Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 11/26/2001 5:46:57 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 6:04:35 PM EST
Naw, the King James Authorized Version was not a slap at the pope, or a sop for the king. It was simply a revised version of several other older English Bibles that dated from around 700 AD and later. The 'Vulgate' version of the Bible by St. Jerome had nothing in it, other than the Apocrypha, that is not commonly accepted by most Protestant denominations presently. Any one will do, they all say the same thing on all points that would be germane to salvation. Eric The(PreferKingJames,Simply'CauseILikeShakespe­areAndItWasWrittenInTheSameLanguage,AsWell)Hu­n[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 6:12:20 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 6:19:13 PM EST
I might actually hit 20 posts before the week is up [:D] (Now I am telling on myself) When I have done bible studies at my church (This is for adults and teens) I try to use more than one version. If memory serves me correctly, there is a version that was actually taken directly from the original scrolls (I will look into this) But many like ones such as the NIV (New International Version) and Kings James Revised edition (Makes more "english" scence than all the "thees and thous") I personally like the NIV, but I find that only by reading other versions at the same time, I can get a true scence of what is being said. I do try to use study guides as I go too. (I think I got off subject here) Just my opinion though...... I agree with Eric though, it doesnt matter which one you read, they all lead to the same place and same way. The Whistlepig
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 6:27:49 PM EST
"None of the above" - none are even nearly complete. Was it the "Council of Bishops" in maybe 500AD that decided what we could read and what would be locked in the catacombs under the Vatican ? (I'm no scholar and may well be wrong about the date.)
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 6:58:19 PM EST
Well, originally, the King James Version contained the 14 books of the Apocrypha, but in 1886, those books were officially removed. The Apocrypha, however, was not considered a part of the inspired Scriptures. It was translated and bound with the Bible, but the King James Version translators did not count it as God's Word. In that they differed from the Roman Church. The fact that the Apocryphal books were separated out of the Old Testament and put after it indicates that they did not consider it equal with Holy Scripture. In later editions it was dropped altogether. In his prologue to his translation of the Old Testament, St. Jerome gave an account of the canonical Scriptures of the Hebrew Bible and enumerated them exactly. Then he added: "This prologue to the Scriptures may suit as a helmed preface to all the books which we have rendered from Hebrew into Latin, that we may know that whatever book is beyond these must be reckoned among the Apocrypha." Thus Jerome was one of the first to use the term Apocrypha ('noncanonical') to designate certain books which were included in the Septuagint and the Latin Old Testament versions but had never been part of the Hebrew Scriptures. The names of these apocryphal books are as follows: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, certain additions to the books of Esther and Daniel, First and Second Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasses. These books were written by Jewish authors between 200 B.C. and 100 A.D. Some of them were written in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated into Greek. Others were written in Greek originally. The Roman Catholic Church rejects First and Second Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses. Hence in the printed Latin Vulgate they are placed after the New Testament as an appendix and in small type. The other apocryphal books are mentioned by name in the decrees of the Council of Trent, where they are declared sacred and canonical and a solemn curse is pronounced against all those who will not receive them as such. Accordingly, in the printed Latin Vulgate they are interspersed without distinction among the other books of the Latin Old Testament. Protestants have always opposed this attempt of the Roman Catholic Church to canonize the Apocrypha for several reasons. In the [b]first place[/b], it is contrary to the example of Christ and His Apostles. Never in the New Testament is any passage from the Apocrypha quoted as Scripture or referred to as such. This is admitted by all students of this subject, including present-day scholars such as B. M. Metzger (1957). This fact is decisive for all those who acknowledge the divine authority and infallible inspiration of the New Testament writers. And all the more is this so if it be true, as Metzger and many other scholars have contended, that Paul was familiar with Wisdom, James with Ecclesiasticus, John with Tobit, and the author of Hebrews (who may have been Paul) with 2 Maccabees. For if these Apostles knew these apocryphal books this well and still refrained from quoting or mentioning them as Scripture, then it is doubly certain that they did not accord these books a place in the Old Testament canon. According to C. C. Torrey (1945), however, only in the Epistle to the Hebrews is there clear evidence of a literary allusion to the Apocrypha. - continued -
