Some aledged NT quotes from Apocrypha

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by mojoala, Jul 24, 2006.

  1. mojoala

    mojoala
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7


    Matt. 2:16 – Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

    Wis. 11:6-8 Instead of a spring, when the perennial river was troubled with impure blood, 7. as a rebuke to the decree for the slaying of infants, 8. You gave them abundant water in an unhoped-for way.


    2. Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11


    Matt. 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: 20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

    Sirach 29:11 – Dispose of your treasure as the Most High commands, for that will profit you more than the gold.


    3. Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15


    Matt 7: 12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

    Tobit 4:15 – Do to no one what you yourself dislike.


    4. Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6


    Matt. 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

    Sirach 27:6 – The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man’s speech disclose the bent of his mind.
     
  2. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Really not sure what your point is. Do you care to explain?
     
  3. mojoala

    mojoala
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    I let you work it out for yourself.

    5. the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19

    Matt. 9:36 But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.

    Judith 11:19 I will lead you through Judea, till you come to Jerusalem, and there I will set up your judgement seat. You will drive them like sheep that have no shepherd, and not evena dog will growl at you.


    6. Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

    Matt. 12:42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

    7. Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

    Matt. 16:18 – And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

    Wisdom 16:13. For you have dominion over life and death; you lead down to the gates of hell, and lead back.

    8. Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 regarding the seven brothers.

    Matt. 22:25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
    Mark 12:20 Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.
    Luke 20:29 There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children.

    Tobit 3:8 For she had been married to seven husbands, but the wicked demon Asmodeus killed them off before they could have intercourse with her, as it is prescribed for wives. So the maid say to her: ‘You are the one who strangles your husbands! Look at you! You have already been married seven times, but you have no joy with any one of your husbands.
     
  4. mojoala

    mojoala
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is an article I found:

    WHY DO CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS HAVE DIFFERENT BIBLES?

    Before we answer this question we need to make sure that we understand that the Old Testament existed long before the coming of Christ, and prior to their being a New Testament, the Old Testament was the Bible (that is why what we call the Old Testament the Jews call the Hebrew Bible, because according to them, there is no New Testament).

    So the list of books that are contained in the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) had to be put together in the same way that the Church had to put together the list of authoritative books that make up the New Testament.

    Now, there exists 2 different canons of the Old Testament: the Palestinian Canon (the Protestant Old Testament) and the Alexandrian Canon (the Catholic Old Testament). The Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) was written in Hebrew (imagine that) but as the Greek language became the more dominant language a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek was created by 70 Jewish scholars between 250-125 B.C. (which is where we get the name Septuagint, Latin for 70).

    By the time that Christ was born, Greek was the common language of the Mediterranean world and so the Septuagint was very popular. Jesus would have been familiar with the Septuagint, along with the New Testament writers. In fact, the Septuagint was the Old Testament that the New Testament writers used as a reference when they wrote their individual books (any time they quoted the Old Testament it was the Septuagint that they were quoting from).

    The Septuagint (the Alexandrian Canon) contains 46 books, but the Palestinian Canon only contains 39 books. The Palestinian Canon wasn’t put together until 100 A.D. Jewish rabbis rejected 7 of the books that were contained within the Alexandrian Canon (the Septuagint) because they could not find any Hebrew versions of these 7 books which were supposedly translated from Hebrew into Greek. The 7 books are: Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, and Baruch (also parts of Daniel and Esther). And so, by the beginning of the 2nd century, there were 2 different canons of the Old Testament.

    The Early Church used the Septuagint as their Old Testament. In fact, when the canon of the entire Bible (the Old and New Testaments) was established at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage 393-397 A.D. it was the 46 books of the Septuagint (the Alexandrian Canon) that was accepted as the authoritative list of Old Testament books, not the 39 books of the Palestinian Canon.

    This canon of the Old Testament was accepted as the canon for 1500 years, until the Protestant Reformation. In 1529, Martin Luther (the leader of the Protestant Reformation) decided to use the Palestinian Canon (39 books) as his Old Testament canon on the same grounds as the Jewish rabbis in 100 A.D. (that they could find no Hebrew versions of the 7 books in question).

