KJV and apocrypha

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Oct 15, 2004.

  1. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    If this turns into a KJVO mess, would the administrators please close it. That is NOT the intent.

    The intent is to take a look at historical evidence (not feelings) and determine if the apocrypha was included by the 1611 translators as scripture. Or is there evidence they did not feel that it was scripture.

    Let's stick to facts folks and not get into a ruckus about KJVOnlyism. Thank you! [​IMG]
     
  2. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    As Anglicans, the KJV translators likely did not accept the apocryphal books as "scripture". However, they did recognize their value and place in Church readings.

    Anglicans have "39 Articles of Religion", basically a Statement of Faith. This list predates the KJV, and is still used today. As far as I am able to determine, this is how articles 6 through 8 read in the early 17th century:

    ----------
    Article VI
    Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.

    Holy Scripture containeth 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 or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

    Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.

    Genesis
    Exodus
    Leviticus
    Numbers
    Deuteronomy
    Joshua
    Judges
    Ruth
    The First Book of Samuel
    The Second Book of Samuel
    The First Book of Kings
    The Second Book of Kings
    The First Book of Chronicles
    The Second Book of Chronicles
    The First Book of Esdras
    The Second Book of Esdras
    The Book of Esther
    The Book of Job
    The Psalms
    The Proverbs
    Ecclesiastes or Preacher
    Cantica, or Songs of Solomon
    Four Prophets the greater
    Twelve Prophets the less

    And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

    The Third Book of Esdras
    The Fourth Book of Esdras
    The Book of Tobias
    The Book of Judith
    The rest of the Book of Esther
    The Book of Wisdom
    Jesus the Son of Sirach
    Baruch the Prophet
    The Song of the Three Children
    The Story of Susanna
    Of Bel and the Dragon
    The Prayer of Manasses
    The First Book of Maccabees
    The Second Book of Maccabees

    All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.


    Article VII
    Of the Old Testament

    The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore there are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.


    Article VIII
    Of the Three Creeds

    The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius's Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture."
    ----------

    Note that in their list, what they call "The First Book of Esdras" and "The Second Book of Esdras" are more commonly known today as Ezra and Nehemiah.
     
  3. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you natters. I have a question for you. Its a little off subject, but it is in response to something you said. Is the Episcopal church today in the US an extension or derivative of the Anglican Church of England, and if so, do they hold to the same statement of faith?

    Also, why do you think they would include the apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments without mention that it is not considered biblical? Do you think that the statement of faith was considered to have covered that, thus, no reason to mention it?
     
  4. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    The intent is to take a look at historical evidence (not feelings) and determine if the apocrypha was included by the 1611 translators as scripture. Or is there evidence they did not feel that it was scripture.
    --------------------------------------------------


    You contradict yourself, and show quite plainly your real reason for starting this thread.


    You would like to talk about the apocrypha? At least when it was included in the Bible, it was not incorporated in it as scripture and shortly taken out, unlike the Alexandrian manuscripts. It was separated from them, just as the maps, concordance, and footnotes, etc.

    You would do well Phillip, in my opinion, if you just plain stopped trying to justify things, you KNOW are wrong by bringing up such irrelevant things such as this and continually approaching God's words with "what if's" and "then whats", which seem to indicate you are approaching this with human reasoning and false logic, rather than faith.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  5. manchester

    manchester
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    No contradiction there, Michelle. He wants to look at the feelings/intent of the 1611 translators, not the feelings of the posters.
     
  6. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    No contradiction there, Michelle. He wants to look at the feelings/intent of the 1611 translators, not the feelings of the posters.
    --------------------------------------------------


    Are you now condoning ESP? Can you or anyone else KNOW what the translators FELT? And even if you could, this doesn't prove ANYTHING regarding this issue.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  7. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle, would you please leave my threads alone. I am getting so tired of getting them SHUT down. If you don't want to add something constructive then go away. . . please! :rolleyes:
     
  8. williemakeit

    williemakeit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agree with manchester on this, Michelle. I pray that you let it lie as originally posted.
     
  9. manchester

    manchester
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does it matter what the KJV translators believed? If the KJV was uniquely inspired and God was transmitting all and only his true Word through the KJV, then the inclusion of the Apocrypha tells us something (just as the inclusion or exclusion of disputed verses in other books tells us something).
     
  10. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    ---------------------------------------------------

    Michelle, would you please leave my threads alone. I am getting so tired of getting them SHUT down. If you don't want to add something constructive then go away. . . please!
    --------------------------------------------------


    So pointing out the TRUTH to you, that this is NOT constructive, is not adding something? I beg to differ.

    Should we then discuss on the Bible Version Debate forum what the translators thought about the color of the leather should be? Or how bout what they thought about the maps? How in the world is this constructive, edifying and relevant to the issue?


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  11. manchester

    manchester
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the KJV was uniquely inspired, then I believe 2 Tim 3:16 and Rev 22:18-19 is God's way of speaking about the Apocrypha.
     
  12. rsr

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

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    103
    A response to Phillip:

    "Is the Episcopal church today in the US an extension or derivative of the Anglican Church of England,..."

