KJV1611 and Apocrypha

In 1611 the Church of England had already officially broken the bond with the Church of Rome in 1559.

However the CoE never fully separated from Rome in doctrine...

Found on line at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England

This includes their view of the Scriptures, while the CoE 39 Articles of Faith calls the Apocryphal books non-canonical, the daily reading chart in the 1611 First Edition refers to them as "Scripture" as does the Church of Rome.

HankD

 

The KJV translators never claimed perfection for their work. The publication of the 1611 First Edition (as you may already know) was the first proof of that when they included alternative readings in the margin.

The second witness to this fact was the corrective Revision of 1613 followed by several other revisions.

The so-called "perfection" of the King James Bible is a pious myth.

Many who perpetrate this myth view themselves as the self appointed mouthpiece of God and violate those very Scriptures they suppose they are helping God to defend.

My opinion, of course.

HankD

 

Well I'm a Bible(KJB)believer,so you'll have to settle for that;the Apocrypha was included in the A.V.1611 as reference,just like the reference notes in Scofield Bibles(1909 &1917).

The KJB translators never considered the Popish Apocrypha to be scripture,just "recomended reading," just like in the preface of the old Scofield Bibles,and the footnotes(study notes) that are on each page.

Now just because Scofield's study notes are in with the KJB does not make them Scripture,nor does it mean you HAVE to read them;just like in the first KJBs having the Apocrypha....same thing.

The Popish Apocryphal book were NOT in the underlying MSS. that the KJB come from...

However,the Papal Apocrypha WAS and still IS in the mss.(old and new testaments) that all Papal "bibles" and all other "bibles" from 1881 on come from....

What say ye to that??

 

Thanks AA, I appreciate your straight forward answer. What gets me is how these mv advoctaes are attempting to disallusion those who are not familiar with the facts and then as if no one is paying attention, keep referring to the Preface and Note to the Reader by the KJB translators by their misuse of said info, btw.

Bro. Roger, it has been stated over and over again, even by mv advocates the reason the apocrypha's inclusion in the AV 1611 KJB.

Simply reference, not Canon, much like all the infamous websites copied and pasted in the attempts to justify each others position, but the Bible along with a good concise dictionary coupled with an honest heart will suffice.

 

One moment they are cursing them -you know,"paedeo baptizing Anglican yo-yo's........"- and the the next it's "the KJB translators said......."

Unstable as water.


Wild and crazy stuff!!

 

the Bible along with a good concise dictionary coupled with an honest heart will suffice.

Hey BroPrecepts~That's right! "all" I EVER had was just my Bible, nothing else. The only notes in it are my own...years & years worth. I always found that if at first I didn't "understand" something, it'd eventually right itself up, simply by continuing on.

May the Lord richly bless you & the other men who stand on Truth alone.

 

You got two, so please don't try to turn this into something else, neither attempt to introduce the usual...

 

Thank you, Sister. I have a wide margin KJB Cambridge printed by LCBP w/o any references, only a small dictionary and a limited concordance. All the notes are mine, some original, many inspired from good preachers, none from niv preachers. Oooo!

 

Not quite the same thing. The Apocrypha contains the deadly dogma of Rome...

found on-line at http://watch.pair.com/bibleup.html

The 1611 First edition King James Bible with the Apocrypha included is currently for sale on the public market.


Whether one considers the Apocrypha canonical or not, no Bible IMO that contains the Apocrypha can be called “perfect” or “pure”.

On the day of its birth the King James Bible paid homage to Rome. Thank the Lord that someone had the good sense to cleanse it.

My point is that the Church of England has never fully cut the umbilical cord to Rome. The Apocrypha is one of those undeniable connections.
The body of the text in certain places revealing the belief of the ministerial hierarchy of the sacerdotal priesthood (e.g. "bishop") they inherited from Mother Church.

How can there be Baptists with such affection for the Romish Anglo-Catholic Church and the mystical divination of certain of the Apocrypha also making the very same "Only" error of the Mother Church concerning the Latin Vulgate the AV written in the "language of heaven".

Also this Church (like the Mother Church) presecuted and murdered our spiritual brethren before us and now as then deny by doctrine or deed all the Baptist distinctives

If the Church of England produced a translational work "Inspired" or "re-inspired" by the Spirit of God what then does that make the Church of England and why aren't you members of said Church.

HankD

 

Hank, have you and Roger ever read the apocrypha? I agree with what you said in your post, but even reading it out of curiosity could be looked at as linking up with Rome in some's opinion.
I personally believe the apocrypha has aslo been included as those who read the Bible can see for themselves the error of the apocrypha and help establish true Bible doctrine.

Just my opinion though, and not a sort of accustaion against the KJB.

 

Yes, I have read the Apocrypha, As you know I am a former Catholic and have discussed Catholic dogma with priests before I departed from the Church of Rome.

the RCC uses the Apocrypha to bolster their error e.g. purgatory and prayers for the dead (2 maccabees 12:43-45).

HankD

 

That's it exactly Hank and Roger. I just see it introduced in the 1611 as those "scriptures" that are in contradiction and out of harmony with the canon, that's all, and others, especially of that day and time needed to be shown how obvious the diferences are. I in no way believe for an instant the translators were in any way promoting the apocrypha, just allowing all to view the distinct differences, much like those shown by parallel Bibles do.

 

If you are going to condemn the KJV for once containing the Apocrypha you are going to have to condemn virtually every English version ever published for, at one time or another, almost every English version has been published containing the Apocrypha. Even the newest of the bibles the NRSV and TMB have editions containing the Apocrypha. Isn't it time to put this straw man to bed?