How the KJV 1611 handled the Apocrypha

Michelle, a very large and sharp "stumbling block" is the KJVO myth, a totally-false doctrine often placed in the neophytes' "path".

Group, I can show you the Book of Enoch was NOT written by Enoch! From this book:Enoch 74:10
10 And in those days, if five years are taken together, the sun has thirty superabundant days; and all the days which belong to him for one of these five years, when they are full, are three hundred and sixty-four days.

In Enoch's day, the year was no more than 360 days long. That's the length in Noah's time, if you care to do the math in the account of the flood. The WHOLE WORLD recognized the 360-day year until the 740s BC. Why? Because that was the actual length of the solar year! If it were due to fuzzy math, the farmers would be almost a month off in their planting schedules in just five years!

The year was changed to its present length when God made the sun appear to move retrograde for Hezekiah. You might read "Worlds In Collision" by Immanuel Velikovsky, for a very possible explanation, as the WHOLE WORLD, not just Hezekiah, saw the sun retrace its course in the sky, and this was NOT without some catastrophe in several places upon earth.(Thus, the Greek story of Phaeton was born.)

I'm getting carried away. At any rate, this proves the Book of Enoch is bogus.

 

Agreed but not ONLY in the KJV.

Yes.

What measure of comparison are you using? ANY translation has the effect of weakening the original, it is a fact of life since no two languages have a word-for-word corresponding nuance.

In terms of "altering" the Word of God, I could say the same about the AV because the AV for instance follows the Vulgate in several places instead of the Traditional Greek Text.

In fact there are places in the KJV which have absolutely no explanation as to the origin of the word(s) being found nowhere else including the TR.
It is not the fact that (perhaps) the mvs do weaken the Word of God more than the KJV. The reality is that ALL translations of man have this common attribute.

If you wish to attribute the KJV as being the translation of God, so be it but as has been shown this would mean trowing logic out the window (IMO) after the facts of the translation of and the several revisions of the KJV are examined.

I do however agree with the KJV translators that the proliferation of translations is a good thing in that it facilitates the finding of "the sense of the Scriptures".

Also the KJV translators said that even the "meanest of them" (translations) IS the Word of God. No doubt they included the Vulgate in this statement because they spoke well of it, used it in preference to the Greek text in many places and the fact is that the first English translations were from the Vulgate out of which early translations voluminous amounts of English text found their way into the AV.

First of all, if I, a man can cause your faith in the Word of God to crash, then from whence comes your faith? From God?

Second, apostacy and liberalism (for the most part) were already rooted in professing Christianity LONG before the advent of the mv's.
In fact most of the modern cults and departures from the Scripture happened during the time the KJV florished.

Finally, I have worn out 4 KJVs along the way in my walk with the Lord and memorized hundreds (maybe more) of KJV verses. However, while the AV is based upon the TR, the KJV is not "koine" english, so in teaching/preaching I use the mv's as well as the Greek/Hebrew to help determine the "sense" of the Scriptures in the common language of life (21st century) for the benefit of those not versed in the KJV dialect, grammar and syntax.

Here are a couple of examples of KJV dialect which would bewilder the 21st century English speaker:

1 Chronicles 26:16-18
To Shuppim and Hosah the lot came forth westward, with the gate Shallecheth, by the causeway of the going up, ward against ward.
Eastward were six Levites, northward four a day, southward four a day, and toward Asuppim two and two.
At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.

2 Corinthians 6:11-13
O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

HankD

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
Dan quoted:

Perhaps God hasn't given us the verse yet - because He doesn't know which revision of the KJV He has preserved!
--------------------------------------------------

Oh, Dan, I beg to differ with you. God's saints absolutely know! I know, why don't you? I can say I can hold the very words of God for my faith, pracitce and very life, in my very hands, and not question it one bit. Can you?

How does one tell if the milk is spoiled? Can you tell if your milk is spoiled?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
Hank quoted:

What measure of comparison are you using? ANY translation has the effect of weakening the original, it is a fact of life since no two languages have a word-for-word corresponding nuance.
--------------------------------------------------

This of course Hank, is if you assume you had the origional writings that the actual apostles and prophets wrote - which is impossible to have. Are you denying the power of God to ensure that his actual words that he gave through the prophets and the apostles could not accurately be preserved for all people of all generations and in all languages? You are limiting God and his ability, and the importance of his words to those who love him, worship him and serve him. NO, you see, God has the power, ability and authorization to ensure that his word, and EVERY SINGLE WORD would be preserved for all people of all generations as he has promised. WE have them in the KJV. My evidence is that to which I can hold in my very hands in the KJV. These are the very words of God to me, and to all else who love him and his word. WE also know when it has been corrupted. Think with your heart and faith, not just only with your brain and human wisdom.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
Hank quoted:

so in teaching/preaching I use the mv's as well as the Greek/Hebrew to help determine the "sense" of the Scriptures in the common language of life (21st century) for the benefit of those not versed in the KJV dialect, grammar and syntax.

