KJV1611 and Apocrypha

Yet you single out the KJV for your "question." Why not single out the NRSV? Or the TMB? Or even the Geneva? Or any one of the dozens upon dozens of English versions which, in one edition or another, contain the Apocrypha?

The answer? I will assume it is just another resurrection of the straw man argument that has been going around for decades.

 

NO! The strawman is that I am condemning the KJV and/or every English version that ever contained the Apocrypha.

Personally, I am condemning the influence of the Church of Rome upon our English Bibles. Secondly I am trying to burst the mythical bubble concerning the "purity" and "perfection" of the 1611KJV of the Bible.

IMO, The 1611 First Edition of the King James Bible was by no means "pure" containing the Apocrypha and several other romish blotches.

I have repeatedly said, thank the Lord that someone(s) had the wisdom to cleanse it (although the remnants of Rome are still present within it's covers).

HankD

 

I'm continually amazed at the KJVO's great lengths to defend the apocrapha's inclusion in the KJV 1611. They then condemn it in any other version/manuscript. Can you say double standard?

 

I'm continually amazed at the anti-KJVO's great lengths to condemn the apocrapha's inclusion in the KJV 1611. They then defend it in any other version/manuscript. Can you say double standard?

 

"I have repeatedly said, thank the Lord that someone(s) had the wisdom to cleanse it (although the remnants of Rome are still present within it's covers)."
Wisdom?
The apocrypha got canned because the AV was cheaper to print with them excluded.

 

I have yet to see anyone in this forum defend the apocrapha. What's that commandment about not bearing false witness?

 

TC you just gotta read what I wrote. I didn't say anyone defends the apocrypha. I said they defend the other English versions which also contain the Apocrypha. The "it" is the "it" of the "apocrapha's inclusion."

It must be right next to the one that says, "He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame unto him.

 

Of course!

HankD

 

TC you just gotta read what I wrote. I didn't say anyone defends the apocrypha. I said they defend the other English versions which also contain the Apocrypha. The "it" is the "it" of the "apocrapha's inclusion."

It must be right next to the one that says, "He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame unto him. </font>[/QUOTE]Nobody here (in this Bible Versions/Translations forum) has defended the apocrapha in any other English version that I have seen. Every post I have read that mentions the apocrapha has been critical of it and have stated that it was rightfully canned. So, according to everything I have read, you are indeed bearing false witness. If someone here has defended the apocrapha in other versions the way you say, then provide me the link so I can accept correction.

 

You have to pay attention. I know that reading can sometimes be problematic, but follow this carefully.

1. The KJV is singled out for criticism because it once contained the Apocrypha.

2. Almost all popular English versions also can be found which have at least one edition published which also contain the Apocrypha.

3. The other English versions are not singled out for criticism.

Got it now?

 

Let's see about that.

NKJV - no apocrapha
NIV - no apocrapha
ESV - no apocrapha
NCV - no apocrapha
ASV - no apocrapha
ERV - no apocrapha
NASB - no apocrapha

catholic Bibles - have apocrapha

The catholic church accepts the apocrapha as scripture. All the posts that I have read concerning the catholic cannon have been critical of the apocrapha.

The MV's used by people that participate in this forum do not contain the apocrapha - and have never contained the apocrapha in any edition I have seen. So they have no reason to be singled out.

 

As far as I know there has not yet been an NKJV published with the Apocrypha.

As far as I know, that is correct.

Harper Collins UK will be publishing the ESV with Apocrypha in the near future.

As far as I know the New Century Version has not yet been published with the Apocrypha.

Not as far as I know.

The ERV was published with an Apocrypha in 1895.

As far as I know that is correct.

As well as many so-called Protestant bibles such as the NRSV, REB, RSV, etc.

Well, I believe some people here may use the ERV (I know I do), as well as the NRSV, REB, and RSV (I was saved reading the RSV) and they all have been published with the Apocrypha.

 

Sorry, my bad.

Doesn't mean the translators approve of that - just means that Harper-Collins wants to make more money. However, the KJV translators did know/approve of the apocrapha being placed in the 1611 KJV.

Because the translating committees (as far as I know) were I know ecumenical and would therefore do something like that to keep everybody involved happy. I consider these to be Catholic Bibles for that reason. That being said, I know that God can and does reach people using them (or any other version). Aint God's mercy wonderful?

 

Two points. Just because an Apocrypha is contained between the testaments, the translation of the Old and New Testaments is not invalidated. It is still the word of God.

Secondly, you might consider them Catholic bibles, but the Roman Catholic Church might disagree with you. If it doesn't contain the proper imprimatur it is not official, no matter what anybody else says.

 

Wow, you sure were up late.........or should I say early?

As everyone is well aware, I am a TRUE "1611 King James Bible Believer." I use the TRUE Authorised Version, not the subjacent posthumous revision. I love the AV more than any KJVO on this board, and yet I am very anti-KJVO.

On more than one occasion, I have clearly stated that I possess a deep love for the Apocrypha. It is clearly located in the Authorised Version. If someone is arguing that there is a perfect English translation of God's Holy Word, to the point of excluding all other translations, then it should indeed be perfect. Regardless of the placement, the Apocrypha is still included. Using Will's "jot and tittle" test that you repeatedly and incorrectly assigned to me, the Authorised Version fails along with all the other translations. This test was held up by more than one KJVO as the basis for the rejection of all other translations of God's Holy Word.

I agree with you that it is unreasonable to use the Apocrypha as a basis for attacking a Version of God's Holy Word. But it is a basis for many of the KJVO's on this list to attack the MV's, and even the Septuagint. Another point worth mentioning is that I personally have never seen someone attack the KJV per se, the attack is usually directed at the KJVO camp. The simple fact of the matter is that nobody can provide any Scriptural Basis for the complete rejection of all other translations of God's Holy Word. My copy of the 1599 Geneva Bible alone completely shoots down the KJVO school of thought. Moreover, the 1769 Revision isn't even the best revision of the Authorised Version.

As a TRUE "1611 King James Bible Believer" I do understand your frustration though. I sincerely hope that this post finds you well.