    People will often accuse the Catholic Church of adding books to the Bible, but as you can see, it was a group of Jewish rabbis who removed books from the Bible in 100 A.D. and Martin Luther who accepted this removal of books and who in fact wanted to remove even more books from the Bible (the New Testament books of James and Revelation). And so, if your Bible contains the 46 books of the Septuagint as the Old Testament, then you are using the same Old Testament canon that Jesus, the Apostles, the New Testament writers and the Catholic Church has used for the past 2000 years.


     
  5. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matthew is quoting the OT, not the Apocrypha. It's likely that Judith is quoting the OT as well.

    You said:
    This is not a reference to the book of Wisdom but to the wisdom Solomon had!


    I don't see how Matthew is quoting or referring to Wisdom just with the term "gates of hell." This is not sufficient to say it's a quote. A quote has to be more than this!




    Again, what is the link? The Tobit account has nothing to do with what is being said in the gospels.

    You do realize, I assume, that the Jews do not accept the Apocrypha as canon.
     
  6. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. I want you to tell me what your point is. I can guess all day but there is nothing like someone just saying what they are trying to say.
     
  7. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0

    ==What is your source?

     
  8. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    hiya Martin,

    In a Google search, I found this here. It might be where it came from, I am not sure.


    Link


    Here is their mission statement:

    [​IMG] Mission Statement: LIFE TEEN is an international Catholic movement that serves the Church by providing resources and faith experiences that help lead teens closer to Christ. This is accomplished through a vibrant Eucharistic spirituality and by creating widespread opportunities for teens to grow in their faith.


    Jamie
     
  9. mojoala

    mojoala
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    from KenCollins.com http://www.kencollins.com/bible-p1.htm

    The canon of scripture—that is, the official list of what’s in the Bible—is not revealed to us by any saying of Jesus, nor does scripture itself contain any list. The canon of scripture is determined by the Church, and there are differences among the various church bodies. Because the Church grew from Greek-speaking synagogues, early Christians, who also spoke Greek, used the Septuagint, which was at that time the official Jewish translation of the Bible used by Greek-speaking Jews in the synagogue. The Septuagint became the Old Testament of the church, but its contents varied in differing regions, and it includes several books that were not recognized by Jews in Palestine. These extra books that appear in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew canon are collectively called the Apocrypha.

    In the eastern Church, the Apocrypha was never a matter of concern, but the western Church had many debates about it. As early as the fourth century, Jerome, who is honored as one of the ‘doctors of the church’ by Roman Catholics, disputed the Septuagint books that were not also present among the books recognized by Palestinian Jews. However, Jerome’s opinion did not prevail, probably because of two factors:
    • The Bible readings, which were always a feature of Christian worship, gradually excluded the Old Testament during the Middle Ages, so policing the canon of the Old Testament did not seem to be of much importance for several centuries. No church body issued any statement listing the official contents of the Old Testament until the time of the Protestant Reformation.
    • Many hymns, anthems, and other acts of praise in Christian worship that were used from the very beginning, were taken from the Apocrypha. One good example of this is the passage in the Song of the Three Young Men, verses 29-34, which is still used in the Rite One Morning Prayer of the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A.
    Martin Luther resurrected Jerome’s objections to the Apocrypha. He felt, as Jerome did, that it was proper to use the Apocrypha as a liturgical resource or for moral instruction, but not as a source of doctrine. This is the way that fundamentalist churches use the writings of Bill and Gloria Gaither or C. S. Lewis, for example. To this day, Anglicans, Methodists, and Lutherans use the Apocrypha in this way. However, the Pope responded to Luther by proclaiming the Apocrypha to be scripture on a par with the rest of the Old Testament, over the protests of some Roman Catholic scholars. Today, the Roman Catholic Church considers the Apocrypha to be deuterocanonical, which means secondarily canonical. This term refers to the order of acceptance and not to the degree of authority.

    Orthodox Christians are probably wondering why we Western Christians are making such a fuss.
    Some later Protestant groups, particularly those founded in the United States after American printings of the King James Bible omitted the Apocrypha entirely, reject the Apocrypha for any use or even consider it evil. This is an overreaction. In fact, 1 Maccabees, which appears in the Apocrypha, is a straight historical account which gives much of the background that is essential to understanding the political tensions during the ministry of Jesus. Much of the same information is available from other but less reliable historical sources, such as Josephus.

