Do you use the 1611 KJV?

This is the first time for me to hear that KJV translators considerd Apocrypha as Bible, though I heard that they distinguished them from the canonized Bible for the reasons of:

1) They were not written in the language of God's people at that time, i.e. Hebrew

2) Their writers never claimed any biblical authority such as saying that "Jehova said to me", or " God says" etc.

3) They were not referred to by Jesus nor by disciples

4) They sometimes beautify or teach immoral things such as prayer to the dead, assassination, etc.

5) They are not consistent between the Apocrypha in the statements ( Antiochus' death place etc.)

6) They were not read in the Jewish meetings and services, etc.


How could they have this kind of idea to distinguish between Bible and AP if they considered AP as Bible as RC did then and does today?
I mentioned already that we have to look at the matter from the eyes of 17 c. We know the Reformers had many problems even though they were in the right track at that time. For example Luther didn't depart very much from Transubstantiation when he insisted on Consubstantiation, debating with Zwingli.

If the translators considered AP as Bible, this would have been a serious problem which could disqualify them as the Translators, which I don't think was true at all, but a false accusation.

 

I am glad that I am not judged by you but by God who is Omniscient and just.

 

Charitie suffereth long, and is kind; charitie enuieth not: charitie baunteth not it self, is not puffed up, doth not behaveth it self unseemly, seeketh not her owne, is not easily prouoked, thinketh no euill.
1 Corinthians XIII.4,5 (1611 KJV)

 

Eliyahu: //How could they have this kind of idea to distinguish
between Bible and AP if they considered AP as Bible
as RC did then and does today?//

IMHO the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) does NOT
consider the the Apocrypha (AP) as Bible (i.e. Old
Testament & New Testament).

Yes, I use the KJV1611 Edition every day.
Yes, I use the KJV1769 Edition every day.

 

What is your evidence that shows that the KJV translators themselves gave the above list?

Some KJV-only advocates including Samuel Gipp in his ANSWER BOOK have claimed that the KJV translators gave the above reasons for not accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture, but they do not give any documentation or evidence to support their claim and in my research I have not found any evidence that supports this KJV-only claim. These reasons are not found in the 1611 edition of the KJV, and I have not found them in any writings of the KJV translators that I have examined or in any reliable histories of the English Bible.

I wonder if the above list may have been made by the later Westminster Assembly of Divines that made the Westminster Confession instead of by the KJV translators.

Some of the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles had a clear disclaimer stating that the Apocrypha books were not inspired. KJV defender Thomas Holland acknowledged that the 1611 KJV did not have “an explicit disclaimer, as in the Geneva Bible” (Crowned by Glory, p. 94). Before the Apocrypha in the 1560 Geneva Bible, the translators’ disclaimer began with the following: “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.“ The 1611 KJV does not have any such disclaimer and does not have the list of reasons that you gave.

 

...this isn't the 1611, is it?

 

Looks more like my KJV1769 with Strong's Numbers:

2Ti 2:15 Study4704 to show3936 thyself4572 approved1384
unto God,2316 a workman2040
that needeth not to be ashamed,422 rightly dividing3718
the3588 word3056 of truth.225
2Ti 2:16 But1161 shun4026 profane952 and vain babblings:2757
for1063 they will increase4298 unto1909 more4119
ungodliness.763

Where the word translated as 'study' is described as:

G4704
σπουδάζω
spoudazō
spoo-dad'-zo
From G4710; to use speed, that is, to make effort,
be prompt or earnest: - do (give) diligence,
be diligent (forward), endeavour, labour, study.

 

I would normally let something like this slide, but being a moderator of this forum I must let you know that you are out of line by making comments towards board moderators in this manner. If you have an isue with me you may either PM me or write to the board administrators.

This sort of disrepect will not be allowed and will be edited out if it occurs again. Plus, if you insist on being disrespectful I will see if I can get you an all expenses paid vacation from the board.

Public disrespect will not be tolerated because it sets a bad example for new members.

Are we clear?

 

yes I Do

Rev 17:8 The beast that thou sawest, was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomlesse pit, and goe into perdition, and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, (whose names were not written in the booke of life from the foundation of the world) when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. :Fish:

 

Rev 17:8 (King James Version, 1611 Edition):
The beast that thou sawest, was, and is not, and shall ascend
out of the bottomlesse pit, and goe into perdition,
and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder,
(whose names were not written in the booke of life
from the foundation of the world)
when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

 

I think you are correct in asking the question if the translators actually were the ones who made the statements regarding the Apocrypha.

