1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

How the KJV 1611 handled the Apocrypha

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Mar 10, 2004.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 5
  1. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    It has often been mentioned by KJVO people who are posting that the KJV1611 does not recognize the Apocrypha as the Word of God. I have reviewed my 1611 (printed in 1612) and do not find any reference to the fact that the Apocrypha is any different. It is NAMED the Apocrypha, as is the New Testament named the NT. But, I see nothing regarding canon of scripture.

    Let us be clear that the Apocrypha as printed by the Anglicans is NOT the same Apocrypha as determined by the Catholics. This is the reason it is often called by different names.

    For your viewing interesting, I have uploaded three pages of a 1611 version in PDF format that can be downloaded. As you can see, the first page of the Aprocryphal books is marked, but so is The First Book of Moses Genesis and Mathew, etc. There seems to be no reference to whether or not the authors seemed to think it was part of the canon and by reviewing the book, the way it is included, one would summarize that the Apocrypha printed in the 1611 version was intended to be there are part of the scriptures. At least referring to my books. If someone can show an equally old 1611 version that says otherwise, I would like to see it. This is from a book printed in 1612.

    The link to the three pages is:
    http://www.baptist-church.org/example.pdf

    It is free for the taking. It contains the first page in Genesis, First page of the Apocrypha and First page of Mathew--for reference...these are actual scans of an original, not a printed copy.
     
    #1 Phillip, Mar 10, 2004
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In my AV1611, the Anglican Catholic translators equated the Apocrypha with Scripture. They suggested daily "Bible" readings, including, on some days, chapters of the Apocrypha.

    They likewise equated it with Scripture by the translation committee. History tells us the translators were organized into six groups, and met respectively at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford.

    At Westminster, ten were assigned Genesis through 2 Kings; seven had Romans through Jude.

    At Cambridge, eight worked on 1 Chronicles through Ecclesiastes; seven others translated the Apocrypha.

    At Oxford, seven were employed to translate Isaiah through Malachi; eight occupied themselves with the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.

    What a shame that 7 of the greatest Anglican Catholic priest of that day had to spend all their time/effort on unbiblical books.

    As much as AV1611 proponents try to deny it, the apocrypha WAS a part of the AV1611 and many many revisions of it over the years. While no one is saying that they placed it EQUALLY with other canonical books, it was more than a "concordance" or "map" addition like we would have in a KJV1769 today.

    It was special.
     
    #2 Dr. Bob, Mar 10, 2004
  3. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    All the KJV translators were Anglican Bishops, Prelates, etc. In order to hold such offices in the Anglican church they had to accept the 39 Articles which state the Apocrypha is not canon. This has been pointed out to you several times but you seem to have an amazing capacity to ignore that which disproves your bias.
     
    #3 skanwmatos, Mar 10, 2004
  4. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The CofE practiced the same double-talk as their parent the Church of Rome.
    They said one thing but practiced another.
    In the daily "Scripture" reading chart in AV First Edition they include Apocryphal books under "Scripture". In the marginal links they provide cross references to Apocryphal books along with the other "Scripture".

    HankD
     
    #4 HankD, Mar 10, 2004
  5. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    My daily devotional has all sorts of stuff to read that isn't canon, and my bible has all sorts of cross references and notes that have nothing to do with the canon. The fact remains the KJV translators did not consider the Apocrypha canon. Period.
     
    #5 skanwmatos, Mar 10, 2004
  6. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, a lot of people have that problem.

    No not "Period.", but "semi-colon;" or "comma," perhaps.
    To repeat myself:
    They included the Apocrypha between the testaments in harmony with the time frame reference.
    They gave them chapter and verse assigments like the Old and New Testaments.
    They included the Apocrypha in the "Scripture" reading chart and their Scripture cross-references.

    As far as the Anglo-Catholic Church of England were concerned with including the "non-canonical" Apocryphal "scripture" in the AV First Edition and the manner in which it was treated...If it quacks, waddles,and swims, guess what it is?

    So in the books of "Maccabees" we have for us the "example of life" (as quoted by "Saint Jerome"-Heirome of the Church of Rome fame) and "instruction of manners" where folks pray for the dead that God would remit their sins.

    IMO, whether they called them canonical or non-canonical, they wrongfully exalted them to a place and position in a Book they labeled "The Holy Bible". As it is, someone eventually had the good sense and grace to remove it (although some die-hard publishers retain it in the KJV).

    HankD
     
    #6 HankD, Mar 10, 2004
  7. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fine. Have it your way. Of course you left out the very quote from the 39 articles which proves you wrong, but I have come to expect that from you.
    See the progression? Canonical books, Other books, then Canonical again. Got it now? They did not believe the Apocrypha was canon! You can play "Precepts" all you want to, but the fact remains they specifically excluded the Apocrypha from the Canon.
     
