Featured Does KJVO equal Fundamental?

It should be the King's English.

...You're welcome.:wavey:

 

What a bunch of revisionist biased DUNG.

First of all, it is highly hypocritical of you or any other KJV critic to say anyting about the Apocrypha considering that modern translations like the ESV, NIV, RSV, and NASB STILL INCLUDE the Apocrypha in their "Bibles". Daniel Wallace's "NET" 'Bible' still includes the Apocrypha with a detailed explanation justifying its inclusion. https://bible.org/netbible/ (Preface to the NET Bible Apocrypha [Notice that he calls it BIBLE Apocrypha]).

Secondly, the defense of the Geneva preface is a farce. The Geneva Bible gave several cross references within its text to the Apocrypha. In the 1560 edition, the Geneva listed Psalm 22 and Wisdom 2:18 as a cross reference for Matthew 27:43. The Geneva Bible cross references James 3:2 with the book of Sirach 14:1, 19:16, and 25:11. It cross references Hebrews 1:3 with Wisdom 7:26. I'll spare the rest of the citations, you get the point. The Geneva translators, just as the KJV translators, gave references where the Apocrypha cited references to the Bible, the references to the Apocrypha were not intended to be citations confirming the canonocity or veracity of the Apocrypha.

Thirdly, the fact that the KJV translators did not consider the Apocrypha inspired or canonical is clear among several facts:

*King James himself said, "As for the Scriptures, no man doubteth, I will believe them; but even for the Apocrypha, I hold them in the same account that the ancients did: they are still printed and bound with our Bibles, and publicly read in our Churches; I reverence them as the writings of holy and good men: but since they are not found in the cannon, we account them to be secundae lectionis, or ordinis, which is Bellarmine’s own destinction; and therefore not sufficient whereupon alone to ground any article of Faith, except it be confirmed by some other place of Canonical Scripture."

*The Articles of the Church of England. Article VI. Of The Sufficiency Of The Holy Scriptures For Salvation: Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite as necessary to salvation. In the name of holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the old and new testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church … " And regarding the Apocrypha, the Anglican Church "… does not apply them to establish any doctrine."

*7 Reasons the KJV Translators Rejected The Apocrypha. Funny that you should quote Translators Revived by McClure, because in that same book you cited from, on pages 185-186 he gives 7 reasons why the KJV translators rejected the Apocrypha:

1. None of them are in the Hebrew language like the rest of the Old Testament books.

2. Not one of the writers lay any claimed to be inspired

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian church.

5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves. For example, in the Books of Maccabees alone, Antiochus Epiphanes dies three times in three places!

6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

What the church practiced in contrast to what they believed about what should be considered Scripture in the translation process are 2 entirely separate matters, and yet you wish to bootstrap the religious practices of certain church officials as evidence that such was the common belief of the translators and even influenced the translation when the evidence clearly shows otherwise. And ironically, all the citations you give for the Book of Homilies PRIOR to 1611 would have been when the Geneva Bible was in use, when they were using the GENEVA APOCRYPHA.

The KJV translators did not NEED a "disclaimer" because it was already generally acknowledged in the articles of the church, the admissions of the translators, and the fact that the footnotes you refer to read like, " 1 Esdras 5:5 marginal note: "This place is corrupt...The rest of the Chapters of the Booke of Esther, which are found neither in the Hebrew, nor in the Calde."

But of course, we had this debate with you before with Will Kinney and Timothy Morton and you still peddle the same illogical rhetoric. There's a score of additional reasons why your argument is fallacious but these are enough.

 

I had that coming I guess...

Yeah...you're right. I've said in other discussions here that English was NOT one of my better subjects in school. I guess that proves that. Thank You...I'll admit it when I am wrong.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Hmm, I just looked in my ESV, NIV, NLT, and none of them have the Apocrypha in them. Someone has their "facts" wrong, as usual.

 

There is an ESV with Apocrypha but it, like the 1611KJV, has it separate from the Bible with notation that it is not part scripture.

I have never seen or heard of an NIV with apocrypha.

