yes do not like King James but I do not want judge him to hard
I think he took credit so God would not be complete
like the "Great Bible" which is older with more books in it
Great Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Title page of the Great Bible (1539).
The Great Bible was the first authorized edition of the Bible in English, authorized by King Henry VIII of England to be read aloud in the church services of the Church of England.
The Great Bible was prepared by Myles Coverdale, working under commission of Sir Thomas Cromwell, Secretary to Henry VIII and Vicar General. In 1538, Cromwell directed the clergy to provide "one book of the bible of the largest volume in English, and the same set up in some convenient place within the said church that ye have care of, whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it."
Although called the Great Bible because of its large size, it is known by several other names as well: the Cromwell Bible, since Thomas Cromwell directed its publication; Whitchurch's Bible after its first English printer; also the Chained Bible, since it was chained in "some convenient place within the said church". It has also been termed less accurately Cranmer's Bible, since Thomas Cranmer's preface appeared only in the second edition.[1]
The fact that Taverner was invited to revise Matthew's Bible almost immediately after its publication shows that it was not universally regarded as successful; but there were in addition other reasons why those who had promoted the circulation and authorization of Matthew's Bible should be anxious to see it superseded. As stated above, it was highly controversial in character, and bore plentiful evidence of its origin from Tyndale. Cromwell and Cranmer had, no doubt, been careful not to call Henry's attention to these circumstances; but they might at any time be brought to his notice, when their own position would become highly precarious. It is, indeed, strange that they ever embarked on so risky an enterprise. However that may be, they lost little time in inviting Coverdale to undertake a complete revision of the whole, which was ready for the press early in 1538. The printing was begun by Regnault of Paris, where more sumptuous typography was possible than in England. In spite, however, of the assent of the French king having been obtained, the Inquisition intervened, stopped the printing, and seized the sheets. Some of the sheets, however, had previously been got away to England; others were re-purchased from a tradesman to whom they had been sold; and ultimately, under Cromwell's direction, printers and presses were transported from Paris to London, and the work completed there by Grafton and Whitchurch, whose imprint stands on the magnificent title-page (traditionally ascribed to Holbein) depicting the dissemination of the Scriptures from the hands of Henry, through the instrumentality of Cromwell and Cranmer, to the general mass of the loyal and rejoicing populace. [A special copy on vellum, with illuminations, was prepared for Cromwell himself, and is now in the library of St. John's College, Cambridge.]
The first edition of the Great Bible appeared in April 1539, and an injunction was issued by Cromwell that a copy of it should be set up in every parish church. It was consequently the first (and only) English Bible formally authorized for public use; and contemporary evidence proves that it was welcomed and read with avidity. No doubt, as at an earlier day (Philippians 2:15), some read the gospel "of envy and stife, and some also of good will"; but in one way or another, for edification or for controversy, the reading of the Bible took a firm hold on the people of England, a hold which has never since been relaxed, and which had much to do with the stable foundation of the Protestant church in this country. Nor was the translation, though still falling short of the perfection reached three-quarters of a century later, unworthy of its position. It had many positive merits, and marked a distinct advance upon all its predecessors. Coverdale, though without the force and originality, or even the scholarship, of Tyndale, had some of the more valuable gifts of a translator, and was well qualified to make the best use of the labors of his predecessors. He had scholarship enough to choose and follow the best authorities, he had a happy gift of smooth and effective phraseology, and his whole heart was in his work. As the basis of his revision he had Tyndale's work and his own previous version; and these he revised with reference to the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, with special assistance in the Old Testament from the Latin translation by Sebastian Münster published in 1534-35 (a work decidedly superior to the Zurich Bible, which had been his principal guide in 1534), while in the New Testament he made considerable use of Erasmus. With regard to the use of ecclesiastical terms, he followed his own previous example, against Tyndale, in retaining the familiar Latin phrases; and he introduced a considerable number of words and sentences from the Vulgate, which do not appear in the Hebrew or Greek. The text is divided into five sections -- (1) Pentateuch, (2) Joshua -- Job, (3) Psalms -- Malachi, (4) Apocrypha, here entitled "Hagiographa," though quite different from the books to which that term is applied in the Hebrew Bible, (5) New Testament, in which the traditional order of the books is restored in place of Luther's. Coverdale intended to add a commentary at the end, and with this view inserted various marks in the margins, the purpose of which he explains in the Prologue; but he was unable to obtain the sanction of the Privy Council for these, and after standing in the margin for three editions the sign-post marks were withdrawn.