    #7 skanwmatos, Mar 11, 2004
  8. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

    I am just in utter amazement of most of you people here on the posts, and the amazing lengths you will go to to not only prove a point, but to discredit God's pure word of truth that he so wonderfully provided for us over 400 years ago to the english speaking people and we should be thanking and praising him for this daily. Instead you bash it and question it, by such things as this, as well as many other things. I cannot believe my eyes, that you all would bash the KJV with this nonsense. It would be one thing if the KJV included this today, or even until just recently. However, that cannot be said. I see what you are all doing, trying to divert attention away from those things that ARE WRONG and should be changed in the modern versions. I cannot believe you all claim the name of Christ, yet you do not stand for the preservation and pureness of his word, yet you go to all lengths to stand for those versions that have corrupted it. Where is your fear of the Lord? Where? I have not seen it amongst you.

    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #8 michelle, Mar 11, 2004
  9. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Michelle, no one is "bashing" the KJV. Some, sadly, are elevating it to perfection. All we are doing is showing HOW the Anglican-Catholics treated the apocrypha.

    Of course, this is unacceptable to those making a VERSION a part of their "faith". Your mock "shock" at us not believing that an English translation that contained the vile and ungodly apocryphal books is "perfect" is sickening. And sad.

    Your post is so full of error and syrupy sweet vitriol and condemnation that I fail at words to describe how unsettling it is. :(
     
    #9 Dr. Bob, Mar 11, 2004
  10. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And I Michelle am amazed at the lengths that Baptists will go to support and rationalize the error(s) of the Anglo-Catholic Church of Rome.

    So have you taken their advice (and Saint Jerome) concerning the Apocrypha which they say "the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners"?

    http://books.cambridge.org/0521509467.htm

    HankD
     
    #10 HankD, Mar 11, 2004
  11. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

    Dr. Bob,

    It should be unsettling to you, and just maybe the Lord will touch your heart with the truth concerning this. It is sickening to me, that most people on these posts have resorted to such a thing. To say that we do not have a perfect translation of the preserved word of God in our very language of English is DENYING THE PROMISES AND POWER of God Almighty to all those who are his. Then you all must sink to the level of attacking the very preserved words of God in order to excuse away your love of and support of those versions that have corrupted it, and should not bear his name at all, and to which HIS PEOPLE SHOULD REJECT and WARN OTHERS OF. You all have been decieved by the great deceiver. I will pray for you all.

    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #11 michelle, Mar 11, 2004
  12. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    WHERE IS YOUR FEAR OF GOD? PLEASE TELL ME WHERE? WHERE IS YOUR LOVE FOR THE WORD OF GOD? WHERE?
    WHERE IS YOUR LOVE FOR OTHERS? WHERE?
    WHERE IS YOUR LOVE FOR TRUTH? WHERE?

    I cannot find these things amongst you. Baptist is just another label. I am a born again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ - if I am guilty of bearing or carrying or labeling of anyones name, it will be my Lord's name. I am finding that many baptists are falling away from the faith once delivered unto the saints, and it is very difficult to say they have not become apostate or are becoming that way, which is very sad indeed. Go ahead, continue to attack the preserved word of God so that you can feel better in your warped minds that supporting the mv's is okay, even though you know in your heart it is WRONG. If these versions didn't have corruptions, I would be fine with them. However it has been shown time and time again they do have corruptions, and should therefore be REJECTED, and you all should be warning others of them, rather than embracing them as you do, and then have the nerve to say you love the word of God and have authority in your christian life. Go ahead, continue to put before the little children a stumblingblock.

    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #12 michelle, Mar 11, 2004
  13. russell55

    russell55 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle,

    Have you considered that if you are wrong, and God gave us those many translations to help us understand His word, to lead us to the true sense of His words, then in this statement is a dangerous one, for it would be deprecating good gifts from God?

    I have certainly found them to be good gifts--useful study tools to help me understand what our heavenly Father wants me to understand about who He is and what He has done for us. The deep love I have for my Saviour has come in large part from things I have begun to understand about Him from my study of His word, and when someone calls something I have found to be a wonderful gift from God corrupt and tells me it should be rejected, it hurts me to the core. I believe it also hurts the cause of Christ and the fellowship of the saints.

    I don't mean this to be hurtful to you, but when I see or hear someone speak of God's word in the terms you have, I consider it to be profanity, and it wrenches my gut in the same way that hearing someone use our Father's name in vain does.
     
    #13 russell55, Mar 11, 2004
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Notice the logic of the argument

    Bob says the KJV(whatever revision) is not the perfectly preserved Word of God

    Therefore:
    1. Bob denies the power/promise of God -- but where does the KJV(whatever revision) say that the KJV is that "promised" translation?

