the gist of this thread, I would like to know a Protestants perspective of the authority to include or exclude the books. From where does this authority derive?


You see, whether the books are: included, excluded, qualified, or as we saw a combination of all three ultimately, it still comes down to an individual's acceptance of the authority that makes the decision (or in the KJV proponents case makes and eventually changes the decision).
Why do you accept that authority? And, since this authority you would view as fallible; (I assume)how do you know the KJV to be complete now?

So often when these threads are started we get sidetracked into other ancillary issues. So I don't mean to sound disinterested in the topics you addressed. But I personally haven't seen a satisfactory completion to this topic.

So if I may go back and select some of the pertinent quotes from various participants of this thread and then try to tie them into what contentions I would make with this additional insight. (that is: that the original KJV canon was subsequently modified)

I won't necessarily name sources so as not to alienate anyone. I'd prefer healthy input from anyone without setting off the defense mechanisms. I will however separate the Protestant expressed viewpoints from the Catholic perspective comments. Here goes:

(I will post in separate posts)
 

Stephen III

New Member
Continued from above:
The original post (topic):

........ Why do you believe the Scriptures in your bible are the infallible Word of God?


Protestant Quotes from thread:

If God wrote it, it's trustworthy. I believe it because it tells me I can. The best witness about the Bible is the Bible it'self.
God has caused enough material in the Bible for us to verify on our own so that we can know the rest is accurate.
Subjectively, there is that in His Word which strikes the heart hard, one way or the other. No other book does that.
The problem with these ( other books claiming divine inspiration ) is that they contradict themselves and the Bible. God does not contradict Himself.
(italics mine)

..., no other book supports it'self like the Bible.
i agree with what is written in the bible. Because its writings have agreed with everything that the Holy Spirit is teaching me.
and I havent found a mistake yet.
Yes, for us, the authenticity of Scripture is an ongoing matter in the secular world. Fifteen hundred years ago they were close enough to the originals not to need what we need now. God has been very gracious to us.
Lastly, any corrections ( [I referencing scriptural translations[/I]) that have been made have been a result of going back to older texts than those available in the Middle Ages. They have also been the result of more study regarding the Hebrew language. It has nothing to do with man's decision to change something.
The Bible stands alone, for better or for worse. It cannot be compared with any other holy book of any other religion. It was several thousand years in the writing by different authors from different backgrounds and languages and yet presents the same God, the same problem, the same answer, the same Christ, the same everything. No other book in the world comes close to what the Bible has and is.
The Bible has no contradictions.
The Bible tells me what GOD has done for me
and why. The focus of other books is what one
must do to be piously religious.
.... Scripture is truly infallible in every point. This cannot be said for any other religion's Scripture, nor can it be said for the leadership of any Christian sect or denomination.
I believe the Bible because it is believable.
There is no explanation, other than the Bible has proven it'self, time and again.
I've read it for myself and I'm convinced that it is the Word of the Lord
Scripture is proven in mych the same way the floor you walk across to get from the coffee pot to your desk proved itself before you first walked across it.
Millenia of men and women have tried the Scriptures, and found the promises, directives, and truths therein trustworthy, and have held that trust even to the death.
So, you see, experience, and faith, not circular reasoning, proves the validity of Scripture, and the rationality of constructing one's doctrine and beliefs upon that foundation.
....God inspired the original manuscripts. "Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." Those holy men of God were not the KJV translators. They referred directly to the Old Testament prophets, and by inference to the New Testament Apostles.....
What other book gives such prophecy with such detail?
There is no other book that compares like it.

I don't need to prove it. It proves it'self. I don't understand how he did it, or even why he would want to save ANY of us, but he does, and he preserved the story, despite many attempts to erase the bible, (even the RCC making laws against reading it, the martyrdom of the translators, even jailing and killing those who preach from it, but it is still there.)
I realize that your aim is to somehow make the Church that parent of Scripture or some such, but it just doesn't wash. The Church is, at best, the custodian of Scripture, or at least it was until the printing press was invented and most people learned to read...
Historically the apocrypha has never been included in the canon of Scripture. Remember that the majority of the KJV translators were high Anglican/Catholic background. Thus the translation itself shows some deference to the politics of the time.
 

Stephen III

New Member
Still more Protestant quotes from thread:

These translational decisions were politically motivated. If there was an early edition of the KJV that contained the Apocrypha, I am sure that it would have been out of the influence of some of high Anglican/Catholic influence. But the purpose of a revision is to weed out error, isn't it
Your Council's decision in the light of history is meaningless.
The apocrypha wasn't removed from the KJV until 1885 by the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury
An ecumenical council doesn't speak for true Bible Believers. It never has.
Circular reasoning works so great with you guys. The only history is Catholic history. The Apocrypha isn't found in Protestant history only in Catholic history, therefore it belongs in the Bible, for the only Bible and the only truth comes from the Catholic Church. Around and around and around you go, chasing your own tail. It's inspired because it is in the Catholic Bible; and therefore the Protestants are wrong. Great logic!
If they are obviously not in the Old Testament, someone has done some serious tampering with the Word of God. The Catholics are in grave danger of adding to the Word of God, that which ought not to be added. These are Old Testament additions. The Old Testament canon was closed by the Jews in 450 B.C. Even the Septuagint was written in 250 B.C., and almost all the Apocrypha was written after that date. That one point alone shows that these books are entirely fake, uninspired, bogus.
And Finally from the website Moderator:

The apocrypha wasn't removed from the KJV until 1885 by the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury.
 
Top