Question about Apocrypha

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Emily, Apr 26, 2004.

  1. Emily

    Emily
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    247
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have heard, during arguments concerning the Apocrypha's place in the KJV, that there was no introduction before the apocrypha, stating that it wasnt inspired, and that it was just there.

    however


    Im wondering if these books were separate from the rest of the bible.. like.. was there the old testament, the apocrypha, and then the new testament?


    My grandmother passed away this morning. She was catholic. When we were at the nursing home last night, I happened to notice a New American Catholic bible. I opened it up, and saw nothing that said Apocrypha, or Deuterocannonical books. Instead, I was surprised to see that the different books were simply integrated into the old testament, and they were not necessarily in order together.

    I can see now where maybe the KJV translators had the apocrypha in there, but since it was separate, it would be understood that it was not considered inspired by them.
     
  2. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    The Catholic Church recognizes them as deuterocanonical. However they see them as a part of a second canon.

    Some parts of the apocryphal books are quoted in the NT but that does not mean they are a part of the canon.
     
  3. Emily

    Emily
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    247
    Likes Received:
    0
    no no no no no

    what I mean, is that THIS is how the Old Testament is listed in the catholic bibles

    Old Testament
    Genesis
    Exodus
    Leviticus
    Numbers
    Deuteronomy
    Josue
    Judges
    Ruth
    1 Kings
    2 Kings
    3 Kings
    4 Kings
    1 Paralipomenon
    2 Paralipomenon
    1 Esdras
    2 Esdras
    Tobias
    Judith
    Esther
    Job
    Psalms
    Proverbs
    Ecclesiastes
    Canticles
    Wisdom
    Ecclisiasticus
    Isaias
    Jeremias
    Lamentations
    Baruch
    Ezechiel
    Daniel
    Osee
    Joel
    Amos
    Abdias
    Jonas
    Micheas
    Nahum
    Habacuc
    Sophonias
    Aggeus
    Zacharias
    Malachias
    1 Machabees
    2 Machabees


    The deuterocannonical books are AMONG the books that we take as scripture.

    Was it this way in the KJV1611?
     
  4. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    The AV1611 was listed as:

    The OT
    then
    Apocrypha
    then
    The NT

    It was put it the middle, but it was referenced by the AV1611 translators in both the OT and NT. I have yet to see anything in the AV1611 that implies that they are not scripture( but then I may be wrong) or if they are scripture. They did find them important enough to cross reference these books. Either way this can be confusing to a newbie Christian. I'm sure that this was debated during the making of the KJV.

    If anyone has any information on this I would greatly appreciate it also.

    David
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Few, if any, actually use a 1611KJV so the Apocrypha is a moot issue. It is NOT in any modern versions typically used by Baptists today.

    (It WAS inbetween the OT and NT and in the 1611 was called "scripture" in the daily reading schedule, etc. But by and large it was a "cultural" inclusion, not a belief that the apocryphal books were = to the real canon.)
     
  6. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Emily, if you will go to my website you can download a pdf copy of a real 1611 front pages of each section.

    It has the "Old Testament"
    the "Apocrypha"
    and the "New Testament"

    I have placed three pages--the first page of each as an example to be downloaded so you can see exactly how the 1611 introduced them. There were NO other extra pages of introduction between these pages. The only other pages of introduction were of the entire Bible at the front of the book. If you have a free Adobe reader, download the three page example at:

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

    Anybody can download it. I have provided it free of charge so that you can see exactly how the 1611 introduced the first book of each section. The apocrypha is in a section of its own right between the OT and NT---not at all like the Catholic Bible.
     
  7. Rosell

    Rosell
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    202
    Likes Received:
    0
    On what evidence do you base that?

    1. The Apocrypha was officially included in the 1611 King James Version, authorized by the Anglican Church.

    2. The Anglican church never, in any official church action or statement, declared the Apocrypha to be less inspired, or not inspired. Even today, many Episcopal churches in America, especially on the East Coast, use the Oxford Bible with Apocrypha, arranged in the same way as Catholic Bibles.

    3. The King James Version is an official and authorized product of the Anglican church.

    4. Quotes from the Apocrypha are included in the Book of Common Prayer, and are not distinguished from other scripture that is quoted.
     
  8. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Simply untrue. The 39 Articles of Religion, the official Doctrinal Statement of the Church of England says,
    As you can see from Article 6, the Church of England has never considered the Apocrypha as part of the canon. The list identifies the Old Testament canon, the other books, then the New Testament canon.

    Dr. Bob is correct. [​IMG]
     
  9. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    On what evidence do you base that?

    1. The Apocrypha was officially included in the 1611 King James Version, authorized by the Anglican Church.

    2. The Anglican church never, in any official church action or statement, declared the Apocrypha to be less inspired, or not inspired. Even today, many Episcopal churches in America, especially on the East Coast, use the Oxford Bible with Apocrypha, arranged in the same way as Catholic Bibles.

    3. The King James Version is an official and authorized product of the Anglican church.

    </font>[/QUOTE]Where did you get these ideas?

    You may be right about the Episcopal churches. Regardless of their historical trail, they have adopted many Catholic themes; including the possible use of the Apocrypha. A modern Episcopal church (especially in our area)is typically much closer in doctrine to a Catholic church than a Baptist Church. In fact, the only visible difference between our local Epsicopal church and Catholic church besides the name is the fact that the ministor of the Episcopal is gay and has a boy-friend. The church split down the middle but the Episcopal headquarters is subsidizing the church for the lost members.

    You seem to think that the Apocrypha should be included...is this just a bad assumption on my part or do you believe this? ...or are you making an argument against the KJV by making these statements? Just curious. :confused:
     
  10. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "It is NOT in any modern versions typically used by Baptists today."
    Well there I know of at least one baptist church in the Netherlands (not my own, by the way) that has adopted the official Dutch RC Bibleversion as it's churchbible.
    Presumably they don't use the Apocrypha.
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    From the Merriam Webster's Online:

    Main Entry: apoc·ry·phal
    Pronunciation: -f&l
    Function: adjective
    1 : of doubtful authenticity : SPURIOUS
    2 often capitalized : of or resembling the Apocrypha
    synonym : see FICTITIOUS

    Ask any RC what 'deuterocanonical' means & he/she will tell you it means a SECOND CANON. They also regard ORAL TRADITION as authoritative.

    I don't think they wanna tell ya what "Bah! Humbug!" means.
     
  12. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,181
    Likes Received:
    326
    Yes, but here we see the equivocation of the CofE to which Dr. Bob alluded. They quote "Saint" Jerome who suggest that we use these books as an "example of life" and "instruction of manners" e.g. praying to God for the disposition of the souls of the dead.
    The Church of England was born out of a failed royal marriage which the Church of Rome would not allow to be annulled. They continue to this day with romish practices and a division of "high" and "low" Church.

    Many Church of England local churches are almost indistinguishable from RC churches in design or practice. CofE Churches are often named after "Saint Mary".

    http://www.btinternet.com/~mistleybenefice/mistleyparishchurch/index.html

    HankD
     

Share This Page

Loading...