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 7:04:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/26/2001 7:00:54 PM EST by EricTheHun]
A [b]second reason[/b] why the books of the Apocrypha cannot be regarded as canonical is that the Jews, the divinely appointed guardians of the Old Testament Scriptures, never esteemed them such. This fact is freely admitted by contemporary scholars. According to Torrey, the Jews not only rejected the Apocrypha, but after the overthrow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., they went so far as to "destroy, systematically and thoroughly, the Semitic originals of all extra-canonical literature," including the Apocryphal, "The feeling of the leaders at that time," Torrey tells us, "is echoed in a later Palestinian writing (Midrash Qoheleth, 12,12): 'Whosoever brings together in his house more than twenty-four books (the canonical scriptures) brings confusion.'" And additional evidence that the Jews did not recognize the Apocrypha as canonical is supplied by the Talmudic tract Baba Bathra (2nd century) and by the famous Jewish historian Josephus (c. 93 A.D.) in his treatise 'Against Apion.' Neither of these sources make any mention of the Apocrypha in the lists which they give of the Old Testament books. For, as Torrey observes, the Jews had but one standard, acknowledged everywhere. Only such books as were believed to have been composed in either Hebrew or Aramaic before the end of the Persian period were received into the Old Testament canon. There is reason to believe, however, that the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria were not so strict as the Palestinian rabbis about the duty of shunning apocryphal books. Although these Alexandrian Jews did not recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture in the highest sense, nevertheless they read these books in Greek translation and included them in their Septuagint. And it was in this expanded form that the Septuagint was transmitted to the early gentile Christians. It is not surprising therefore that those early Church Fathers especially who were ignorant of Hebrew would be misled into placing these apocryphal books on the same plane with the other books of the Septuagint, regarding them all as Scripture. Schuerer (1908) mentions Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and others as having made this mistake. And later bibical investigators, such as Torrey, Metzger, and Brockington, have pointed out another factor which may have led numerous Christians into this error of regarding the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament. This was the practice which Christians had, and are believed to have initiated, of writing their literature in codex (book) form rather than on rolls. A codex of the Septuagint would contain the Apocrypha bound together indiscriminately with the canonical Old Testament books, and this would induce many gentile Christians to put them all on the same level. Such at least appears to have been the popular tendency in the early and medieval Church. -continued -
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 7:05:25 PM EST
But whenever early Christians set themselves seriously to consider what books belonged to the Old Testament and what did not the answer was always in favor of the Hebrew Old Testament. This was the case with Melito (?-172), Julius Africanus (160-240), Origen (182-251), Eusebius (275-340), Athanasius (293-373) and many later Fathers of the Greek Church. In the Latin Church greater favor was shown toward the Apochrypha, but even here, as we have seen, the Apocrypha were rejected by Jerome (340-420). And in his preface to the books of Solomon, Jerome further defined his position. "As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine." St. Augustine (354-430) at first defended the canonicity of the Apocrypha but later came to a position not much different from Jerome's. There should be a distinction, he came to feel, between the books of the Hebrew canon and the "deuterocanonical" books accepted and read by the churches. Pope Gregory the Great (540-604) also adopted Jerome's position in regard to the Apocrypha, and so did Cardinal Ximenes and Cardinal Cajetan at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. Hence, the decree of the Council of Trent canonizing the Apocrypha is contrary to the informed conviction of the early and medieval Church. And this is the [b]third reason[/b] why Protestants reject it. But although all Protestants rejected the Apocrypha as canonical Old Testament Scripture, there was still considerable disagreement among them as to what to do with these controversial books. Luther rejected 1 and 2 Esdras, and placed the other apocryphal books in an appendix at the close of the Old Testament, prefacing it with the statement: "Apocrypha — that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read." The early English Bibles, including finally the King James Version, placed the Apocrypha in the same location, and in addition the Church of England retained the custom of reading from the Apocrypha in its public worship services during certain seasons of the year. In opposition to this practice Puritans and Presbyterians agitated for the complete removal of the Apocrypha from the Bible. In 1825 the British and Foreign Bible Society agreed to this, and since this time the Apocrypha has been eliminated almost entirely from English Bibles. Can you think of any more reasons? I can't! Eric The(KingJamesSortaGuy)Hun[>]:)]
Top Top