We must keep in mind that the Church of England was essentially a remnant of the Roman Catholic Church. It became independent when Henry 8th could not divorce his wives without exocommunications. So, therefore, he started his own church. This is the reason that today's Episcopal church (America's version of the Anglican Church) is so similar to the Catholic in ritual and other beliefs. Often they are very liberal like Catholics.

The translators may have been the greatest translators in the world, but let's remember their backgrounds are from Anglican stock and therefore there was no problem with accepting Apocryphal books (even though the RC Bibles have named the books somewhat differently, they are very similar).

This does not mean the KJV is not a good translation because I believe the translators were very sincere in their work. We must also remember that the KJV1611 has been upgraded several times to improve its quality and the 1769 version we use today is a very accurate translation.

I made this statement 100 times, but mean it very sincerely. As soon as one generation passes the NKJV will become the "accepted" KJV even though it may not have originated through the English system. Older people in our church are already accepting it in place of their KJV and see no difference.

I have read what Dr. Cassidy has said about the tense problems, but I assume those can and will be corrected thus leaving a pretty good translation of the TR which may not be the ultimate, but better than the CT in many people's viewpoint.

What does this have to do with the KJV1611--well, it has to do with it becaause KJVO's tend to say they use the KJV1611 when in reality MOST use the 1769 version and there IS a difference. Including the apocrypha.

 

Ed, maybe I am misunderstanding you. Could you explain this?

What I do know is that my direct supervisor is a Catholic and he considers the Bible including the Apocrypha as "scripture". Although, he does admit the Apocrypha is a little different than the KJV1611, but this is in name and seperation of books. The essential writings are still there and he says the Catholic church has changed quite a bit in the past few decades when they didn't encourage Bible reading, they are now encouraging it--along with evangelism.

I also don't understand you "(IE Old and New Testament)" when you refer to the Apocrypha. Could you please explain to this dense head of mine?

Thank you,

 

Sorry for this. Sometimes, as Mods are involved in the debate as well, I believe the logics and debates should be treated equally. If anything happens as a matter of administration between Mod and Posters, yes, posters must respect such authority. If you are Mod and therefore the contents of your posts should overrule any of other posters, then I would consider this board the other way, which I hope is not what you point out. Also before you comment on my response, I hope you review your own comments once again.
Actually this is the way we can have the freedom and the order both.

By the way, I reviewed the statements of my own posts in the meantime.

1) One thing I must admit and apologize for to everyone on this thread is that I misunderstood the OP question in the beginning. As I mentioned in the second post,the problem was that I didn't take 1611 as serious since I used to consider the difference between 1611 and 1769 negligible, even though most people use KJV of later edition with 1611 preface. In strict sense, only a few people of my church make reference to KJV 1611.
I believe some of the changes don't belong to the corrections. For example the change from u to v (v to u) or the different spellings like " For God loued ye world that he gaue his only begotten Sonne, ... but haue euerlasting life " are to be considered the change of the language environment, neither the correction of mistakes nor the change of the editions. If KJV stated modern English in 1611, no one could have understood it. As I stated before, to me, such changes are negligible, compared to Texts used as bases, Historical Background, Expertise of the Translators, etc.

2) Nevertheless, I don't think KJV translators considered AP having equal authority as the Bible scriptures, nor considered it as RC did.
If anyone finds that KJV translators considerd AP as Bible but that KJV is still the best translation, it is wrong evaluation or contradictory, because such belief is a serious problem and the translation by such people cannot be reliable.

3) There is no perfect record of history, while we believe Bible scripture is perfect. We have to discern the issue based on facts by facts. However, the records available cover only a small fraction of facts and events. Therefore, bridging between facts and facts by the spiritual discernment is quite necessary. Even Bible scriptures are the outcome after following the spiritual discernments. This type of spiritual discernments should not be ignored as "Emotions". Historical events or facts can be used to verify the discernments as checking points. I understand many scholars condemn this Spiritual Discernment as Emotional Feelings. But Paul says this :
" comparing spiritual things with spiritual." ( 1 Cor 1:13)
" But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. "( 1 Cor 1:14)

If we ignore the spiritual discernment, even if Apostle Paul comes to this board, his posts would be completely mocked.
I would rather pursue the follower of Holy Spirit rather than Gamaliel.

