1611 references

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Jarthur001, Jun 21, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    #1 Jarthur001, Jun 21, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 21, 2006
  2. PASTOR MHG

    PASTOR MHG
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because the translators included it between the testaments and believed it to be of "historical" value.

    Max
     
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Some of the KJV translators especially those of the High Church party in the Church of England may have regarded it to have more than just historical value.

    In the 1611 edition of the KJV on the same page with the table that gives the order how the Psalms are to be read, there is also this heading: “The order how the rest of holy Scripture (beside the Psalter) is appointed to be read." On the next pages of the 1611 that lists the lessons from the “rest of holy Scripture” are included some readings from the Apocrypha. Thus, these pages of the liturgical calendar in the 1611 KJV assigned portions of the Apocrypha to be read in the churches as though they were part of holy Scripture.
     
  4. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes but is the only reason? There are better accounts of history. If it was for history only, why not link in the text of BM tablet 21901 or BM 22047 or any other ancient writing. These too are not Bible, yet they show better history of ..say the rise of Babylon then books of the apocrypha. There must be other reason then history, when there are better history books then the apocrypha.
     
    #4 Jarthur001, Jun 21, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 21, 2006
  5. standingfirminChrist

    standingfirminChrist
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is it that the 1611 had references to the Apocrypha? or that the Apocrypha had references to the 1611?
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    The 1611 had cross references to, as well as suggested daily readings from, the Apocrapha.
     
  7. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    #7 Deacon, Jun 21, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 21, 2006
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The Apocrypha were around long before 1611.
     
  9. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the Apocrypha isn't part of the Scriptures then how do we
    explain the passage from II Esdras chapter 7 that speaks of
    Christ? For that matter, how do we explain it if it is Scripture?

    A.F.

    2 Esdras 7:26-35

    Behold, the time shall come, that these tokens which I have
    told thee shall come to pass, and the bride shall appear, and
    she coming forth shall be seen, that now is withdrawn from the
    earth.

    And whosoever is delivered from the foresaid evils shall see
    my wonders.

    For my son Jesus shall be revealed with those that be with
    him, and they that remain shall rejoice within four hundred
    years.

    After these years shall my son Christ die, and all men that
    have life.

    And the world shall be turned into the old silence seven
    days, like as in the former judgments: so that no man shall
    remain.

    And after seven days the world, that yet awaketh not, shall
    be raised up, and that shall die that is corrupt

    And the earth shall restore those that are asleep in her, and
    so shall the dust those that dwell in silence, and the secret
    places shall deliver those souls that were committed unto them.

    And the most High shall appear upon the seat of judgment, and
    misery shall pass away, and the long suffering shall have an
    end:

    But judgment only shall remain, truth shall stand, and faith
    shall wax strong:

    And the work shall follow, and the reward shall be shewed,
    and the good deeds shall be of force, and wicked deeds shall
    bear no rule.


    Link:
    http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/index.htm
     
    #9 AntennaFarmer, Jun 24, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 24, 2006
  10. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apocrypha

    It is quite apparent from its inclusion in the 1611 KJV that the translators considered the Apocrypha as Scripture. The thing that I find puzzling to say the least is that some folks claim the KJV of today is unchangd, while the KJV of today totally omits a major part of what the original translators considered as Scripture. Remember the old KJVO addage - "What is different is not the same."
     
  11. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2

    Leland Ryken observed that "the Anglican practice of reading services from the Prayer Book instead of preaching sermons fostered an alarming ignorance among clergymen" (Worldly Saints, p. 96). Horton Davies pointed out that the Puritans took exception to the number of readings from the Apocrypha in the Book of Common Prayer "as implying a slight on the sufficiency of the canonical Scriptures" (Worship and Theology, I, p. 264). Thomas Smith noted that one chief objection to the common prayer book at a 1583 conference was "the appointment of certain apocryphal writings in the public worship of God, in which were several errors and false doctrines while many parts of the canonical writings, and the doctrine of the sacraments, were omitted" (Select Memoirs, p. 327). James Peirce wrote: "Few of the common people ever look into the Articles of the Church of England, to learn what her doctrine is; but what they know of it, is from daily use and custom. So that when the Apocrypha is read at certain times, instead of the Holy Scriptures, and the Book of Common Prayer, which is in every one's hands, after setting down the order how the Psalter is appointed to be read, prescribes the course of both the Canonical and Apocryphal Lessons, under this one general title: The order how the rest of the Holy Scriptures is appointed to be read: they give a handle to the crafty Papist of imposing upon the ignorant sort; nay, and the churchmen themselves sometimes lead them into a great mistake" (Vindication, p. 537). Peirce also noted: "For those Books which they acknowledge themselves to be Apocryphal, they not only bind up with the Bible, but read them instead thereof" (p. 540).


    The actual high regard that the Church of England of the 1500's and 1600's had for the Apocrypha can also be seen in The Books of Homilies. These books were a collection of "authorized sermons" that were intended to be read aloud in the state churches. The first book of twelve homilies was issued in 1547 with authority of the Council. A second book with twenty-one homilies was issued in 1571 under Queen Elizabeth. Davies observed that "the first book of homilies was issued as a standard of Biblical doctrine and preaching for the nation" (Worship and Theology, I, p. 231). Hughes noted that King James I laid down that "preaching ministers are to take the Articles of 1563 and the two Books of Homilies 'for a pattern and a boundary'" (Reformation in England, p. 399). Does that suggest that the KJV translators were required to accept them as a boundary or standard? Peirce pointed out that in the Church of England's Homilies: "Baruch is cited as the Prophet Baruch; and his writing is called, 'The word of the Lord to the Jews'" (Vindication, pp. 537-538). Peirce also claimed that in the Homilies "the book of Tobit is attributed to the Holy Ghost" (p. 538). This regard is also clearly evident in the views of Church of England Archbishop John Whitgift (1530-1604). Smith cited Archbishop Whitgift as stating at a 1583 conference the following: "The books called apocrypha are indeed parts of the scriptures; they have been read in the church in ancient times, and ought to be still read amongst us" (Select Memoirs, p. 327). Several of the KJV translators who worked with, were taught by, or were associated with Whitgift may have held similar views. The few Puritans among the KJV translators would have disagreed with such high regard for the Apocrypha. It was Archbishop Whitgift that presided over the crowning of James as king of England in July of 1603.
     
  12. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,177
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Not according to the official doctrinal statement of the Church of England, The 39 Articles of Religion.
    As you can see the Apocrypha were not considered scripture by the 39 Articles.

    (I apologize for the double quote. I have deleted the superfluous extra paragraph quote 6 times but this idiotic new software keeps putting it back in. I have complained about the glitch several times but apparently there is nobody at the Moderator/Administrator/Webmaster level smart enough to fix it!)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...