God's word

Yes I know what the Apocrypha "are" ;I know it "are" in the texts behind todays Bibles.

 

"Apocrypha" is a plural noun.
It goes with "are".
The Apocrypha are 14 non-canonical book.

I did a verse search on crosswalk.com
for Judith 1:1 and found:

The King James Version (Authorized)
Judith 1:1
In the twelfth year of the reign of
Nabuchodonosor, who reigned in Nineve,
the great city; in the days of Arphaxad,
which reigned over the Medes in Ecbatane,

Does anybody want to talk about those
bothersome translator notes in the
real King James Version? You know, the
ones that are dropped in many of the
unknown King James Versions (i guess in hopes
nobody will notice the unknown King
James Version is deceptive?)

 

Slambo:Your wrong.

No, I'm not. and it's "You're" in this case.

Please compare the NWT with the RV for just one chapter. You can find'em both online.

It is in the underlying texts behind the NWT and other modern BV's via the Gnostics that compiled them..Looks like another boner for your position.

Newp!

The Apocrypha are found between the covers of the AV 1611, as is the smiling illustration of Mr. Sun on the cover.

 

Thanks.

HankD

 

But not as inspired Scripture.It is in BOTH TESTAMENTS in the texts,as inspire scripture, behind todays Bibles.Fact!

No amount of spin,or skulldrudgery will change that.


Yet another snafu on your account!

 

Slambo:But not as inspired Scripture.It is in BOTH TESTAMENTS in the texts,as inspire scripture, behind todays Bibles.Fact!

No amount of spin,or skulldrudgery will change that.


Yet another snafu on your account!


BUUZZZZ!

I suggest you read up about the Apocrypha before you say they had nothing to do with the AV 1611. Both Jude 14 and 2 Timothy 3:8 refer to things found in the Apocrypha, even though nowhere does Scripture directly quote from them. And I'm sure that Jesus and most of the Apostles were quite familiar with other literature of the times, especially the non-Scriptural Jewish writings.

The many OT quotes by Jesus & the Apostles shows that there was another version in use in that area and time, almost certainly a Greek version, possibly the Septuagint. We've often mentioned two of these, Luke 4:16-21 and Acts 8:33-34, which cannot be denied as being from another version of Isaiah besides that which is translated into the KJV. And the Septuagint DOES contain the Apocrypha. Now, while I don't recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture, they HAVE been around awhile, and the AV translators didn't put them in the AV just to make the volume larger.

 

Slambo
Just read the following.

What are the Apocrypha?

The term "Apocrypha" (from the Greek word apokruphos, meaning hidden) was coined by the fifth-century biblical translator Jerome and refers to the biblical books included as part of the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament), but not included in the Hebrew Bible.

Several works ranging from the fourth century B.C. to New Testament times are considered apocryphal. The most important being Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, The wisdom of Jezus the son of Sirach, Baruch (including a letter written by Jeremia), the prayer of Manasse, First and Second Maccabees, the additions to the Book of Esther (10:4-10) and the Book Daniel (3:24-90;13;14) .

Protestant churches generally exclude the apocrypha (though the King James version of 1611 included them). The Bibles of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches include much of the Apocrypha.

 

No, the translater comments
are footnotes (sidenotes in the
original KJV1611 edition).

We have had three threads so far about this
matter going over specific translator
sidenotes:

click here ---> AV1611 Translator Sidenotes 3: S.Iohn <-- click here

Don't forget your BACK button

 

Why do you need a dictionary? Is the Holy Spirit not good enough for you? </font>[/QUOTE]Why are you trying to be mean? Of course I use the Holy Spirit, I did mention it didn't I. </font>[/QUOTE]The Holy Spirit is a "he," not an "it." The KJV makes that mistake too, and denigrates the personality of the Holy Spirit. But I still don't understand the why you need a dictionary. If the Holy Spirit is able to give you understanding of the 400 year old English, what are you using the dictionary for? Something to sit on?? That doesn't make a lot of sense. It does show one of the inherent fallacies in your position. When someone claims that the KJV English is hard to understand (and it is), you always claim that they Holy Spirit reveals it to you and gives you understanding. But apparently, He is not doing a good enough job since you still need a dictionary.

 

They don't. That is a lie propogated by KJVOs who do not know the truth and who instead attack God's word.

Yes, Thank God for his blood sacrifice. But realize that "through his blood" was never in Col 1:14. Someone copying the Greek text violated the command to not add to Scripture when they added it in. It was most likely added because of its similarity to Eph 1:7. But Paul never wrote it in Colossians and we do not have the authority to add it, no matter how doctrinal it might be.

Ephesians 1:7 clearly has the phrase. Therefore, the charge that the MVs omit the blood is a flat out lie. They don't. It is clearly there for all to see. If you would study teh truth rather than attack God's word, you would not make these kind of silly statements.

 

This is from the Church of England 39 Articles of Religion

As you can see the Church of England was very adept at the double-think of their parent the Church of Rome. While they say the Church “doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine” they quickly follow that with their proper use “for example of life” and “instruction of manners” which is their double talk way of saying that while the Apocrypha is not to be used for the "establishment of doctrine" it is to used as “instruction of manners”. The Second Book of Maccabees giving “instruction” for prayers for the dead.

BTW the “Hierome” mentioned above is Jerome, renown “Saint” of the Church of Rome for his translation of the Scriptures called the Latin Vulgate of which the KJV translators were quite fond and included several unique readings from the same in the 1611KJV.

Why do you support the Church of England and their error. Namely the inclusion of the heretical Apocrypha a source of romish error?
Suppose that in the middle of you KJ Bible you pasted in a few pages of "The Watchtower" how would that go over in your church?

Are you a Baptist or not? If the Holy Spirit “moved” these “holy men” and the words they “spake” (translated) were inspired “God-breathed” what does that make the Church of England if not the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ?

To this day in one form or another the Church of England denies all the Baptist distinctives and historically persecuted and killed our spiritual forefathers.

This is NOT a condemnation the KJV of the Bible as a valid and historically powerful translation of the Bibe but a condemnation of the KJVO doctrine which exalts the translators of the 1611KJV to apostleship.


HankD

 

So how perfect is the Bible???

I think (or hope anyway) that we could all agree that God didn't goof up anywhere! His word is free from ERROR. But how should we define this??

The Bible (any version) is written in English - not only is it a human language but it is a language which (like others) is constantly changing.

We must now select what we think the "perfect" and "inerrant" mean. Since we know that even the revisions of the KJB are SLIGHTLY different it is difficult to say that the VERY WORDS AND LETTERS on the page are THEMSELVES inspired.

Another position is to say that only the Greek and Hebrew autographs were inspired truly - but we don't have them so this doesn't help us much.

We're still stuck with alot of manuscripts which are all slightly different. So this would seem to suggest that a WORD FOR WORD inerrant bible may not exist.

The NIV uses (obviously) different texts than the KJB. There are instances where words in the KJB are not found in the NIV. They may have been omissions or additions - we don't know. The idea that the NIV editors were subversively trying to remove the blood or divinity of Christ is simply laughable. They were translating slightly different manuscripts - maybe better ones - but maybe not!

I would submit that any faithful English translation, when read by a beiever under the Spirit of God is the inerrant word of God.

 

It seems to me that the only "double-think" going on here is yours. Why did you leave out the part of the quote from the 39 Articles which list the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments as "canon" but lists the Apocrypha under "other?"