Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Yeshua1, Feb 27, 2014.
And did they include either into 1611 bible?
I believe they included them as study helps. Thus, the Apocrypha are inserted between the two Testaments.
So shouldn't every kjv have them included then, based upon that?
What do Gail R.and Peter R. think of the Apocrypha?
Should be canon, if included in 1611 Kjv!
In a thread your alternate identity 'DaChaser1' started, it was pointed out to you that:
From what research that I've done on the OP's topic, it would seem that the translators (most of whom were of the "high church" [i.e., men who were "wedded" to a rather formal style of liturgy and lifestyle that emulated that of Catholic prelates] factor of the Church of England [Anglican].
Most of the translators of the KJV were scholars and clergymen who owed their positions and livelihood by attempting to remain in the good graces of whatever monarch happened to occupy the English throne at the time.
The Stuart King James I of England (who also held the title of King James VI of Scotland) had little use for the clergy, and he detested being told that he wasn't God's "anointed king" over the people who lived on the Isle of Britain.
One of the primary reasons that King James lent his so-called "authorization" to the Bible that bears his name (KJV) was due to the fact that he hated the anti-monarchial comments that were found in many places in the popular Geneva Bible.
The Geneva Bible was given this name because most of its translators were English puritans who were exiled to the Swiss city of Geneva during the reign of Tudor monarch Mary I (i.e., "Bloody Mary" -- so called because she had several non-Catholic clergymen in England put to death during her reign [1553-1559]).
With the death of the last Tudor monarch, Queen Elizabeth I [d. 1603], the English throne fell to the first English Stuart monarch, James I.
Many Englishmen wished that James I [r. 1603-1625] would usher in an era of calmness to their country--a wish that never came to be realized to any great extent.
To the contrary, James I continued to deplete the treasury of England in his ill-advised attempts to extend his power and authority to many more parts of the then-known world.
Things got so bad that the House of Commons (a body that, prior to the early 1600's had existed basically in name only since its inception in the early 1200's) was forced to convene to try to put a stop to James I's wild-eyed schemes.
James I tried various quasi-legal (and, in some cases down-right illegal) means to keep the House of Commons from even meeting in the first place.
Needless to say, the already debt-ridden folks in England were practically forced to survive at an even greater level of poverty than before--a fate which subsequently tended to promote the series of battles throughout England that historians now collectively refer to as the English Civil Wars.
So (back to the point of the OP), I's have to say that most likely the KJV translators merely followed the practice of earlier English Bible translators and included the non-canonical collection of writings called the Aprocrypha when their work finally appeared in 1611.
It's doubtful that any of the KJV translators saw it as carrying the same canonical authority as the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.
As to the "39 Articles of Faith" (which were merely religious statements that English clergymen developed to appease Tudor monarch Henry VIII [r. 1509-1547]), these were primarily pronouncements set forth to keep Henry VIII from depleting the Church of England's vast wealth of real estate holdings that had been bequeathed to it by previous English monarchs.
The 39 Articles, much to the dismay of the Church's hierarchy, for the most part, failed in their intended purposes--with the result being that the value of their real estate holdings was greatly diminished as a result of Henry VIII's numerous and very ill-advised ventures against Spain, France, and many of the smaller areas of what is now called Italy.
I don't know where you're getting your information;but it's wrong. King Henry V111 died in 1547 and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion were published in 1563 --16 years after his death.
Now in 1536 there was a document called the Ten Articles. It was slightly Calvinistic. In 1539 there was the Six Articles,which swung away from the Calvinistic side. Forty-Two Articles was published in 1552.
None of these articles had anything to do with real estate holdings of any British monarch.
While Henry VIII did die in 1547, some of the English clergy that had been tutoring his rather weak and sickly son, the future King Edward VI [reigned 1547-1553], hoped to put the newly-formed Church of England on a path to a more puritanical and less formal style of liturgy.
Some of their hopes found their way within some of the declarations found within the "Thirty-Nine Articles" that were published in their final form in 1571.
These hopes of the more puritianical clergy were never fully realized to any great extent in England.