This all came about because a KJVO claimed that anyone who used anything butthe KJV was slipping back into Rome's fold and therefore not a fundamentalist.

The truth is that no matter how we put it at least one edition of the KJV did compromise with Rome by including the Apocrypha right smack in the middle of the Bible.

That slipping away to Rome argument charge is unfounded.

Lookie here - a modern KJV with Apocrypha from a Catholic website
http://www.catholicbiblesblog.com/2010/04/kjv-w-apocrypha-pre-order.html

 

I didn't say ALL of those versions have the Apocrypha in them, I said there are version of those version that still include them. If you bothered to take a few short minutes to look at the facts instead of curling hands over keyboard and inserting stupidity (internet slang for foot in mouth disease), you wouldn't have been so quick to make such an ignorant comment.

 

As there will soon be a KJV with Apocrypha (see post above yours)

And another edition http://www.christianbook.com/kjv-ap...anniversary-hardcover/9781585169870/pd/851698

 

Published by the American Bible Society, HARDLY a KJVO publisher. So if the Muslims produce an Arabic or Farsic translation of the King James Bible or even an NIV, does that make everyone that reads the KJV Muslims? Mormons use the KJV so I guess that makes us all guilty by association.

The Council of Trent specifically stated that they believed the Apocrypha to be part of the Bible and inspired, and even pronounced curses on those who believed and taught otherwise. How many of your Bibles have a map section that has "Sea of Reads" instead of the Red Sea where Israel crossed over (when Kings shows clearly that there was a NAVY there. Hard to maintain of fleet of ships in shallow water), or footnotes that are clearly unscriptural? And yet you take Bibles to church that have non Biblical parts that are PART OF YOUR BIBLES.

You folks are really grasping at straws to vilify the KJV.

 

So, are you willing to add the Kjv to your list of Bibles you criticised above for containing the apocrypha today?

 

Is that a serious question? If someone makes a KJV Bible and deliberately leaves out 1000 verses and writes "All Baptists are nitwits" in place of Psalm 118 and then still calls it a King James Bible, does that therefore nullify the validity and veracity of every previous King James edition? So why if a publisher is intending on printing a KJV with the Apocrypha included somehow present a new argument against the KJV?

I was simply stating the obvious that it is hypocritical for others to slander the KJV for including the Apocrypha when the very translations they adore still include them. The subsequent statements you made are categorically out of place and non sequitur to the reasons I made that argument.

 

Plus the KJV?

Apparently it is a valid criticism of MVs that may include the Apocrypha, but unjust to apply the same standard to the KJV?


You use a broad brush much to quickly. I adore my KJV, I use it every day. I am not KJVO, but I am IFB

 

Where did you see me denying that the KJV ever had the Apocrypha in it (and I have explained why) or that any current one does? I am not the one using the Apocrypha as an argument against modern versions, thus it makes no difference whether I include the KJV in that list because that's YOUR argument. My argument is that it is hypocritical for you to accuse the KJV of containing the Apocrypha when several modern translations used by KJV critics also contain the Apocrypha. For the life of me I don't understand why you don't GET THAT hypocritical accusation. I'm not using the inclusion of the Apocrypha as an argument against the MVs, I'm using it as an argument AGAINST YOUR ARGUMENT toward the KJV.

 

I don't think any version should ever contain it and anyone who does, no matter what or where or it what context is wrong no matter what the translation. It is ALWAYS an attempt to placate Rome and I, as an IFB have no interest in doing so.

 

Don't you think your statement is a bit of an anachronism? How many IFB today that are KJVO believe that the Apocrypha should be included in the KJV? And furthermore, how would the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the 1611 edition effect the translation of what they considered to be the actual canonical texts? It wouldn't, so it's a futile argument, and for you to attempt to use the events of something that occurred 400 years ago as if it is a legitimate CURRENT argument against the KJVO position is absurd.