4) As for Geneva Bible, I understand the history between KJV and it. But I believe the spiritual background in England was better than that of Geneve in 17 c. Around 1550 many believers like Coverdale, Whittingham, John Foxe escaped the reign of Queen Mary and settled in Geneve, which brought the spiritual prosperity there. But apparently, there was more spiritual prosperity in England in 17 c since Elizabethan reign from 1558 thru King James era than in Geneve. Apart from church of England there were much support by the reformers and protestants in England.
Eventually I believe there was the Providence of God in transitting from Geneva Bible to KJV, let alone the matter of Ex 1:9 etc.

If KJV translators had the belief that AP is the same as Bible, it should be a serious problem. For example, if they believed that the prayer to the dead is right, assassination and suicide can be tolerated, they are not qualified as translators. The verification of these questions is not difficult but a matter of time, and I would leave them as a matter of my discernment at the moment as I have other priorities.

Again I would not consider any changes between 1611 and 1769 or any other time as serious revisions or correction of doctirnal errors.

 

Thank you for your explanation. I wasn't trying to override your beliefs or your debate. We hhave enough argument over those things already:laugh: . The issue was some of the things you were typing and the way I felt the respect to the warning was.

All is forgiven and we will stick to the debate now. If we disagree on issues, I have absolutely no more authority than you and as a moderator all I do is make sure the rules are followed.

I certainly appreciate your attitude and candor here and I appologize to you if I sounded a little rough. I may disagree with you, but I will NOT do so under any special authority of being a moderator. Is that fair to you?

Have a great week and again I thank you for your response.:thumbs:
Phillip

 

Thank you very much for your kindness.:thumbs:
Sometimes we have to agree to disagree each other :laugh:
Thank you again, good night!

 

I can disagree with the best of them. Certainly doesn't make me right though.
Thanks again for your attitude, posters like you make this fun. Have a good day (Monday) if you don't see it tonight. I guess I had better go to sleep. Its 12:30 here and I have to get up a little after 5:00 AM. YULK.

Regarding the Apocrypha. Dr. Cassidy indicated that the translators of 1611 version did indeed disagree with the Apocrypha was scripture. I don't know where Hehe received his information, but it is interesting.

Back to the thread itself. I actually read my 1611 Hendrickson look alike. I even read the Apocrypha just for the historical value, understanding that it is not scripture.

My pastor said he couldn't read it, but I've been reading it and I can now read it as fast as any KJV.

 

I agree. I had trouble at first, but I fixed that by reading nothing but my 1611 reprint for a week. After that, I could read it as easy as any other KJV I have. The only lingering trouble I have is the high roman numerals in the psalms, but I am slowly getting better at those too.

 

I read several articles but cannot remember the sources.They were like those you referred to plus Riplinger. One idea or criticism may be that such criteria didn't show up until KJV actually delete the AP. However I believe that such conviction of criteria was quite well spread among the translators of 1611.
The following background may be why I don't find the explicit disclaimer.
Jews have the same criteria except the quotation by Jesus and Disciples.
Namely they reject AP because of the same reasons quoted in my post, except the criteria that Jesus and Disciples or NT didn't quote them, Plus the style of the writings are different from that of Bible ( reporting or witnessing), as they are rather story telling style. They may be generous to Jubilee
Messianic Jews even accept all the criteria as I mentioned, including the fact that Jesus and disciples didn't quote them.
This means that there might have been a classical long time discussion on that issue since Jamneh Council or Masorites era.
The translators of KJV knew quite well about it and agreed to the criteria, and such criteria were not their own but they just agreed to them. This might be the reason why we cannot easily find the author of such criteria.

Aonther aspect that we better keep in mind is that the supporting power for KJV was not mainly from COE, Church of England, even though there may have been strong support from them on the surface. If we read the history around Tudor-Cromwell era, we can read behind the history that there were enormous power of spiritual movement among the protestants, such as Baptists, Presbyterian, Reformers, Bible tranlators like W Tyndale, and COE was just stimulated by them. God worked already thru the minds of the true believers. I read so many women believers had rather chosen to die by drowning than to deny the baptism.

So, KJV translators must have had some good discernment between Bible Canon and AP. But it would have been far better if they had deleted AP completely. When I found AP was in KJV, I was disappointed with it.
But as I said, what Reformers did in 16-17 c sometimes look ridiculous as they didn't depart from RC very much. Nevertheless we have to look at such matter thru the lenses of 16-17 c. Had we lived there at that time, could we ignore AP completely?

I think I can trace the source of the criteria in some time.