The first edition was exhausted within twelve months, and in April 1540 a second edition appeared, this time with a prologue by Cranmer (from which fact the Great Bible is sometimes known as Cranmer's Bible, though he had no part in the translation). Two more editions followed in July and November, the latter (Cromwell having now been overthrown and executed) appearing under the nominal patronage of bishops Tunstall and Heath. In 1541 three editions were issued. None of these editions was a simple reprint. The Prophets, in particular, were carefully revised with the help of Münster for the second edition. The fourth edition (November 1540) and its successors revert in part to the first. These seven editions spread the knowledge of the Bible in a sound, though not perfect, version broadcast through the land; and one portion of it has never lost its place in our liturgy. In the first Prayer Book of Edward VI the Psalter (like the other Scripture passages) was taken from the Great Bible. In 1662, when the other passages were taken from the version of 1611, a special exception was made of the Psalter, on account of the familiarity which it had achieved, and consequently Coverdale's version has held its place in the Book of Common Prayer to this day, and it is in his words that the Psalms have become the familiar household treasures of the English people.
With the appearance of the Great Bible comes the first pause in the rapid sequence of vernacular versions set on foot by Tyndale. The English Bible was now fully authorized, and accessible to every Englishman in his parish church; and the translation, both in style and in scholarship, was fairly abreast of the attainments and requirements of the age. We hear no more, therefore, at present of further revisions of it. Another circumstance which may have contributed to the same result was the reaction of Henry in his latter years against Protestantism. There was talk in Convocation about a translation to be made by the bishops, which anticipated the plan of the Bible of 1568 [the Bishops' Bible]; and Cranmer prompted Henry to transfer the work to the universities, which anticipated a vital part of the plan of the Bible of 1611; but nothing came of either project. The only practical steps taken were in the direction of the destruction of the earlier versions. In 1543 a proclamation was issued against Tyndale's versions, and requiring the obliteration of all notes; in 1546 Coverdale's New Testament was likewise prohibited. The anti-Protestant reaction, however, was soon terminated by Henry's death (January 1547); and during the reign of Edward VI, though no new translation (except a small part of the Gospels by Sir J. Cheke) was attempted, many new editions of Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, and the Great Bible issued from the press. The accession of Mary naturally put a stop to the printing and circulation of vernacular Bibles in England; and, during the attempt to put the clock back by force, Rogers and Cranmer followed Tyndale to the stake, while Coverdale was imprisoned, but was released, and took refuge at Geneva.
A leaf from the first English language Bible fully authorized (not illegal) by the King. These leaves are 466 years old. Not to be confused with the “Authorized Version”, as it is frequently called, of 1611 by King James… these leaves are instead the much earlier version that was authorized by King Henry the Eighth, founder of the Church of England (“Anglican Church”). Called the “Great Bible” due to its great size, this is England’s first “official” printing of the Bible. It is sometimes also referred to as “Cranmer’s Bible”, because the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, wrote the Preface to the Great Bibles starting in 1540.
The major goal of the Protestant Reformation was not to fracture the church into hundreds of Protestant denominations. The Reformer’s main goal was simply to make the Word of God legal and available in the common languages of the people, so that it could be read by everyone. Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England persecuted and killed anyone who dared to print the Bible in any language other than Latin… especially English. The 1539 Great Bible put an end to that, and unchained the scriptures for the first time in over 1,000 years. Just three years earlier, on October 6, 1536, William Tyndale was executed for printing the scriptures in English. His last words were, “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes!” Three years later, his dying prayer was answered. King Henry the Eighth funded the printing of the Bible in the English language, the Great Bible, the first Bible ever authorized for public use.
