KJV1611 and Apocrypha

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by NaasPreacher (C4K), Feb 16, 2004.

  1. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I have a very simple question. Honestly not trying to be smart or cause trouble. No sarcasm this time ;) .

    How do the KJVO crowd explain the inclusion of the Apocrypha with references and reading schedule in the 1611KJV?

    I have asked this over and over from various sources and have never received any kind of answer.

    I would really appreciate an honest, straight forward explanation.
     
  2. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,150
    Likes Received:
    322
    In 1611 the Church of England had already officially broken the bond with the Church of Rome in 1559.

    However the CoE never fully separated from Rome in doctrine...

    Found on line at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England

    This includes their view of the Scriptures, while the CoE 39 Articles of Faith calls the Apocryphal books non-canonical, the daily reading chart in the 1611 First Edition refers to them as "Scripture" as does the Church of Rome.

    HankD
     
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Thanks Hank,

    I understand the history, but struggle with the "perfection" of the version with this, to say the least, questionable, aspect.
     
  4. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,150
    Likes Received:
    322
    The KJV translators never claimed perfection for their work. The publication of the 1611 First Edition (as you may already know) was the first proof of that when they included alternative readings in the margin.

    The second witness to this fact was the corrective Revision of 1613 followed by several other revisions.

    The so-called "perfection" of the King James Bible is a pious myth.

    Many who perpetrate this myth view themselves as the self appointed mouthpiece of God and violate those very Scriptures they suppose they are helping God to defend.

    My opinion, of course.

    HankD
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Understand Hank,

    I am looking for an explanation from a KJVO. I would like to see from one of them a serious explanation.
     
  6. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well I'm a Bible(KJB)believer,so you'll have to settle for that;the Apocrypha was included in the A.V.1611 as reference,just like the reference notes in Scofield Bibles(1909 &1917).

    The KJB translators never considered the Popish Apocrypha to be scripture,just "recomended reading," just like in the preface of the old Scofield Bibles,and the footnotes(study notes) that are on each page.

    Now just because Scofield's study notes are in with the KJB does not make them Scripture,nor does it mean you HAVE to read them;just like in the first KJBs having the Apocrypha....same thing.

    The Popish Apocryphal book were NOT in the underlying MSS. that the KJB come from...

    However,the Papal Apocrypha WAS and still IS in the mss.(old and new testaments) that all Papal "bibles" and all other "bibles" from 1881 on come from....

    What say ye to that??
     
  7. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks AA, I appreciate your straight forward answer. What gets me is how these mv advoctaes are attempting to disallusion those who are not familiar with the facts and then as if no one is paying attention, keep referring to the Preface and Note to the Reader by the KJB translators by their misuse of said info, btw.

    Bro. Roger, it has been stated over and over again, even by mv advocates the reason the apocrypha's inclusion in the AV 1611 KJB.

    Simply reference, not Canon, much like all the infamous websites copied and pasted in the attempts to justify each others position, but the Bible along with a good concise dictionary coupled with an honest heart will suffice.
     
  8. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    One moment they are cursing them -you know,"paedeo baptizing Anglican yo-yo's........"- and the the next it's "the KJB translators said......."

    Unstable as water.


    Wild and crazy stuff!!
     
  9. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Hey Fellas,

    This was an honest question. Not trying to dig up insults or get the fur flying!

    Thanks for the info AA.
     
  10. GrannyGumbo

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

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    the Bible along with a good concise dictionary coupled with an honest heart will suffice.

    Hey BroPrecepts~That's right! "all" I EVER had was just my Bible, nothing else. The only notes in it are my own...years & years worth. I always found that if at first I didn't "understand" something, it'd eventually right itself up, simply by continuing on.

    May the Lord richly bless you & the other men who stand on Truth alone. [​IMG]
     
  11. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    You got two, so please don't try to turn this into something else, neither attempt to introduce the usual...
     