There is a huge difference between the translators who readily and emphatically stated the Apocrypha was not inspired, and including it in between the Testaments for historical significance, and modern translations that are based on deliberately altered Catholic manuscripts of canonical books. You don't see the KJV on any list of recommended Catholic Bibles, but you sure do see the Catholic church recommend the RSV, NIV, NRSV, NAB, NJB, REB, Good News, Readers Digest Bible, Living Bible. http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0704.asp, and then on this Catholic website you see Douay-Rheims Bible • Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition • New American Bible Revised Edition • New Revised Standard Version • New Jerusalem Bible • The Bible in Its Traditions • Christian Community Bible • NET Bible (By Dan Wallace with the Apocryphal books) • English Standard Version • NIV • Common English Bible, http://www.catholicbiblesblog.com/2009/01/esv-w-apocrypha-deuterocanonicals-is.html and NO KJV.

That should tell you something.

 

Where did the KJV translators themselves in any of their own writings emphatically state that the Apocrypha was not inspired?

Where do the KJV translators oppose the requiring of the reading of lessons from the Apocrypha in the Church of England?

McClure gives no documentation concerning the supposed source of his reasons why the KJV translators rejected the Apocypha. Those reasons are not indicated or suggested in the rules given for the translating. Those reasons are not presented in the 1611 edition of the KJV as a few KJV-only advocates seem to imply. Those reasons likely come from or are based some other source or sources perhaps a post-1611 source such as the Westminster Confession of Faith. I have read all the books about the making of the 1611 KJV and all the books or writings of the KJV translators themselves that I can find, and I do not find those reasons coming from the KJV translators themselves. Since I can find no sound evidence attributing those reasons to the KJV translators themselves, I properly do not try to rewrite history based on an undocumented claim made in the 1800's.

You are ignoring the sound, historical evidence concerning the actual high regard for the Apocrypha that was in the Church of England of that day.

You are ignoring the evidence found in the 1611 edition of the KJV itself.

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.

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).

 

So the translators, being of the Church of england, would agree that there are other inspired books other than was in the protestant canon?

 

Forgetting the history for a minute, I cannot see how IFB and KJVO are equal. Posters in this forum who are IFB, and ones I know in real life, are highly intelligent, know history, doctrine, and Scripture very well, and articulate themselves very well. This includes those that prefer the KJV for themselves, without the O.

Once the "O" is added, the intelligence factor takes a big leap downward. To make up for their lack of understanding of Scripture, they seek to impose their ideals on the rest of us. I would say the gap between the IFB and KJVO is as big as the gap between Calvinism and Arminianism.

Posters like John of Japan are experts in their field. He states his positions based on Scripture. However, he does not seek to make everyone in the world to read a KJVO. I would think as Christians, we should rejoice that anyone is reading the Word of God, period.

 

agree, as the basic problem is NOT with the Kjv, nor even those here who think its the best version, but with saying ONLY one we can use today!

Think john has used a Nas, my personal choice, and even Rick Norris, who recommends no modern versions from CT, NOT a Kjvo!

 

Caveat: I almost never consult the NASV, though I read it through years ago. I do use the Shinkaiyaku in Japanese, which is the Japanese version almost all conservative Christians use, including all of us IFBs. It was translated from the same texts and with the same principles as the NASV, bankrolled by the Lockman Foundation. It is thus virtually impossible to be KJVO in Japan, where there are no versions in print from the traditional texts (though we are working on that), and there has only been one in history, the Nagai. In the past I used to say that the Moto (also called the Meiji, the first Japanese Bible) was from the traditional texts, but recent, ongoing research has turned up 9 key omissions and "corrections" different from the TR.

Thank you for the kind words.

 

It is KJV-only advocates who have been shown to use illogical rhetoric such as the fallacy of begging the question, special pleading, the fallacy of false dilemma, and the fallacy of composition along with using divers measures or weights. You failed to show that I used any illogic.

Has Timothy Morton corrected his false claims?

Timothy Morton contended that "the 1762 and 1769 [editions] were to update the spelling" and that "by 1769 whatever slight textual errors that still remained were removed, and the text was finally free from any man-made error" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 42). Morton claimed: “Not one change made in any of the editions of the Authorized Version was to update the language or correct a (supposed) mistranslation” (p. 44).