Of course, King Henry the Eighth did not do this because he had a change of heart, or because he was such a devoted Christian. He did it mostly out of personal pride, and to spite the Roman Catholic Church. King Henry wanted to divorce his wife and marry his lover, and the Pope refused to allow even the King of England to do this. So, King Henry just married his lover anyway, (later killing two of his many wives), and renounced the Roman Catholic Church, and proclaimed himself the head of both the State AND the Church (both King and “Pope” so to speak), and founded the Church of England, a.k.a. the Anglican Church. As further show of defiance, he funded the printing of the Bible in the English language, which was the biggest fear of the Roman Catholic Church for ages. This is an excellent example of God using the evil motives of a wicked man, to bring about His good purpose and His glory.
These leaves were printed on 100% rag cotton linen sheet, not wood-pulp paper like books today, so they remain in excellent condition… even after nearly 500 years. Each leaf is a unique piece of ancient artwork, measuring approximately 15 inches tall by 10 inches wide, and carefully produced one-at-a-time by the King’s printers, and later bound into complete Bibles and chained to the church pulpits. Each leaf comes with a Certificate of Authenticity. Imagine… having a leaf from one of the earliest press-runs of the Bible that broke the chains that kept the Word of God imprisoned publicly in Latin for over 1,000 years: The Great Bible.
Catholics will tell you, "You Protestants are missing part of the Bible. We have the rest of it." This can throw people off, but it no longer has to. These false Catholic additions to the Bible are commonly called the Apocrypha or sometimes the Deuterocanonical books. This is a short treatise on WHY these books are not in the Bible.
What is the Apocrypha anyway?
The Apocrypha is a collection of uninspired, spurious books written by various individuals. The Catholic religion considers these books as scripture just like a Bible-believer believes that our 66 books are the word of God, i.e., Genesis to Revelation. We are going to examine some verses from the Apocrypha later in our discussion.
At the Council of Trent (1546) the Roman Catholic religion pronounced the following apocryphal books sacred. They asserted that the apocryphal books together with unwritten tradition are of God and are to be received and venerated as the Word of God. So now you have the Bible, the Apocrypha and Catholic Tradition as co-equal sources of truth for the Catholic. In reality, the Bible is the last source of truth for Catholics. Catholic doctrine comes primarily from tradition stuck together with a few Bible names. In my reading of Catholic materials, I find notes like this: "You have to keep the Bible in perspective." Catholics do not believe that the Bible is God's complete revelation for man.
The Roman Catholic Apocrypha
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
First and Second Maccabees
Additions to Esther and Daniel
Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion:
First and Second Esdras
Prayer of Manasses
Susanna*
*A reader says: "Susanna is in the Roman Catholic canon. It is Daniel 13."
Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.
Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).
The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:
Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:
2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
Salvation by works:
Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.
Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.
Magic:
Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.
Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):
Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.
Wasn't the Apocrypha in the King James?
The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God. As books of some historical value (e.g., details of the Maccabean revolt), the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material. This followed the format that Luther had used. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:
"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read."
King James Version Defended page 98.
In 1599, TWELVE YEARS BEFORE the King James Bible was published, King James said this about the Apocrypha:
"As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said before)..."
King James Charles Stewart
Basilicon Doron, page 13
In his A Premonition to All Most Mightie Monarches," King James said this--
"...Is it a small corrupting of the Scriptures to make all, or the most part of the Apocrypha of equall faith with the canonicall Scriptures...?"
Not only this, but the sixth article of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (1571 edition--the church of England published the Authorized (King James) Version) states that the Old and New Testaments are the Bible and the apocrypha is not:
In the name of the Holy, we do vnderstande those canonical bookes of the olde and newe Testament, of whose authoritie was never any doubt in the Churche...
Now concerning the apocrypha it states,
And the other bookes, (as Hierome sayeth), the Churche doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not applie them to establish any doctrene.
Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977, Vol. III, pp. 489-491.
The Hampton Court Document came as a result of the famous Hampton Court Conference of 1604 when King James authorized the translation of the Bible that would one day bear his name. Concerning the apocrypha and the Church of England, it states--
The Apocrypha, that hath some repugnancy to the canonical scriptures, shall not be read...
