Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha?

    Yes. Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.

    First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.

    That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:

    1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

    2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

    3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

    4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

    5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

    6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

    7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

    If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture. - by chick.com

  • #2
    Are any of the apocryphal texts worth reading? I've read Judith and Tobit out of curiosity, and they seemed like folk tales to me. I was expecting them to be more interesting, considering how controversial they are.
    Comment>

    • #3
      Originally posted by Nico View Post
      Are any of the apocryphal texts worth reading? I've read Judith and Tobit out of curiosity, and they seemed like folk tales to me. I was expecting them to be more interesting, considering how controversial they are.
      First Maccabees has historical value. Are they worth reading? It depends.

      These documents gives us a better insight in the culture and historical context of the time. They are a window into the thoughts and ideas of the writers. They tell us what the authors thought was important, the issues, the events. These texts provide a matrix for their understanding of the Scriptures just as the DDS did for Qumran community.

      There is also the linguistic impact these texts have had upon lexical studies, the understanding of idioms, and syntax. The more literature we have the better our understanding of the languages (i.e. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.).
      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by William View Post
        Yes. Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.

        First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.

        That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:

        1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

        2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

        3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

        4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

        5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

        6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

        7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

        If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture. - by chick.com
        For the most part I would not trust anything from Chick (By the way Jack Chick died this year.). Much of his information is flat out wrong or at the very least misleading and most of it is bias. For example, his claim "not one of them is in the Hebrew language" is not true. Fragments of the book of Tobit have been found in Hebrew and Aramaic among the DDS. Also, his claim that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are corrupt is an example of his bias. He was a KJV onlyist.
        Last edited by Origen; 12-27-2016, 10:46 AM.
        Comment>

        • #5
          While I agree with Origen, I think it important to say that Luke 24:44 tells us that Jesus did not think the Apocrypha important enough to teach. Also Luke 11:51 tells us what is required of us. I consider anything more additional reading. However, I caution others because these things may influence us, for example, I used to read Gnostic writings, and some things I read I mistaken from memory as being Scripture. In Luke 11:51 Jesus quoted the Hebrew OT in chronological order, and the Apocrypha which was already completed and existed in the day of Jesus went without mention from His lips. I also am rather mixed, while I agree we should hold the texts in its historical context, we must also understand that the OT should be read in the light of the NT and not vice versa.

          God bless,
          William
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by William View Post
            While I agree with Origen, I think it important to say that Luke 24:44 tells us that Jesus did not think the Apocrypha important enough to teach. Also Luke 11:51 tells us what is required of us. I consider anything more additional reading. However, I caution others because these things may influence us, for example, I used to read Gnostic writings, and some things I read I mistaken from memory as being Scripture. In Luke 11:51 Jesus quoted the Hebrew OT in chronological order, and not to mention the Apocrypha which was already completed and existed in the day of Jesus went without mention from His lips. I also am rather mixed, while I agree we should hold the texts in its historical context, we must also understand that the OT should be read in the light of the NT and not vice versa.

            God bless,
            William
            I am sorry William. I think I might have given the wrong impression. The Apocrypha was never part of the canon. There is abundant evidence for this.
            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by Origen View Post
              I am sorry William. I think I might have given the wrong impression. The Apocrypha was never part of the canon. There is abundant evidence for this.
              Oh, I didn't get that impression, but a reservation is how much "historical context" should we use in reading the OT. For example, the Trinity, using the historical backdrop and searching through commentators was that even a consideration in the day or only after the NT? Perhaps you can clarify that, but my only point was that the OT should be read through the lens of the NT, and that Jesus never mentioned the Apocrypha despite it being already completed and in circulation in His day.

              God bless,
              William
              Comment>
              Working...
              X
              Articles - News - SiteMap