King James Authorized Version is the ONLY Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter john_charles
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Psalm45:9:
I also forgot to mention that the “Apocrypha” was also in the Geneva Bible that the Puritans brought over when they landed at Plymouth Rock.

At the time of the Reformation every Non-Catholic Bible had the “Apocrypha” in it. (They were in an appendix between the Old and New Testaments)
Click to expand...
I should have made clear that the first protestants, while rejecting the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals (hence the name Apocrypha=not authentic) nonetheless included them as a separate section as you pointed out. They were sometimes considered as being of value in a moral but not in a scriptural sense. However, the taint of being a “Catholic interpolation” remained and during the 18th century they were generally removed from protestant bibles. Many protestants if they know of them still call them The Apocrypha today.
 
Can someone tell me why they are named the Deuterocanonicals? I understand why Apocrypha is not the word of choice, but why deuterocanonical?
 
40.png
trumpet152:
Can someone tell me why they are named the Deuterocanonicals? I understand why Apocrypha is not the word of choice, but why deuterocanonical?
Click to expand...
Second-canon or subsequent-canon or later canon. or last canon.
There was also a deutero canon in the NT but no one will tell you that. It Included Hebrews, 2 3John. 2Peter, Apocalypse.
 
40.png
TNT:
Second-canon or subsequent-canon or later canon. or last canon.
There was also a deutero canon in the NT but no one will tell you that. It Included Hebrews, 2 3John. 2Peter, Apocalypse.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure that Jude and 2John are a part of that list as well.
 
40.png
TNT:
Second-canon or subsequent-canon or later canon. or last canon.
There was also a deutero canon in the NT but no one will tell you that. It Included Hebrews, 2 3John. 2Peter, Apocalypse.
Click to expand...
Deuterocanonicals is in many ways as much a misnomer as Apocrypha. It still implies a lesser importance. In fact the Deuterocanonical books were simply an undifferentiated part of the Septuagint. They gained the name later as a softer way of characterising them than the term Apocrypha. The original Vulgate did not separate them from the rest of the OT, but following the protestant revolution it became common to place them separately even in Catholic bibles.

The NT deuterocanon contained books that were questionable in various ways. Some liked them and considered them divinely inspired, others didn’t. For example both Hebrews and the Apocolypse were considered tainted by gnosticism. The finalisation of the Canon in the 5th century effectively ended their status as a deuterocanon and incorporated them into the Bible as fully accepted books. There were also several books (eg I & II Clement, and various “Gospels”) that had been part of the deuterocanon that were excluded.

On an interesting aside. The original OT deuterocanon included the Prayer of Manasseh and I & II Esdras. Some protestant denominations that still retain these.The Catholic Church rejected these books at the time of the Council of Trent (remembering that until then the Church had simply accepted the Septuagint canon as they had received it).

For an example of the continued misinformation put out by some protestants even with all our knowledge of how the various OT and NT canons were formed try the following link. It states openly “The term has come to be applied particularly to the 15 books added to the Roman Catholic Bible but ordinarily rejected by non-Catholics.” and “By adding the Apocrypha to the canon of Scripture, the Catholic Church, in effect, rendered the rest of the Bible impotent.” The really scary bit is that the first quote is taken from the supposedly scholarly Oxford Annotated Apocryopha.

biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcapocr.htm
 
40.png
InnocentIII:
I should have made clear that the first protestants, while rejecting the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals (hence the name Apocrypha=not authentic) nonetheless included them as a separate section as you pointed out. They were sometimes considered as being of value in a moral but not in a scriptural sense. However, the taint of being a “Catholic interpolation” remained and during the 18th century they were generally removed from protestant bibles. Many protestants if they know of them still call them The Apocrypha today.
Click to expand...
Despite this at the time of the original 1611 KJV, the “Apocrypha” were still being read in churches as good historical and moral works. But they weren’t considered good for doctrines…
 
Psalm45:9:
Despite this at the time of the original 1611 KJV, the “Apocrypha” were still being read in churches as good historical and moral works. But they weren’t considered good for doctrines…
Click to expand...
As I pointed out in my post they were considered of value for moral not scriptural reasons which I take to mean the same as you do above by their being good historical and moral works but not good for doctrines. Secondly 1611 was a century before the move to remove them from the Bible. So I guess we are in agreement despite the “Despite” 😃
 
Psalm45:9:
Despite this at the time of the original 1611 KJV, the “Apocrypha” were still being read in churches as good historical and moral works. But they weren’t considered good for doctrines…
Click to expand...
If you read the site I posted on the historical manuscripts of the KJV you will find that is yet another protestant ruse. They certainly were used as doctrine as well as in the liturgy.
 