Here are a couple of examples of KJV dialect which would bewilder the 21st century English speaker:


2 Corinthians 6:11-13
O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged
--------------------------------------------------

Hank,

First I would like to say, if my Pastor ever said anything that resembled what you just said, I would be quick to find another church. The reason is this: This passage of scripture I can understand perfectly, and I do not need to go to another version or greek languages, etc. in order to understand it. I can understand it from the Lord who gives me understanding of it. This is what a Pastor is to do, is he not? Is he to rely upon his own wisdom, or rather that of the understanding given to him but by the Holy Spirit of truth and understanding? There of course is nothing wrong with referencing to greek for full grasp of the topic, but it should not be the only thing relied upon. Our understanding should come first and foremost from the Lord himself. A good pastor would not need to refer to another version for their understanding. A good pastor will expound upon the meaning of this passage as the Lord leads him.

This passage of scripture is a great one to describe the many here on these posts. You all might want to take Paul's words to heart and contemplate them.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle, evidently you're gifted by God with the intelligence and ability to understand archaic English perfectly, or have studied enough to have become proficient. However, many people of normal or of even high IQ have a problem with archaic language. No, this isn't a "curse", it's simply the way God chose to make that person.

God has provided His word in English in the style current for the time ever since He first presented it in English, and He did NOT retire in 1611. He still occupies His THRONE, not a park bench. Remember, Paul said, in so many words, that if one doesn't hear God's word in his/her own tongue, it's merely noise to that person. Just because YOU have no trouble with archaic English doesn't mean EVERYONE has none.

God continues to provide His word in the languages of the time, just as He's always done.

 

KJV:
2 Corinthians 6:11-13
O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged

NIV:
2 Corinthians 6:11-13
We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange-I speak as to my children-open wide your hearts also.


Which is more understandable for modern readers? I say the second one, but that is just this small town hicks opinion.

 

How do you know that since the KJV has been revised so many times these several hundred years? Which is the revision that has EVERY SINGLE WORD preserved since there are several hundred word differences between the 1611 First Edition and the 1769 Edition. No KJV (NT) agrees completely with the Traditional Greek Text.

So if I choose to call the Masoretic Text (OT) and the Textus Receptus (NT) which I can hold in MY hands the "very words of God" instead of the KJV (1611-1769?) that means I don't love him?

I can call the KJV the Word of God but not the VERY word of God because in all honesty, to me the original language collation/compilations mentioned above are the VERY Words of God. To me, the KJV is a translation of the VERY Words of God.

HankD

 

The KJV translators gave witness on the fly leaf of the AV that "former translations" were "diligently compared" as well as the translation of the manuscripts of the "original tongues" to produce the AV 1611.

Were they not led of the Lord?

HankD

 

Here wego, i'll be a typical church member \

1. flagon [n.] - large metal cup
2. confection [n.] - danti snack for High Tea
3. target [n.] - Wal Mart competitor
4. bruit [n.] - a men's after shave
5. leasing [v.] - like rent only long term
6. tutor [n.] - individual teacher
7. mean [adj.] - ugly, disresepctful, and evil
8. settle [n.] - to precipate to the bottom
9. pulse [n.] - the wave compression feature
10. strait [n.] - hetrosexual
11. booties [n.] - little fancy socks for a baby
12. let [v.] - to allow

 

That would depend on how it is used. In some places it means a bottle or vessel of skin (See Isa. 22:24), and in other places it means a cake made of pressed raisins. See Easton.

The only time it is used in the KJV it means "ointment" which is also a current meaning of the word: A sweetened medicinal compound; an electuary.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Current meaning is the same as the KJV: A small round shield.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

To spread news of; repeat. A rumor.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

The act of lying. A lie; a falsehood.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Doesn't occur in the KJV. If you meant to type "tutors" it means the legal guardians of a minor, which is the current meaning of the word: The legal guardian of a minor and of the minor's property.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Still means the same thing today: Ignoble; base, Common, Low in social status; of humble origins.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

An enclosure. We still call a bed with an enclosure a "settle bed." It can also mean a place lower than the rest such as a step or a platform. Ez 43:14.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company

The edible seeds of certain pod-bearing plants, such as peas and beans. A plant yielding these seeds.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

A position of difficulty, perplexity, distress, or need. Often used in the plural: "in desperate straits."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Plunder taken from an enemy in time of war. Goods or property seized by force or piracy. A valuable prize, award, or gain. Plural of booty.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Something that hinders; an obstacle: "free to investigate without let or hindrance."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Then your class must have all flunked basic contemporary English for, out of the 12, 10 are still current!