The Apocrypha began to be omitted from the Authorized Version in 1629. Puritans and Presbyterians lobbied for the complete removal of the Apocrypha from the Bible and in 1825 the British and Foreign Bible Society agreed. From that time on, the Apocrypha has been eliminated from practically all English Bibles--Catholic Bibles and some pulpit Bibles excepted.
Not even all Catholic "Church Fathers" believed the Apocrypha was scripture.
Not that this really means anything. The truth is not validated by the false. Nevertheless, this may be of interest to some... Jerome (340-420) rejected the Apocrypha:
"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."
Jerome
Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon
According to Edward Hills in The King James Version Defended p. 98 other famous Catholics with this viewpoint include Augustine (354-430 who at first defended the Apocrypha as canonical), Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), Cardinal Ximenes, and Cardinal Cajetan.
There are other spurious books.
These include the Pseudepigrapha which contains Enoch, Michael the Archangel, and Jannes and Jambres. Many of these books falsely claim to have been written by various Old Testament patriarchs. They were composed between 200 B.C. and 100 A.D. There are lots of these spurious books like The Assumption of Moses, Apocalypse of Elijah, and Ascension of Isaiah.
Concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls, there may be some information in them that parallels the Masoretic Text, but there are fables in them too. I went to see the scrolls a few years ago with great expectation but found a bunch of fables. The best defense against error in any form (fake Bibles and religions) is a solid knowledge of your King James Bible. If you read it, forgeries become readily apparent.
"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)
21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired:
The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
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.
The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)
The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God’s authorship.
Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity.
Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.
Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.
And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)
And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)
And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)
Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus
"From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. "The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])
Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.
Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.
The terms "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.
Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible." Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.
Cyril (born about A.D. 315) – "Read the divine Scriptures – namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated" (the Septuagint)
The apocrypha wasn’t included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century
Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)
Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said "These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical."
Is the Apocrypha Inspired? Does it really belong in the Bible?
Let us consider while we are at this point, the subject of the Catholic apocrypha, for which they make such great claims; and because of which they deny the Bible in common use by most brethren. 2 Macc 12:38-46 seems to be the principal reason they cling to the apocrypha. There is no other doctrine that depends so heavily upon support in the apocrypha. If I were not afraid of absolute statements, I would say that their defense of the apocrypha is only because of the passage and their claims about its teachings.
The Catholics have 46 Old Testament books rather than the 39 found in our Bibles. However, they have added much more material to other books which does not appear under separate titles. That material follows: The Rest of Esther added to Esther; The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon added to Daniel; Baruch; 1 and 2 Maccabees; Tobias; Judith; Ecclesiasticus; and the Wisdom of Sirach.
The only powerful support for these books is that they appear in the Septuagint version. However, in many of our Bibles there is much material that is uninspired, including history, poetry, maps, dictionaries, and other information. This may be the reason for the appearance of this material in the Septuagint. The apocrypha was not in the Hebrew canon.
There are reputed to be 263 quotations and 370 allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to the Apocryphal
The usual division of the Old Testament by the Jews was a total of 24 books: The Books of Moses (51, The Early prophets 14; Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings ~, The Late Prophets (4; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the 12 Minor Prophets), and the Hagiagrapha (11; Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon. Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles i. These 24 books contain all the material in our numbering of 39.
Josephus spoke concerning the canon, but his book division combined Ruth-Judges and Lamentation-Jeremiah for a total of 22 books rather than 24:
"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, ... only 22 books. which contain the records of ail the past times; which are justly believed to be divine;...It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers;...and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, or to make any change in them." (Flavius Josephus Against Apion Book 1, Section 8).
Plainly Josephus distinguishes between those books written before and after Artaxerxes. This eliminates most of the apocrypha, especially the Maccabees.