With the accession of Henry VIII's and Catherine of Aragon's (Catherine was the daughter of the very staunchly pro-Roman Catholic Spanish monarchs King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella [the same ones who financed Christopher Columbus's initial voyage to the "New World" in 1492]) Queen Mary I ("Bloody Mary") (reigned 1553-1558), these hopes were quickly and very violently quashed. Many of these clergymen met their deaths during her tumultuous reign.
The next (and final) Tudor monarch, Queen Elizabeth I [reigned 1558-1603] didn't really concern herself to any great extent with the internal goings-on within the Church of England.
She tended to be more concerned with defending England's shores from the ongoing threats from staunchly pro-Roman Catholic Spain and France--most notably that of the attempted invasion of England by the Spanish Armada in 1588.
Elizabeth I also seemed to be more interested in extending England's presence and prestige throughout the ever-expanding "New World."
While the so-called "Thirty-Nine Articles" in themselves did not have much to do directly with the loss of value of some of the real estate that the English throne had previously acquired, the fact that the throne's holdings of these properties was subject to very serious depletions is a rather well-documented historical fact that one can discover by reading most any English historical textbook that covers that period of English history.
In which of the Ten Articles are you seeing Calvinism?
Probably, and the PREFACE 'To The reader' as well.
While their opinions don't matter much to me, I believe they view them as non-canonical study helps as well.
Yes, the whole package should be left intact.
I put absolutely no stock whatsoever in the wild-eyed statements made by either Riplinger or Ruckman!
Any person who claims to have received "'Divine Inspiration directly from God' and on equal par with the 66 books of our canonical Bible as they do should NOT be considered as a legitimate spokesperson for any Biblical subject on which they are wont to pontificate!
While there may be some limited value in some of the historical narratives contained within the two Maccabean books that are contained in the original 1611 edition of the KJV, even some of the statements that these two "books" make have been called into question by some reliable conservative Biblical historians whose writings cover that period of time between the closing of the OT book of Malachi (c. 400 BC) and that of the earliest NT texts (c. about the last third of the 1st century AD).
A person may read other portions of the "Apocrypha" if he/she wishes to do so, but when any statement(s) within its contents that is/are at variance with the truly divinely-inspired contents of the 66 books that comprise God's Holy Word need to be summarily dismissed as (to put it mildly) PURE HOG WASH!! :thumbsup:
They are way out there as I have said numerous times in the last eight years here. It would just be interesting to get their take. That's all.
Just some FYI for those that even care to contemplate the very questionable pronouncements of either "Dr.[?]" Gail Riplinger and or "Pastor/Evangelist[?]" Peter Ruckman:
The degree title of "Doctor" Gail Riplinger, (something that she often rather boldly asserts that makes her some kind of expert on Biblical topics), that she was merely an "honorary" degree that was conferred upon her under somewhat questionable circumstances.
A check of "Doctor" Riplinger's actual educational background reveals that she only really holds degrees in "Interior Design" [BA], "Home Economics" [MA], and an MFA in the rather vague subject of "Art."
While there may be anything inherently wrong for a person to hold these degrees, it seems to be rather a stretch of one's imagination to say that these degrees therefore make her a legitimate spokesperson on Biblical translations and/or Biblical textual criticism.
The IFB "Pastor/Evangelist" Peter Ruckman is (to say the least) a rather unique individual.
He founded and leads the so-called "Pensacola (FL) Bible Institute." This "Institute[?]" is not accredited by any recognized accreditation organization, and shouldn't be confused with the accredited Pensacola (FL) Christian College.
Ruckman also pastors the Bible Baptist Church of Pensacola. This is an IFB congregation that has no connection with the Bible Baptist Fellowship.
Ruckman's "Institute[?]" is primarily an institution that publishes his books and other printed materials.
Among the many interesting things that this "Apostle of 'Advanced Revelation from God'" maintains is that he alone is the principal spokesperson anointed by God to proclaim his extreme views on Bible translations and/or Biblical textual criticism.
Ruckman is also known for his use of rather abusive and vulgar language in his attempts to prove that all his opponents are absolutely in error when it comes to criticizing his brand of extreme KJV Onlyism.
Although he did graduate from Bob Jones University many years ago, he now refers to that institution as the "World's Most Unusual 'Hell Hole.'"