    So this proverb is not involved in policing the canon, because what we consider to be the Old Testament was not finished yet, and the New Testament lay centuries in the future. In fact, there is no statement in scripture about which books are canonical and which are not; the canon is a feature of the church you belong to. What we are warned against here is a more fundamental, more serious sin: failing to distinguish between what God says and what we’d like Him to say, passing out our own opinions and traditions as if they were the very Word of
     
  10. mojoala

    mojoala
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you realize these same Jews to do not recognize the New Testament as Canon as well?
     
  11. David Michael Harris

    David Michael Harris
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    1
    Apparently the book of Enoch was qouted by the Apostles as Scripture, Jude for instance!

    Sirach is a great wisdom book too, why not Scripture is hard to understand!

    The origin of the Canon is very interesting actually.

    Thanks

    David
     
    #11 David Michael Harris, Jul 25, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2006
  12. mojoala

    mojoala
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why are there more books in the Catholic Bible?

    Here is another article:

    It is true that the Catholic Bible has more books in it than the Protestant Bible. Protestants will say that Catholics added books to the Bible, while Catholics say that Protestants subtracted books from the Bible. Which one is it, and which one should we follow?

    The books in question are all from the Old Testament: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I and II Maccabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel. Since the Bible we have today did not fall out of the sky neatly bound in leather, it is important to look at where it came from. We need to briefly examine the history of the canon (the authoritative list of writings).

    There were two canons for the Old Testament: the Hebrew Canon and the Alexandrian Canon. Jewish leaders at the Council of Jamnia officially recognized the Hebrew canon in AD 90. This Hebrew Canon did not contain the 7 books in question. The Alexandrian Canon references the list of books found in the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which was translated in 250-125BC. The Alexandrian does contain the 7 books in question.

    So which canon are we to follow? Protestants, desiring to stay true to Christianity’s common heritage with Judaism, will uphold the Hebrew canon. Though it sounds good to say that you believe in the same Old Testament that the Jews believe in, there is one key point that is left out. During the time of Jesus Christ, Greek was the common language. Therefore the Bible that Jesus was using was the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint.

    Catholics uphold this Alexandrian canon found in the Septuagint. The main point: If it was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for us!
     
  13. mojoala

    mojoala
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    You do realize, I assume, that the Jews do not accept the New Testament as canon.
     
  14. David Michael Harris

    David Michael Harris
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    1
    I am not RC but I have the Apocrypha in my NRSV study Bible

    David
     
  15. mojoala

    mojoala
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have 23 different bibles.

    Some have it, some don't.

    Way back when the American Bible Society agreed to produce lost cost Bibles if they were allowed to not include the Apocrypyha.

    But as with all things, they realized Catholic dollars sit nice and pretty in the Bank as do Protestant dollars. So they started putting them in some Bibles and called them the Catholic Version.

    The first 3 or 4 versions of the KJV had these in there. They were not taken out until sometime during the 1700.s
     
  16. mojoala

    mojoala
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    A Brief History of the King James Bible

    By Dr. Laurence M. Vance

    As the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) was coming to a close, we find a draft for an act of Parliament for a new version of the Bible: "An act for the reducing of diversities of bibles now extant in the English tongue to one settled vulgar translated from the original." The Bishop's Bible of 1568, although it may have eclipsed the Great Bible, was still rivaled by the Geneva Bible. Nothing ever became of this draft during the reign of Elizabeth, who died in 1603, and was succeeded by James 1, as the throne passed from the Tudors to the Stuarts. James was at that time James VI of Scotland, and had been for thirty-seven years. He was born during the period between the Geneva and the Bishop's Bible.

    One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church." Here were assembled bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original."

    The king rejoined that he:

    "Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by he best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other." ​
    Accordingly, a resolution came forth:

    "That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service." ​
    The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had "appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible." These men were the best biblical scholars and linguists of their day. In the preface to their completed work it is further stated that "there were many chosen, that were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise. Again, they came or were thought to come to the work, learned, not to learn." Other men were sought out, according to James, "so that our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom."

    Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The translators were organized into six groups, and met respectively at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Ten at Westminster were assigned Genesis through 2 Kings; seven had Romans through Jude. At Cambridge, eight worked on 1 Chronicles through Ecclesiastes, while seven others handled the Apocrypha. Oxford employed seven to translate Isaiah through Malachi; eight occupied themselves with the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.

    Fifteen general rules were advanced for the guidance of the translators:

    1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

    2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

    3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.

    4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

    5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.

    6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.

    7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.

    8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.

    9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.

    10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.

    11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a Place.

    12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

    13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King's Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.

    14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva.

    15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.
     
  17. mojoala

    mojoala
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    A Brief History of the King James Bible - continued

    The work began to take shape in 1604 and progressed steadily. The translators expressed their early thoughts in their preface as:

    "Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavor." ​
    They had at their disposal all the previous English translations to which they did not disdain:
    "We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's...or Queen Elizabeth's of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance." ​
    And, as the translators themselves also acknowledged, they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, CHaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the COmplutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Termellius, and Beza.

    Four years were spent on the preliminary translation by the six groups. The translators were exacting and particular in their work, as related in their preface:

    Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see. ​
    The conferences of each of the six being ended, nine months were spent at Stationers' Hall in London for review and revision of the work by two men each from the Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford companies. The final revision was then completed by Myles Smith and Thomas Bilson, with a preface supplied by Smith.


    The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading:
    "THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611." ​
    The New Testament had a separate title page, the whole of it reading:

    "THE NEWE Testament of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly Translated out of the Originall Greeke: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Commandment. IMPRINTED at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611. Cum Privilegio." ​
    The King James Bible was, in its first editions, even larger than the Great Bible. It was printed in black letter with small italicized Roman type to represent those words not in the original languages.

    A dedicatory epistle to King James, which also enhanced the completed work, recalled the King's desire that "there should be one more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue." The translators expressed that they were "poor instruments to make GOD'S holy Truth to be yet more and more known" while at the same time recognizing that "Popish persons" sought to keep the people "in ignorance and darkness."

    The Authorized Version, as it came to be called, went through several editions and revisions. Two notable editions were that of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638, also at Cambridge, which was assisted by John Bois and Samuel Ward, two of the original translators. In 1657, the Parliament considered another revision, but it came to naught. The most important editions were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, and the 1769 Oxford revision by Benjamin Blayney. One of the earliest concrdances was A Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation, by John Down-ham, affixed to a printing of 1632.

    The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the King James text. Subsequent versions of the Bible were likewise eclipsed, for the Authorized Version was the Bible until the advent of the Revised Version and ensuing modern translations. It is still accepted as such by its defenders, and recognized as so by its detractors. Alexander Geddes (d. 1802), a Roman Catholic priest, who in 1792 issued the first colume of his own translation of the Bible, accordingly paid tribute to the Bible of his time:

    "The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent. Every sentence, every work, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude; and expressed, either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision." ​
    As to whether the Authorized Version was ever officially "authorized," Brooke Westcott, one of the members of the committee that produced the Revised Version, and the editor, with Fenton Hort, of an edition of the Greek New Testament, stated that:

    From the middle of the seventeenth century, the King's Bible has been the acknowledged Bible of the English-speaking nations throughout the world simply because it is the best. A revision which embodied the ripe fruits of nearly a century of labour, and appealed to the religious instinct of a great Christian people, gained by its own internal character a vital authority which could never have been secured by any edict of sovereign rulers. ​
    This article was taken from the book A Brief History of English Bible Translations by Dr. Laurence M. Vance. http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html
     
  18. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...as well as the rest of the apocrypha, as well.
     
  19. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course, because they don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah!

    But the Apocrypha was written before Christ came, yet the Jews do not accept it as canon, as they do the OT books we accept as canon.

    I think you should read Norman Gesiler's General Introduction to the Bible which explains all this really well, in detail - how the canon was formed, the Apocrypha, pseudo-writings, etc.
     

Share This Page

Loading...