    2. Bob attacks the perfectly preserved KJV(whatever revision) -- where does condemning the false, vile uninspired apocrypha (focus of this thread) constitute an "attack" on the KJV?

    3. Bob loves and supports corrupted [read: anything not KJV] versions -- partially correct, because I love God's Word (Greek) and I do love all the translations that accurately translate the Greek.

    I will not use your name in class, but think the logic students will get a hoot out of the Kirkegaardian "leap of faith" you have made and then the fallacies of logic following it.

    No wonder the world looks at the "only" sect as a sad parody of vibrant Christian faith. And sadly, these threads prove it over and over again to the Christians as well.
     
    #14 Dr. Bob, Mar 11, 2004
  15. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

    Dr. Bob,

    That is the difference between you and I - I live by faith, rather than logic. You live by logic, rather than that of faith.

    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #15 michelle, Mar 11, 2004
  16. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


    russell55,

    --------------------------------------------------
    you quoted:

    I don't mean this to be hurtful to you, but when I see or hear someone speak of God's word in the terms you have, I consider it to be profanity, and it wrenches my gut in the same way that hearing someone use our Father's name in vain does.
    --------------------------------------------------

    This is the same that I feel toward those of you who attack the very precious gift of God's word to us, when you stand for those things that have corrupted it. It is hurtful, and the ways you all go about defending them, when you know you should be rejecting them, is also hurtful. You are not realizing what it is you are all doing. You all say all versions are God's preserved word. That is NOT POSSIBLE, considering the many differences between them. God is NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION. He is the God of peace and truth. In order for you to make excuses for these corruptions, you must attack the truly preserved word of God that he has given the english speaking people for over 400 years. How can you do such a thing? Do you not have any fear of God or reverence for his word or thankfulness in your heart for what he has given you? Yet you outright attack it, to validate your stand for those versions that have corrupted it.

    Please explain to me, how the omissions that have been done with the modern versions are of God? Please explain to me, how God would give us his word for 400 years, and then take some of it away? Please explain to me, why God would want to weaken our doctrine and our sword by these omissions? PLease explain this to me. NO one here has, except for the excuse that the majority of MSS in the New Greek do not contain them. Hello people, put on your spiritual discernment here, and tell me how in this modern day and age, with MSS that were rejected by the early churches, can NOW be considered God's word?

    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #16 michelle, Mar 11, 2004
  17. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle: "You all say all versions are God's preserved word.
    That is NOT POSSIBLE, considering the many differences between them."

    YOur assumption is NOT of faith. Make this axiom
    with faith: God has preserved his inerrant written
    Word for this day in all faithful versions.
    Get out of your black & white world and into the
    color world of all versions. God can do the impossible.

    Michelle: "God is NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION."

    Then why do you insist on staying confused?
    Here we have a lovely forum that God has provided for us
    to discuss versions and apparent contradictions
    to increase our understand of the bearutiful written
    word of God, but we have to spend all our time trying to
    help errant KJVO persons (and some who look just like
    them) find the 3-D world of God's written word
    (KJVO is so 1-dimentional).

    Michelle: "Please explain to me, how the omissions that have been done with the modern versions are of God?"

    It is God's nature to get what man has
    added to His written word OUT of it.

    [​IMG]
     
    #17 Ed Edwards, Mar 11, 2004
  18. Dan Todd

    Dan Todd Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    14,452
    Likes Received:
    0
    Skanwmatos said:
    Just like the he Roman Catholics say that they do not pray to or worship thoses statutes (idols) in the side lawn of their churches.

    I say - if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck - it probably is a duck!
     
    #18 Dan Todd, Mar 11, 2004
  19. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


    Dan,

    Are you now also attacking the preserved word of God for the past 400 years? Are you now one of those that think that omitting long standing truths in the Bible of the english speaking churches for the past 400 years are corruptions, and now God is all of a sudden taking them out? Does God through the Holy Spirit give men the exhaltation of God and give him all the glory, or does he keep that hidden, and lessen it? Go ahead, you can think that the KJV is a duck, but to me it is the doubled edged sword and part of the armour that my wonderful Lord and Saviour has so blessed me with so that I may be confident, strong, and victorious over my enemy.

    Go ahead into the battle with a dull sword, but for me and my house we will take the full armour of God and keep the sharp sword that the Lord has so wonderfully provided for us.

    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #19 michelle, Mar 11, 2004
  20. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Au, contraire. I live by faith IN THE LORD JESUS, not in a man-made translation.

    It is the OBJECT of faith that makes the difference. But of course, that is logical and foreign to your position.

    "Looking vnto Iesus the Authour and finisher of our faith."

    Try it. Look to Jesus, not James with the eye of faith. KJV bibliolatry is grossest sin.
     
    #20 Dr. Bob, Mar 11, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 5
Loading...