TNT said:
King James Authorized Version is the ONLY Bible?

YES. ONLY THE ANGLICANS GOT IT RIGHT, SO SAY THE BAPTIST AND EVANGELICALS AND NON-DENOMINATIONAL DENOMINATIONS WHO REJECT THE ANGLICAN HERETIC CHURCH.:whacky:
Click to expand...

👋
The new edition of the New International Version (NIV) Bible came out this year. Why is it newsworthy? Because this is the “Inclusive Language Edition,” and conservative Protestants everywhere are up in arms.
 
40.png
TNT:
For those with an avid interest in the KJV and its inclusion of the Deuteros, even required under penalty for omitting them, Try this site. It is very extensive with original photocopies of the Deuteros as part of the 1611-1615 etc versions.
Click to expand...
That was a good link, I have read in non Catholic encyclopedias that the DC books were included in almost every Bible up till about 1825 when some elete protestant individuals who owned the presses and copyrights decided not to publish the DC in their Bibles from then on.

Anyway I found a link on that link you posted. here it lists 1&2 Esdras in the Apocrypha section, but I thought 1&2E was Ezra & Nehemia…well, it looks like those are also listed on that same page in the top section (protocanon), so what is 1&2 Esdras? Anyone?
 
Catholic Dude:
That was a good link, I have read in non Catholic encyclopedias that the DC books were included in almost every Bible up till about 1825 when some elete protestant individuals who owned the presses and copyrights decided not to publish the DC in their Bibles from then on.

Anyway I found a link on that link you posted. here it lists 1&2 Esdras in the Apocrypha section, but I thought 1&2E was Ezra & Nehemia…well, it looks like those are also listed on that same page in the top section (protocanon), so what is 1&2 Esdras? Anyone?
Click to expand...
For an excellent (and faith neutral) summary try the wikipedia article here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha

The canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals has been questioned even in the Catholic Church most notably by St Jerome who rejected them from the original Vulgate because there were no Hebrew originals. Later however some were reincluded. This was made definitive by decree of the Council of Trent.

Those included by this decree were Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Macabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) and Baruch and the three interpolations in Daniel (Prayer of Azariah, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon - the last two normally printed as separate books) and the greek text of Esther.

Other books existed in the Septuagint which were rejected by the Catholic Church but have been included in various Orthodox Canons including 3 & 4 Macabees, 1 & 2 Esdras and Enoch.

The Jewish Canon was finalised at the Council of Jamnia in 92AD (sorry I mixed my dates up earlier and said 70AD) and the early protestants, following Luther rejected them from the official canon of the Bible on the same grounds as the Council and St Jerome but included them in a separate section for their basically consistent moral teaching. Calvin rejected them outright.

Despite the threat of imprisonment for publishing without the Deuterocanonicals by the 18th century it was beoming more and more common for the KJV to be published without them until in the early 19th century the Edinburgh denounced them and all Bible Societies followed suit and eliminated them. An interesting aside is the fate of the Lutheran Bible which contained them up to the Second World War whereafter the American Bible Societies provided funding only if the books were excluded.

An aside on Luther and his claim sola scriptura is that Lutehr was perfectly prepared to fiddle with the text of the Canon to support his agenda. He condemned James (this epistle of straw) for its focus on faith without works (he actually wanted to exclude it from the Canon at one stage) and also 1 Macabees because it gave support to the concept of purgatory. Apparently sola scriptura meant sola MY scriptura.
 
Catholic Dude:
That was a good link, I have read in non Catholic encyclopedias that the DC books were included in almost every Bible up till about 1825 when some elete protestant individuals who owned the presses and copyrights decided not to publish the DC in their Bibles from then on.

