I bet your KJV 1611 is missing some books

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Daniel Dunivan, Oct 24, 2002.

  1. Daniel Dunivan

    Daniel Dunivan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2002
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    How do KJVO's react to the fact that the original translation included the apocrapha? In other words, what justification do you give for not taking Tobit as scripture?
     
  2. Japheth

    Japheth
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    The Apocrapfa was NEVER NEVER accepted by Christians; those are RCC books that,by the way, were canonized by the RCC as HOLY WRIT!!!! And, the MV's underlying text contained it in the Canon...

    [ October 24, 2002, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Japheth ]
     
  3. Daniel Dunivan

    Daniel Dunivan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2002
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Japheth,

    I have read several scholars who think some of the books (most prominately Sirach and I Enoch) were so used by the early church (including the I Enoch in the Jude) that they were rejected by Judaism. In other words, Christians used them so much that they were seen so "Christian" that they weren't accepted as scripture by Jews.

    Additionally, what would you define as Christian and how would you back up your remark about them never being accepted.

    If the MV's text contained it in the canon, why don't KJV 1611 Only folks reject them if this is text was preserved by God?
     
  4. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    You are correct in saying that the original KJV included the Apocrypha. It was in a separate unit between the Old and New Testaments. It was never mixed with the Bible books or mixed in with the text in any way.

    The KJ Translators never believed it to be the Word of God, and they never treated it as the Word of God. They were included due to their accepted historical value. They were never viewed as canonical. To insure that there was no misunderstanding, they listed (7) reasons why the apocryphal books were to be "categorically rejected as part of the inspired canon."

    On a side note, the Codex Sinaticus ( a dominant source for the W/H Text from which all MV's are based) also included all of the OT Apocrypha as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas .
     
  5. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Once again, I agree with Pastor Bob 63.
     
  6. Sherrie

    Sherrie
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    10,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think they are wonderful stories. And they may be true stories. But they were stories that give no reference to Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. And I think that is why they were decided to be left out. In other words they were not a witness or testamony to the Trinity at all.


    The Apocrypha
    Translated and revised and published by World Bible Publishers Inc.

    Sherrie

    [ October 24, 2002, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Sherrie ]
     
  7. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ... Oh Brother... Sixy-six times for sixty-six books!... Brother Glen
     
  8. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    How much?
     
  9. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    The point remains that the KJV translators included the work. It is not scripture and it has no place in God's word. I am glad my Bible was not the work of Anglicans that added to God's word.

    [ October 25, 2002, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Preach the Word ]
     
  10. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nah, hate to bust your bubble, but I have a 1611 Version PRINTED IN '1612'. I think that comes about as close to being a REAL 1611 version as you can get. Besides the fact that you probably can't even read it. For some strange reason, they decided to print it with the apocrypha translated by the same good ole boys who translated the original KJV. [​IMG]
     
  11. Daniel Dunivan

    Daniel Dunivan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2002
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understand that they did not include the books as canonical, but it was in the orginal translation. They at least saw them as valuable for reading.

    Sherrie,

    They were not included in the the canon not because of theological or literary inferiority, but because of usage--as is the case with all questions of canonicity. If the church did not use them as scripture then they were not thought of as scripture. This can cause a theological quagmire (which came first the chicken or the egg?--in this case maybe the chicken).

    Grace and Peace,

    Danny
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not true. The 72 book canon has continually been used by many in the Christian Community, as are the apocrypha also used my many in Judaism. One of the main disputes among Jews was that they were written in Greek, not Hebrew, as did the remaining OT writings.

    The idea that the original 1611 KJV listed the apocrypha separately does not negate that the KJV was written to include the Apocrypha as part of the Bible. However, the KJV listed the books in three sections: The Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Apocrypha.
     
  13. Joe Turner

    Joe Turner
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2002
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    Man, they just don't quit, do they? [​IMG] :rolleyes: Does anybody have a concordance in their Bible? How about a Thompson Chain Reference? Anybody have a Scofield Study Bible with marginal notes throughout their Bible? How about a Scofield with an introduction between the Old and New Testaments :eek: ?!
    If you answered yes to any of the questions above, answer this question. Do you consider those marginal notes, commentary passages, study tools, etc. to be Holy Scripture or just something written by man to be helpful :confused: [​IMG]
     
  14. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Although I have to be very careful with my 1612 KJV because of the age; I find no indication that the translators did not consider the Apocrypha as part of the canon during the translation. I see no notatations that say they did NOT view them as canon.