  12. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you, Sister. I have a wide margin KJB Cambridge printed by LCBP w/o any references, only a small dictionary and a limited concordance. All the notes are mine, some original, many inspired from good preachers, none from niv preachers. Oooo! :eek:
     
  13. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,150
    Likes Received:
    322
    Not quite the same thing. The Apocrypha contains the deadly dogma of Rome...

    found on-line at http://watch.pair.com/bibleup.html

    The 1611 First edition King James Bible with the Apocrypha included is currently for sale on the public market.


    Whether one considers the Apocrypha canonical or not, no Bible IMO that contains the Apocrypha can be called “perfect” or “pure”.

    On the day of its birth the King James Bible paid homage to Rome. Thank the Lord that someone had the good sense to cleanse it.

    My point is that the Church of England has never fully cut the umbilical cord to Rome. The Apocrypha is one of those undeniable connections.
    The body of the text in certain places revealing the belief of the ministerial hierarchy of the sacerdotal priesthood (e.g. "bishop") they inherited from Mother Church.

    How can there be Baptists with such affection for the Romish Anglo-Catholic Church and the mystical divination of certain of the Apocrypha also making the very same "Only" error of the Mother Church concerning the Latin Vulgate the AV written in the "language of heaven".

    Also this Church (like the Mother Church) presecuted and murdered our spiritual brethren before us and now as then deny by doctrine or deed all the Baptist distinctives

    If the Church of England produced a translational work "Inspired" or "re-inspired" by the Spirit of God what then does that make the Church of England and why aren't you members of said Church.

    HankD
     
  14. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hank, have you and Roger ever read the apocrypha? I agree with what you said in your post, but even reading it out of curiosity could be looked at as linking up with Rome in some's opinion.
    I personally believe the apocrypha has aslo been included as those who read the Bible can see for themselves the error of the apocrypha and help establish true Bible doctrine.

    Just my opinion though, and not a sort of accustaion against the KJB. ;)
     
  15. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Read it years ago. I accept your explanation for inclusion, but really can't see it as innocuous as Bible study notes.

    I think that its inclusion in the KJV was wrong, it supports RC doctrine and therefore has no place in the Word of God.

    Just stating a simple opinion, notice there is no attack on the KJV.
     
  16. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,150
    Likes Received:
    322
    Yes, I have read the Apocrypha, As you know I am a former Catholic and have discussed Catholic dogma with priests before I departed from the Church of Rome.

    the RCC uses the Apocrypha to bolster their error e.g. purgatory and prayers for the dead (2 maccabees 12:43-45).

    HankD
     
  17. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's it exactly Hank and Roger. I just see it introduced in the 1611 as those "scriptures" that are in contradiction and out of harmony with the canon, that's all, and others, especially of that day and time needed to be shown how obvious the diferences are. I in no way believe for an instant the translators were in any way promoting the apocrypha, just allowing all to view the distinct differences, much like those shown by parallel Bibles do. [​IMG]
     
  18. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Have to disagree my friend. Why would you stick error in with the truth without saying it was error? I have read through the translators notes and they don't seem to say "read this error so that you can know the truth." Would that logic not impel modern publishers of the KJV to do the same?

    Those who read my posts know that I have a strong KJV preference, but this aspect of the original translation has always bothered me. It is the one aspect of the KJV argument that I can't reconcile in my own head.
     
  19. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you are going to condemn the KJV for once containing the Apocrypha you are going to have to condemn virtually every English version ever published for, at one time or another, almost every English version has been published containing the Apocrypha. Even the newest of the bibles the NRSV and TMB have editions containing the Apocrypha. Isn't it time to put this straw man to bed?
     
  20. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Wow! My strong KJV preference means I condemn the KJV??

    I am asking an honest question - the reasons thus far mentioned just don't seem to make any real sense to me.

    You have never and will never hear me condemn the KJV!
     

Share This Page

Loading...