Except the language has not changed all that much. 10 of the 12 words currently mean the same as they do in the KJV. What has changed is the quality of the education of your students. And, as you taught them, perhaps you should accept your share of the blame!

 

Michelle:A good pastor would not need to refer to another version for their understanding. A good pastor will expound upon the meaning of this passage as the Lord leads him.

Many a good pastor would read God's word in a language that the audience fully understands, so he could spend more time discussing the MESSAGE rather than in interpreting.

 

Why are you so anti-education? Why do you champion gross ignorance? You talk about the "average person" who doesn't know what those words mean but you claim that do. That sounds, to me, like extreme arrogance. You are so well educated and everybody else is stupid.

My position is to stop attacking the bible and start educating people!

What's wrong with learning the meaning of words?

 

Mine were also kinder and gentler, like me

 

Dr. Bob, I have merely raced thru a few of the posts here, but I rather like Ecclesiasticus of the "apocrypha" and I read that the EARLY CHURCH loved some of the so-called "apocrypha."

Isn't it weird that the KJV contains 66 books. Just one 6 shy of 666? Isn't that strange? I've never trusted much the canon authorizers, I try to let the Holy Spirit authorize what I trust for the Word of God.

Wasn't there great debate over Jude, Revelation, II Peter, Hebrews being "canonical"?

Those so much more advanced on this topic, what are good URLs for more info on the "canon'?

Why would Bible lovers be hateful and mean-spirited about a dumb issue like which Bible translations is best? None are perfect. I see good and bad points in all of them. KJV as the only holy version: this must be some sick joke!

God must be very dismayed to think that He gives us His Word, then weirdos fume and fuss and fight over which version is more inspired than others.

I may look into this topic deeper, I admit I have not spent much time on it, but to act like King James was some Apostle or Prophet is rather strange.

"Making a version an article of faith" well said Dr. Bob.

IMHO the King James Version is nice, but many archaic words that totally distort or disguise the meaning of the text: our "conversation is in heaven" = our citizenship is in heaven. "I trow not" and "astonied" and such stuff.

What version did God give to the Africans, or the Eskimos, or the South Americans?

Jesus had no use for the KJV, nor did the Apostle Paul. It wasn't invented yet.

 

Skan it was not dr Bob who decreed that the NT be given in "koine" not "Elizabethan" English which is not spoken in 21st century America (except at a Shakesperean play).

No one is attacking the Bible. Some of us are trying to show that the KJV (1611?-1769?) is/was not without blemish to defeat the urban legend of "second inspiration" and "advanced revelation" (to name two errors) of the KJVO.

There are those who do indeed attack the Bible by calling the NASB (for instance) a "satanic counterfeit".

If that is the case with a Bible one has to use, why not go all the way and learn the Greek and/or Hebrew?

As the years pass more and more of the Word of God is lost to the present generation because they have a widening disconnect with the KJV English. This same process happened with the Latin Vulgate until Italians were unable to read their Bibles from ages past.

It is not an attack on the Word of God to want to modernize it into the "koine" of America/Great Britain.

HankD

 

You seem to have missed the point. It is Dr. Bob who is attacking the KJV. The issue is not "koine" (which you don't seem to understand the meaning of) and "Elizabethan" English (its Jacobean, not Elizabethan), but Dr. Bob's constant attacks on the KJV. There is no such thing as an English bible wherein every word will be understood by every reader. When the KJVOs post the long lists of such words from the NIV you are the first to object, but when Dr. Bob posts a pejorative list of such words in the KJV you defend that attack on the bible. I think that is your famous "double standard" which you accuse the KJVOs of holding.

Yes, Dr. Bob is.

That is not what Dr. Bob is doing.

And they are as wrong as Dr. Bob, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

Because nobody will ever be as proficient in a language learned after his native language. In order to learn to read the bible in Hebrew and Greek would require even more referencing dictionaries and lexicons than reading the KJV. Is this the famous double standard again? If it is okay to use a Hebrew or Greek dictionary why is it anathema to use an English dictionary?

None of the word of God is ever lost. It is obscured by people like Dr.Bob who have a serious psychological hatred of learning new words and using reference books such as dictionaries.

I don't have a problem with bibles in the current vernacular. But Dr. Bob has a problem with dictionaries and learning the meaning of words, and with the KJV. Talk to him, not me.