Thursday, October 11, 2007

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

I recently received the following comment on one of my posts:
Just is my understanding that the KJ1611 also contained the apocrypha. I am assuming you don't use the apocrypha (you'd be the first baptist folks I know that do). If it was a part of that translation and that translation is perfectly God's Word to every jot and tittle, then why don't you use it? Just wondering....
QUESTION: Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha?
EXPLANATION: 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 manuscnpts.
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. The Apocrypha 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.


Karen said...

Good post. Just for clarification's sake, I'm not a critic of the KJV. I still use it and love it. I'm just not a critic of the NIV or the ESV either.


Julie's Jewels said...

That was a good question and a great answer to that question. Good job!!

Dave said...

Great Post!! All of your post on the KJV is great!!