Ruckman also firmly believes in the existence of Unidentified Flying Objects. In fact, he claims to have had several conversations with the "crews" of some of them. Moreover, he also contends that the US Central Intelligence Agency operates a "breeding facility" for these aliens.
I don't know about you, but IMHO both of these individuals strike me as rather bizarre folks, and certainly not the sort of persons that I'd put a whole lot of stock in when it comes to the topics of either Bible translations or Biblical textual criticism.
Was Church of England Archbishop John Whitgift (1530-1604) not an Anglican?
Thomas Smith cited Archbishop John 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). Benjamin Brook also quoted the same above statement made by Whitgift along with the following other statements: “The apocrypha was given by the inspiration of God.“ “You cannot shew that there is any error in the apocrypha. And it has been esteemed a part of the holy scriptures by the ancient fathers” (Lives, II, p. 317). Based on Whitgift’s statements, Samuel Hopkins commented: “I will only observe that the Archbishop of Canterbury insisted that the apocrypha books were part of the Holy Scriptures, were given by inspiration of God, and were without error” (The Puritans, III, p. 45, footnote 3).
Several of the KJV translators who worked with, were taught by, or were associated with Whitgift may have held similar views. Is there any evidence that the KJV translators rebuked or criticized Archbishop Whitgift for publicly maintaining that the books called apocrypha are part of the scriptures? 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.
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).
Primary sources please.
Which conference? Which homilies?
First, the translators would never consider the Thirty-nine Articles canonical.
Second, there was ambivalence within the Church of England about the proper use of the Apocryphal books. While the Articles clearly say that they are not scripture, you will note that readings from those books are found in the 1604 Prayer Book -- which arose from the same Hampton Court Conference that produced the Authorized Version. The Puritan-leaning clergy pressed James to eliminate the Apocryphal books from the Prayer Book (among other "Romish" practices they wanted eliminated) but failed on all counts -- except the creation of a new Bible translation.
The creators of the Authorized Version exhibited their ambivalence in several ways. The translation of the Apocrypha was, it is true, not attended with the same care given the Old and New Testaments. The books were indeed separated from the Old and New Testaments, as had been the practice of several Reformation Bibles.
Yet while they did segregate the books -- following Coverdale, who was taking his cue from Luther -- they declined to preface the books with any disclaimer about their canonicity, following the example of the Bishops Bible of which the AV was to have been a revision.
Luther had prefaced the 1534 edition with "Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read." Coverdale had a long explanation of why he included the books in his Bible. The Geneva had explicitly denied their canonicity, but the AV translators were hardly likely to follow their lead.
Thomas Smith cited Archbishop Whitgift as stating at a public conference at Lambeth with Walter Travers and Thomas Sparks in December of 1583 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 of the Lives, Labours, and Sufferings of Those Pious and Learned English and Scottish Divines, p. 327). Benjamin Brook also quoted the same above statement made by Whitgift along with the following other statements: “The apocrypha was given by the inspiration of God.“ “You cannot shew that there is any error in the apocrypha. And it has been esteemed a part of the holy scriptures by the ancient fathers” (Lives of the Puritans, II, p. 317). Based on Whitgift’s statements, Samuel Hopkins commented: “I will only observe that the Archbishop of Canterbury insisted that the apocrypha books were part of the Holy Scriptures, were given by inspiration of God, and were without error” (The Puritans, III, p. 45, footnote 3).
In the third portion of his Works as edited by John Ayre, John Whitgift is cited as saying or writing the following: “The apocrypha that we read in the Church have been so used of long time; as it may appear in that third council of Carthage, and 47 canon, where they be reckoned among the canonical books of the Scripture. They may as well be read in the church, as counted portions of the old and new testament; and, forasmuch as there is nothing in them contrary to the rest of the Scripture, I see no inconvenience, but much commodity that may come by the reading of them” (Works of John Whitgift, pp. 349-350).
William Daubney asserted: “Archbishop Whitgift makes some remarkably strong statements in support of the Apocrypha, in relying to objections: ‘The Scripture here called Apocrypha, abusively and improperly, are Holy Writings, void of error, part of the Bible, and so accounted of in the purest time of the Church and by the best writers; ever read in the Church of Christ, and shall never be forbidden by me, or by my consent” (Use of the Apocrypha in the Christian Church, p. 72).