    Absolutely. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States (and other Anglicans groups here) springs directly from the Church of England. The archibishop of Canterbury is spiritual head of the Anglican Communion, although he has no authority over churches in dioceses outside England.

    "and if so, do they hold to the same statement of faith?"

    The basic doctrinal statement of all Anglicans is the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, though they are not binding on the American church:

    THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

    "Also, why do you think they would include the apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments without mention that it is not considered biblical?"

    The traditional arrangement was to include the Apocrypha in the appropriate places in the Old Testament (as in the Septuaguint and the Vulgate); bundling them together between the testaments was a statement about their canonicity that would be in line with the Articles of Religion. This arrangement followed the practice of the Coverdale Bible.
     
  13. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Does it matter what the KJV translators believed? If the KJV was uniquely inspired and God was transmitting all and only his true Word through the KJV, then the inclusion of the Apocrypha tells us something (just as the inclusion or exclusion of disputed verses in other books tells us something).
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    If this is the case, there is a much better reason to look long, close and hard at the translators of the modern versions, and those responsible for the texts and methods that underline them. There is much more evidence of their apostacy, and influence of that apostacy in them, than that of the KJB translators. This whole thread is NOT constructive to the central issue and is being used as a means to defer from the issue and the truth of it.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  14. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, the Episcopal Church is Anglican, and is the US extension of the Anglican Church of England. I'm not sure why they use the word "Episcopal" in addition to "Anglican". As far as I can tell, yes, they hold to the same 39 Articles.

    As for why they included the books between the OT and NT without mention of whether or not they were considered "scripture", I think it's because it was common knowledge in England at that time that although the Church of England used and valued and read from the apocryphal books, it was more because of tradition and not because they considered them "scripture". They considered the books very important, given the fact that they spent so much of the translation effort on producing them, and then later made it illegal to sell Bibles in England without the apocrypha (this was also a political move, to minimize the use of the Geneva and other Bibles).
     
  15. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    For historical interest, I do have pictures of the first page of each major section of the 1611 printing of a KJV. These are NOT from a reproduced KJV, they were scanned from an "originally printed" 1611 KJV.

    The pictures are of the First page of Genesis, The first page of the apocrypha, and the First page of the New Testament.

    Please note, there are NO other seperating or title pages to any of these with the exception of the introduction in the front of the Bible. There is no indication that the apocrypha was not part of the scriptures and it was included right in the MIDDLE of the scriptures. It is NOT seperated like maps are.

    For a view of these three page scans it can be found at my (sadly outdated) website at:

    http://www.baptist-church.org/example.pdf

    It is a self contained PDF file of three pages and will require an adobe reader. (If you don't know go to adobe.com and get one free.)
     
  16. manchester

    manchester
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    So Michelle believes we should reject all new translations and adopt the full KJV 1611, with all scripture (2 Tim 3:16) including the Apocrypha?
     
  17. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since you cannot seem to understand what I am talking about Michelle, you are not debating, but attacking me for making a post to study why the apocrypha was included. READ YOUR POST CAREFULLY---That is all I am going to say about this. Constructive input would include discussion of the historical aspects of the inclusion of the apocrypha and not "I feel, You are trying to do this, blah blah blah" Why do you think the other threads got shut down? Because the attacks became personal--you have made the first strike above---let's stop it now. Okay?
     
  18. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Does it matter what the KJV translators believed? If the KJV was uniquely inspired and God was transmitting all and only his true Word through the KJV, then the inclusion of the Apocrypha tells us something (just as the inclusion or exclusion of disputed verses in other books tells us something).
    --------------------------------------------------


    And this was my point exactly!


    --------------------------------------------------
    You contradict yourself, and show quite plainly your real reason for starting this thread.
    --------------------------------------------------


    because he said:


    --------------------------------------------------
    If this turns into a KJVO mess, would the administrators please close it. That is NOT the intent.

    The intent is to take a look at historical evidence (not feelings) and determine if the apocrypha was included by the 1611 translators as scripture. Or is there evidence they did not feel that it was scripture.

    Let's stick to facts folks and not get into a ruckus about KJVOnlyism. Thank you!
    --------------------------------------------------


    He is also antagonizing others because his stated INTENT, is different than what this thread REVEALS.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  19. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't get me wrong Michelle, I do NOT MIND YOU POSTING. Like I told my kids: "Just keep the 'attitude' to yourself." Put up your point of view and don't read into what people say. Or accuse them of doing something they haven't stated.

    If you can debate like that, you are welcome. Take a look at the other posts. They don't get personal until you come along and start throwing flaming darts. So, I humbly ask you to lay off the personal stuff. You are welcome here, but just stick to the subject, please.
     
  20. manchester

    manchester
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Originally posted by michelle:
    You would do well Phillip, in my opinion, if you just plain stopped trying to justify things, you KNOW are wrong by bringing up such irrelevant things such as this and continually approaching God's words with "what if's" and "then whats", which seem to indicate you are approaching this with human reasoning and false logic, rather than faith."

    Even if the KJVO people believe what they believe out of blind faith and without regard to reasoning or logic, that doesn't stop us from discussing the Apocrypha and the origins of the KJV.
     

Share This Page

Loading...