The apocrypha itself denies all notion of inspiration. Referring to the events in the Maccabees the author makes these statements:
"...all such things as have been comprised in 5 books by Jason of Cyrene, we have at-tempted to abridge in one book. For considering the difficulty that they find that desire to undertake the narrations of histories, because of the multitude of the matter, we have taken care for those indeed that are willing to read,...And as to ourselves indeed, in undertaking this work of abridging, we have taken in hand no easy task, yea. rather a business full of watching and sweat. .. Leaving to the authors the exact handling of every particular, and as for ourselves. according to the plan proposed, studying to brief... For to collect all that is known, to put the discourse in order, and curiously to discuss every particular point, is the duty of the author of a history. But to pursue brevity of speech and to avoid nice declarations of things, is to be granted to him that maketh an abridgement." (2 Maccabees 2: 24-32).
"...I will also here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired; but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me. For as it is hurtful to drink always wine, or always water, but pleasant to use sometimes the one, and sometimes the other, so if the speech be always nicely framed, it will not be grateful to the readers..." 12 Maccabees 15: 39-40).
This forms a bizarre contrast with passages in the New Testament:
"Take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak. but the spirit of your Father which speaketh in you" (Matthew 10: 19-20).
"Now we have received. not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God: that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in words which man s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth" (1 Corinthians 2: 12-131.
Catholic arguments:
Catholics argue:
This is refuted because:
Early Christians quote from the apocrypha proves it belongs in the Bible
Early Christians quoted from all kinds of uninspired writings other than the apocrypha. Why do Catholics not include these in their Bible's
They were included in the Septuagint.
The Jews Never accepted the apocrypha as part of the Old testament canon.
The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), listed the apocrypha as Scripture. Since these same councils also finalized the 66 canonical books which all Christians accept, they must accept them all.
False. The canon of the New Testament was set from the first century. It is Catholic myth that Catholics gave the world the Bible!
The New Testament never quotes from the any of the apocryphal books written between 400 - 200 BC. What is significant here is that NONE of the books within the "apocryphal collection" are every quoted. So the Catholic argument that "the apocryphal books cannot be rejected as uninspired on the basis that they are never quoted from in the New Testament because Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon are also never quoted in the New Testament, and we all accept them as inspired." The rebuttal to this Catholic argument is that "Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther" were always included in the "history collection" of Jewish books and "Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon" were always included in the "poetry collection". By quoting one book from the collection, it verifies the entire collection. None of the apocryphal books were ever quoted in the New Testament. Not even once! This proves the Catholic and Orthodox apologists wrong when they try to defend the apocrypha in the Bible.
The apocrypha does not belong in the Bible because It IS not inspired.
Recommended Posts
teachmevp
Hi Roy, I was thinking about how the King James dude with that religion, who lived on that island;
Christine Hayes, this professor lady taught, how that servent teaching in Isaiah, is Yahweh's servant
coming out of Babylon, what are your thoughts on what she taught, it is kinda crazy how the king
changed that, to teach something else?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks teachmevp
God would of wrote his word so no changed would make a different
I do know what Christine Hayes taught but main focus has not changed
even King James taken credit for it did not changed it basic story meaning all he did was hurt himself
you can tell me about Christine Hayes if you want maybe I read something about her
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
It was tripe what she taught, I thought I heard a teaching about
how in the king james, it tries to avoid the priest thing or something
like that; just a crazy thought, how have you been Roy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks teachmevp
I have been good these days
how about you? my friend
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Doing good Roy, thanks for letting inquire some input on those two
thoughts of mine, if you stumble across any info on them their thoughts,
let me know. I think I read your post wrong, it seems you don't like king
james much, I see a bunch of other stuff, but it would be knit picking, I
don't won't to knit pick anymore, cool thread, take care, looking forward
for more of your research.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God frist
thanks teachmevp
yes do not like King James but I do not want judge him to hard
I think he took credit so God would not be complete