    Also note that the LXX contained the Apocrypha--the book was quoted several times in the New Testament; however, one reason (among others) for Baptists and Protestants not to use the Apocrypha is because it was never quoted although it was in the very same book that WAS quoted.

    This is NOT to say that the apocrypha is the Word of God, BUT it unless there is documentation besides someone's opinion that the KJV translators did NOT consider it as part of the Holy Word. Most KJVO's do not want to admit, but the KJV was not entirely a translation of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew manuscripts, but also a compilation of existing translations, INCLUDING THE VULGATE and the LXX which is quite easy to prove.

    [ October 25, 2002, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
     
  15. Jude

    Jude
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/scott3.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2001
    Messages:
    2,680
    Likes Received:
    0
    "...for Protestants to aver that the deutero-canonical books contain unscriptural material is decidedly a case of unwarranted dogmatism. This conclusion was reached simply because the so-called Reformers , who were clearly antagnonistic toward the Catholic Church, approached the Bible with an a priori notion that it teaches 'Reformed' doctrine. They discarded the deuterocanonical books because in certain instances these books contain decidedly Catholic doctrine, as in the case of 2 Macc. 12.42-46, which clearly supports the doctrine of prayers for the dead and hence of Purgatory: 'It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins.' (2 Macc.12.46). Luther, in fact, wanted to discard also the New Testament books of Revelation and James, the latter which he termed an 'epistle of straw', and which he felt 'had nothing evangelical about it', not doubt because it clearly states that we are saved by faith AND works(cf.James 2.14-26), in contrast to Luther's erroreous 'faith alone' doctrine. Luther was ultimately persuaded by his friends to retain these books...the only challenge to (the Deuterocanonicals) and disregard of (the deut.)occurs when the so-called Reformers arrive on the scene in the 16th century and decide they can simply trash an 11 centuries long continuity regarding the canon's formal existence and a nearly 15 centuries long continuity regarding its practical existence. The fact that ANY individual would come along and single-handedly alter such a continuity regarding so central an issue as which books compromise the Bible should give the sincere follower of Christ SERIOUS PAUSE. Such a follower is compelled to ask,'By whose authority does this individual make such a major change?' Both history and Luther's own writings show that Luther's actions WERE BASED ON NOTHING BUT HIS OWN PERSONAL SAY-SO..."
    -from 'Scripture Alone' by Joel Peters, Tan books and publishers, Rockford, Ill.
     
  16. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    They also included notes from the translators.
    How silly can you get? From my understanding, they took it out because people weren't smart enough to grasp the concept that because it was included along with scriptures didn't mean they were including it as part of holy and inspired scriptures themselves.
    I have an MacArthur study bible. Oh no, John added to the bible! What a hairy tic! [​IMG]
    Aren't there better things you could waste your time on rather than trying to put down God's word?
    Gina
     
  17. Daniel Dunivan

    Daniel Dunivan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2002
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joe,

    There is very big differnce between secondary sources that are used to explain or study a primary source, and a set of totally different primary sources. Your logic fails. :rolleyes:
     
  18. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    Can anyone cite a source for the "seven reasons" the translators gave for not considering the Apocrypha canonical?

    I've looked, but I'm taken back to a secondary source, Sam Gipp's "The Answer Book."

    Not trying to fight. I just want to see the source.

    [ October 26, 2002, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]
     
  19. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    If you accept that the translators were of the Church of England and, generally, orthodox, they would have followed the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England (1571):

    http://web.singnet.com.sg/~kohfly/art1.html

    This is the same stance taken in the Westminster Confession (1646), the Puritan confession.
     
  20. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    The sixth and last company of King James’s Bible-translators met at Cambridge. To this company was assigned all the Apocryphal books, which, in those times, were more read and accounted of than now, though by no means placed on a level with the canonical books of Scripture. * Still this part of the Translators had as much to do as either of the others, in the repeated revision of the version of the canonical books.

    * The reasons assigned for not admitting the apocryphal books into the canon, or list, of inspired Scriptures are briefly the following.

    1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

    2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

    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. The contain fabulous statement, and statments which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different 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.

    For these and other reasons, the Apocryphal books, which are all in Greek, except one is extant only in Latin, are valuable only as ancient documents, illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.

    “The Translators Revived” Alexander McClure 1858

    *Note: In 1858 there was no such debate as we are now discussing. The MV's did not begin to be translated until May of 1870.
     

Share This Page

Loading...