Anyway I found a link on that link you posted. here it lists 1&2 Esdras in the Apocrypha section, but I thought 1&2E was Ezra & Nehemia…well, it looks like those are also listed on that same page in the top section (protocanon), so what is 1&2 Esdras? Anyone?
Click to expand...
OK, it’s a little confusing. Ezra and Nehemia were called 1 and 2 Esdras. The 1 and 2 Esdras you are talking about were called 3 and 4 Esdras. When Ezra and Nehemia became know as “Ezra” and “Nehemia” 3 and 4 Esdras became 1 and 2 Esdras. They were in the appendix of the Vulgate along with the prayer of Manessah. Some copies of the Vulgate also had 3 Maccabees and Psalm 151 in the Appendix. 1 and 2 Esdras and the prayer of Manessah have good moral teachings, thus they were read in the Churches at the time of the reformation.
 
40.png
InnocentIII:
On an interesting aside. The original OT deuterocanon included the Prayer of Manasseh and I & II Esdras. Some protestant denominations that still retain these.The Catholic Church rejected these books at the time of the Council of Trent (remembering that until then the Church had simply accepted the Septuagint canon as they had received it).
Click to expand...
Wait, are you saying the Prayer of Manasseh and I & II Esdras were not in the septuagint or that they were? And if they were, why did the church reject them?
 
If the KJV is the ONLY bible, then why does it use obvious plagiarisms from the Douay-Rheims Catholic translation that was published before the KJV? The KJV is a good translation, but it is just that, a translation…

P.S. Is it true that Shakespeare helped translate the KJV? This is something I’ve heard, and have never tried to verify the claims (not that it would matter much)…
 
40.png
trumpet152:
Can someone tell me why they are named the Deuterocanonicals? I understand why Apocrypha is not the word of choice, but why deuterocanonical?
Click to expand...
It simply decribes a secondary group of Biblical books. Apocrypha means exactly the same set of books. Only difference, Apocrypha is the term used by non-catholic Christians. I’m curious why you believe it is not the word of choice? While they, for the most part, don’t consider them Canonical they do consider them worthy of reverence. However St. Jerome thought so little of them, that when pressed to include them, he just dashed off a quick translation. Perhaps he was thinking “OK what you see is what you get, don’t bug any longer.” Personally I enjoy reading KJV, I find it causes one to slow down and digest the sense of the words. Not just dash through a Chapter as some do when reading their Bible in venacular.
Thanx Dan
 
40.png
trumpet152:
Wait, are you saying the Prayer of Manasseh and I & II Esdras were not in the septuagint or that they were? And if they were, why did the church reject them?
Click to expand...
They were in the Septuagint but were not included among the books covered by the decree of the Council of Trent. Like Enoch and 3 & 4 Macabeees and Psalm 151 (and some others - see my wikipedia link) they were excluded. I don;t really know what the reasoning was.
 
40.png
dancus:
It simply decribes a secondary group of Biblical books. Apocrypha means exactly the same set of books. Only difference, Apocrypha is the term used by non-catholic Christians. I’m curious why you believe it is not the word of choice? While they, for the most part, don’t consider them Canonical they do consider them worthy of reverence. However St. Jerome thought so little of them, that when pressed to include them, he just dashed off a quick translation. Perhaps he was thinking “OK what you see is what you get, don’t bug any longer.” Personally I enjoy reading KJV, I find it causes one to slow down and digest the sense of the words. Not just dash through a Chapter as some do when reading their Bible in venacular.
Thanx Dan
Click to expand...
The term deuterocanonicals was used by one of the Sixtuses in the 1500s. It just meant they were accepted into the canon later than the other books.
 
Semper Fi:
P.S. Is it true that Shakespeare helped translate the KJV? This is something I’ve heard, and have never tried to verify the claims (not that it would matter much)…
Click to expand...
HERE is a link to an online KJV of Psalm 46.

If you count the first 46 WORDS and record that 46th word, and then start from the end of the Psalm (dont count the terms “selah”) and count backwards 46 words and record the 46th word you will see something interesting.
 
Catholic Dude said:
HERE is a link to an online KJV of Psalm 46.

If you count the first 46 WORDS and record that 46th word, and then start from the end of the Psalm (dont count the terms “selah”) and count backwards 46 words and record the 46th word you will see something interesting.
Click to expand...

Why 46? Anything special about that?
 
In the future when nobody speaks English anymore, will the KJV still be the ‘only’ bible?

We have proof that the language is changing right now and is not the same as when the AKJV was inked out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top