like the "Great Bible" which is older with more books in it
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Help me out buddy, what does this mean to you? I never heard of
a great bible, is this dear to your heart? Thanks for helping me in
my understanding, of your understanding, thanks buddy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God frist
thanks teachmevp
it just one many of older bible know to us
next
Overview | 1378 Wycliffe | 1519 Erasmus NT | 1535 Coverdale | 1536 Tyndale | 1539 Great Bible
1549 Matthew | 1550 Stephanus | 1557 Geneva NT | 1560 Geneva | 1568 Bishops'
1611 King James | 1782 Robert Aitken | 1841 Hexapla | 1846 Illuminated Bible | 1455 Gutenberg
1684 Foxe's | 1585 Calvin |
you the 1611 bible was only in middle
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwMQTEVSobg?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwMQTEVSobg?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwMQTEVSobg?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
John Wycliffe's Translation
http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/wycliffe/
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Kings
2 Kings
3 Kings
4 Kings
1 Paralipomenon
2 Paralipomenon
1 Esdras
2 Esdras
3 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Songes of Songes
Wisdom
Syrach
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Preier of Jeremye
Baruk
Ezechiel
Daniel
Osee
Joel
Amos
Abdias
Jonas
Mychee
Naum
Abacuk
Sofonye
Aggey
Sacarie
Malachie
1 Machabeis
2 Machabeis
Matheu
Mark
Luke
John
Dedis of Apostlis
Romaynes
1 Corinthis
2 Corinthis
Galathies
Effesies
Filipensis
Colosencis
1 Thessalonycensis
2 Thessalonycensis
1 Tymothe
2 Tymothe
Tite
Filemon
Ebrews
James
1 Petre
2 Petre
1 Joon
2 Joon
3 Joon
Judas
Apocalips
Laodicensis
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
That is a trip, Henry the eighth had a bible wrote, I knew someone wrote a song about
the Henry, and I remember a show on the Henry, it seemed he became a mean king?
I think I understand what your saying now, I think you disagree with the Protestants
for not using those books? Without post a lot of text, where did the missing books
come from, in your words, thanks.
Edited by teachmevpLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God frist
thanks teachmevp
I love the Protestants for their stand on God Word while I wish they would see more of it
the bible is not as simple as a group of books
it all books that search for truth
in many bible"s from 1200 AD - 1 BC - today 2010 AD
God word is everywhere and nowhere
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Whats up Roy, tell me about this 1 BC writing, is their a link to it,
what have you learned from it?
Their seems to be more to that Henry thing, did Wycliffe and them their folks copy from Henry
or from James doings in the bible? Now it seems Roy, I am shooting in the dark here, you are
saying that all of Henry and James and all the offshoots like Wycliffe are rewritten from the books
of them folks in Rome? I don't know if I asked that right Roy, sorry for my dumbness?
Edited by teachmevpLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God frist
thanks teachmevp
I am still searching my self
I look up these from time to time
1378 Wycliffe | 1519 Erasmus NT | 1535 Coverdale | 1536 Tyndale | 1539 Great Bible
1549 Matthew | 1550 Stephanus | 1557 Geneva NT | 1560 Geneva | 1568 Bishops'
1611 King James | 1782 Robert Aitken | 1841 Hexapla | 1846 Illuminated Bible | 1455 Gutenberg
1684 Foxe's | 1585 Calvin |
because do see what God says to me
others times I look up ban book books of the bible
others time I used a name like apocrypha written
but most the time I find myself over in Sacred-texts reading what others have wrote about God
all I can say is have fun discovering your God like I am
because could lead a new direction because nothing wrong but the things we already learned
just find something new and write about it
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Hi Roy, this is a off the wall question, it seems that the Germans, Luther and the
rebels of their time, didn't like what the dudes in Rome taught; so the Germans rebels
rewrote what the dudes in Rome had, but forgot to add some books?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks teachmevp
yes the dudes wanted to have their spin and Romans wanted their spin
the key to read all books that way you take away spin put in it my people
because all people are just humans
that why I may read something that sounds its devilish but there good in everything
VPW even taught with his spin
do you think he discover the bible has a spin to it?
everything has a spin
their a Christian spin to things and their Atheist spin to things but key to try to know God's spirit spin
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Thanks buddy, but to get into the spin of it all, that would be unnecessary knit picking on my part,
but can I go the other way with this; where did the dudes in Rome get those books, that the others
didn't use? Thanks for helping understand, I am not the sharpest crayon, in the box.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks teachmevp
most of them were with the other books
in scroll form with what in our King James
some books were wrote later
but the ones you want were there all the time
search ban books that were found with dead sea scrolls
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.