Apocrypha was inserted in the Holy Bible but not a KJB text. Corruption means the text is changed to have it change in meaning. The original title page of the KJB does not include the Apocrypha.
Where did King James only originate?
- Thread starter ResidentAlien
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Correct. The Apocrypha was inserted between the Old and New Testaments by the KJB translators in 1611. But it was NOT incorporated into the OT. And that is critical.
On the other hand, in Catholic bibles the seven books out of the Apocrypha are a part of the canon (which is wrong). The Catholic scholar Jerome objected to this, but was overruled. The Orthodox Church also accepts all of those books as canonical (plus some more) since they are all found in the Septuagint.
Perhaps at that time (1611) Protestant Christians did not want to cast it out of the Bible completely. But it was never regarded as Holy Scripture. And later on it was removed altogether.
Should Christians read the Apocrypha? Certainly, as long as it is clear that those are not inspired or canonical books. I and II Maccabees are historical so they can help understand the time between the Old and New Testaments. The Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) is not in conflict with the Bible. But some are clearly legendary.
Of course, it is the "educated" Greek and Hebrew scholars who have a monopoly on the unadulterated message of the gospel.
Really, if that were the case, then the "educated" scribes and Pharisees would have received Jesus and the common people would have rejected Him. It would have exemplified the fact that the educated people are those who are inclined to receive Jesus and that the common people are bumpkins.
Actually, it was the other way around.
The "educated" scribes and Pharisees rejected Jesus while the common people heard Him gladly.
Therefore, I do not believe that God limits His unadulterated message to those who have "educated" themselves in the Greek and Hebrew languages.
He has given us His word in the common English.
One does not have to refer back to Greek and Hebrew words in order to get God's unadulterated message.
(while I believe that we can receive added insight by looking at Greek verb tenses and other things in the Greek that does not become evident in the English language).
As a matter of fact, we are exhorted against such arguments over words, in 1 Timothy 6:4 and 2 Timothy 2:14.
I believe that God, being Omnipotent and sovereign, has the power to preserve His unadulterated message in such a version as the kjv.
And that God, being loving, is motivated to do so.
Therefore name one good reason why He wouldn't have done so.
The same old "Pharisees were educate and this is why they crucified the Lord" excuse.
That's what it is—an excuse.
I really don't think so.The same old "Pharisees were educate and this is why they crucified the Lord" excuse.
That's what it is—an excuse.
The Pharisees themselves, said that the common people were cursed over the fact that they were uneducated, in John 7:49; and that this was the reason why they were falling for this "deceiver who claimed to be the Christ" (Matthew 27:63).
That the common people heard Him gladly in contrast to this is evident in Mark 12:37.
Let me ask you then so I'm sure I understand where you're coming from: Are you saying it's harmful for a Christian to learn the underlying texts? Are you saying they're better left alone and a waste of time?
I ran across this video yesterday. Regardless of which position you take, it's very interesting and informative. A lot of history and detail here.
Didn't know if this had been covered yet;
The Greek word for “church” is ekklesia. It’s derived of two words: ek which means “out of” and kaleō which means “to call”. So, ekklesia, a noun, literally means “those called out”.
Here are some examples of the word “church” in other languages:
Spanish: iglesia
Latin: ecclesia
French: eglise
Greek: ekklesia
See how similar they are to the original Greek word?
Let’s look at the English version.
English: church
*record scratch*
What’s going on?
Why is ekklesia replaced by a word that has no structural or phonetic similarities to the original Greek word?
You can blame the original translators of the King James Version of the Bible. They were influenced by the traditions of their day. In their day, the building where the people of God met was called a “church”. This word was derived from the Germanic word kirche (there’s a whole story here that probably involves sun-goddess worship and maybe anti-Semitism but that’s another post). The translators simply used what was already familiar to the people. This is just one example of how they were influenced by the traditions of their times.
Today, we call buildings by a name God never intended: churches. And this adds confusion to the people of God.
Some blame lies with the translators of the KJV.
The Greek word for “church” is ekklesia. It’s derived of two words: ek which means “out of” and kaleō which means “to call”. So, ekklesia, a noun, literally means “those called out”.
Here are some examples of the word “church” in other languages:
Spanish: iglesia
Latin: ecclesia
French: eglise
Greek: ekklesia
See how similar they are to the original Greek word?
Let’s look at the English version.
English: church
*record scratch*
What’s going on?
Why is ekklesia replaced by a word that has no structural or phonetic similarities to the original Greek word?
You can blame the original translators of the King James Version of the Bible. They were influenced by the traditions of their day. In their day, the building where the people of God met was called a “church”. This word was derived from the Germanic word kirche (there’s a whole story here that probably involves sun-goddess worship and maybe anti-Semitism but that’s another post). The translators simply used what was already familiar to the people. This is just one example of how they were influenced by the traditions of their times.
Today, we call buildings by a name God never intended: churches. And this adds confusion to the people of God.
Some blame lies with the translators of the KJV.
Because we have the TR and 1611 KJV to tell us all we need to know, right.
What's to keep me from labeling you a Pharisee who wants to keep me in ignorance? I could easily reverse the situation and claim it's not those who want to learn who are Pharisees, but you, who want to keep them in the dark.
I'm probably in agreement with you that there are far too many modern versions based on bad manuscripts. But what's wrong with the Majority Text? It comes from the same stream of manuscripts as the TR. Is it simply that it's not the TR?
That's man's fault. Don't blame that on the KJV. Confusion comes from more than one version of "God's word". There can only be one, or none. Which one?
1Ti 3:15, But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Many years ago a godly man wrote a booklet titled "God Wrote Only One Bible". And that is perfectly true. If people haven't read "Which Bible?" they should go and read it before talking about Bible versions. They should also read "The Revision Revised". There are plenty of other books also which can be obtained as reprints and go into the details.
Plain common sense should dictate that there can be only ONE Holy Bible. Why? Because God is not the Author of confusion. And is there rampant confusion through dozens of modern bibles? Absolutely. To add to the confusion there are revisions of revisions of revisions.
So which Bible has established itself as the leading English language Bible for over 400 years? None other than the Authorized Version (the King Kames Bible of 1611). For those who wish to have a more updated KJB there is the King James 2000 Bible.
Are there equivalent bibles in other foreign languages which follow the traditional texts? Absolutely. Kindly search the British Trinitarian Bible Society website https://www.tbsbibles.org/default.aspx
You can read this article over there: The Excellence of the Authorised Version
...In respect of the features which specially make a translation of the Scriptures precious to the common reader, the Authorised Version of the English Bible is a very great improvement on all preceding versions. The language is clearer and choicer, more impressive and more capable of making itself remembered, and the translation more faithful and accurate than any that went before. The improvement is everywhere perceptible to the judgment and to the ear. ..
So why was the KJB attacked mercilessly? Because Satan hates the Sword of the Spirit, which cuts through all his lies and deception.
There can’t be more than one version that is the true word of God. Different versions contain different words and even different truths. There can only be one that is the true preserved word of God, or none.
Therefore, we should toss the KJV, because it was not the first complete English edition, and brought about confusion.
Next time, think through your arguments before you post them.