What do KJO believers do with the Apocrypha?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

The Apocrypha is a group of books of the Bible that come from the period between the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament, as well as some additions to existing books:

• 1 Esdras (3 Esdras)
• 2 Esdras (4 Esdras)
• Tobit
• Judith
• Rest of Esther (Esther 10:4 – 16:24)
• Wisdom
• Ecclesiasticus (aka Sirach)
• Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy
• Song of the Three Children (Daniel 3:24–90)
• Story of Susanna (Daniel 13)
• The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14)
• Prayer of Manasseh
• 1 Maccabees
• 2 Maccabees

The King James version of the Bible contains the Apocrypha. It also contains a Foreword which specifically warns against subtracting from the books contained there. It specifically mentions the Apocrypha as books which should not be removed.

So, if you believe the King James has a special place, or was specially inspired or that God did something in the translation to guarantee accuracy...

What do you do with the Apocrypha? Do you accept these books? If not, why not?

-Jarrod

 

[Red Baker]

The Apocrypha is a group of books of the Bible that come from the period between the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament, as well as some additions to existing books:

• 1 Esdras (3 Esdras)
• 2 Esdras (4 Esdras)
• Tobit
• Judith
• Rest of Esther (Esther 10:4 – 16:24)
• Wisdom
• Ecclesiasticus (aka Sirach)
• Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy
• Song of the Three Children (Daniel 3:24–90)
• Story of Susanna (Daniel 13)
• The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14)
• Prayer of Manasseh
• 1 Maccabees
• 2 Maccabees

The King James version of the Bible contains the Apocrypha. It also contains a Foreword which specifically warns against subtracting from the books contained there. It specifically mentions the Apocrypha as books which should not be removed.

So, if you believe the King James has a special place, or was specially inspired or that God did something in the translation to guarantee accuracy...

What do you do with the Apocrypha? Do you accept these books? If not, why not?

-Jarrod

Who better to ask then me? I'm sure you are saying that, and that's okay with me.

It has been a few years since I spent time reading and comparing it with the KJV~and it is still out on the internet on "Testallthings" forum~out of GB, a forum I have not been on in several years, not even sure if it is still going. A Particular Baptist forum.

It does not take one very long to read it and know that it is not inspired of God, it reads much like any book, commentary, written by man without the power of the Holy Ghost upon them and speaking through them. It was easy to spot contradictions between Solomon's proverbs and its book of wisdom where I wrote much on and showing its many contradictions.

Jarrod, there are KJV bibles that has red letters in them, we know it means nothing to us as far as being more inspired~I knew a man once that had a KJV bible with pictures in it, and he even made a statement that the pictures were inspired and should be there~ well, we may admire that person's simple childlike faith, but we know that no pictures should even be in the word of God. The same is true of the Apocrypha books~how they came about and why they were even connected with God's inspired word I have no clue and really do not care, no loss to me~or, any child of God seeking truth.

Besides and above all, no where did Christ, the apostles or, Paul ever quote the books of the Apocrypha, not one single quote which should be end of story for all of us as far as their authenticity. I'm sure you have more to ask~and I'm here as always desiring to defend the KJV for the English speaking people of this world~even though few truly appreciate me and others doing so.

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

It does not take one very long to read it and know that it is not inspired of God, it reads much like any book, commentary, written by man without the power of the Holy Ghost upon them and speaking through them.

I'm not necessarily trying to defend the apocrypha, though I do like Sirach.

It just seems to me like there's a logical problem when a person gives a hard preference to the King James Bible... but not ALL of it. The apocrypha is definitely part of the KJB.

Jarrod, there are KJV bibles that has red letters in them, we know it means nothing to us as far as being more inspired~I knew a man once that had a KJV bible with pictures in it, and he even made a statement that the pictures were inspired and should be there~ well, we may admire that person's simple childlike faith, but we know that no pictures should even be in the word of God. The same is true of the Apocrypha books~how they came about and why they were even connected with God's inspired word I have no clue and really do not care, no loss to me~or, any child of God seeking truth.

I don't think those are the same thing. Red letter or pictures are things that were added later - they aren't original to the text.

The apocrypha is part of the original text of the KJB. This is a case of subtraction rather than addition.

Besides and above all, no where did Christ, the apostles or, Paul ever quote the books of the Apocrypha, not one single quote which should be end of story for all of us as far as their authenticity.

Not sure if true? A quick Google search came up with a number of places where the New Testament makes reference to Sirach (I searched for that book because it's the one I like best).

-Jarrod

 

[Red Baker]

I'm not necessarily trying to defend the apocrypha, though I do like Sirach.

It just seems to me like there's a logical problem when a person gives a hard preference to the King James Bible... but not ALL of it. The apocrypha is definitely part of the KJB.


I don't think those are the same thing. Red letter or pictures are things that were added later - they aren't original to the text.

The apocrypha is part of the original text of the KJB. This is a case of subtraction rather than addition.


Not sure if true? A quick Google search came up with a number of places where the New Testament makes reference to Sirach (I searched for that book because it's the one I like best).

-Jarrod

Jarrod~please share them with me and let us test them with what we know is inspired.

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Jarrod~please share them with me and let us test them with what we know is inspired.

That seems like a digression. Like I said earlier, my purpose isn't to defend the Apocrypha. It's to probe the logic behind accepting the King James as authoritative, while simultaneously discarding a portion of the King James as not-authoritative.

If the King James Bible is special, then shouldn't all of it be special?

-Jarrod

P.S. Not for the purpose of debating these passages, but so that you know that I wasn't just blowing smoke... from Wikipedia:

Some scholars, such as Dr. Clayton N. Jefford, have argued that there are several allusions to the Wisdom of Sirach in the New Testament. These include the Virgin Mary's Magnificat in Luke 1:52 following Sirach 10:14; the description of the seed in Mark 4:5, 16–17 following Sirach 40:15; the statement by Jesus in Matthew 7:16, 20 following Sirach 27:6;[48] and James 1:19 quoting Sirach 5:11.[49]

 

[David1701]

The Apocrypha is a group of books of the Bible that come from the period between the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament, as well as some additions to existing books:

• 1 Esdras (3 Esdras)
• 2 Esdras (4 Esdras)
• Tobit
• Judith
• Rest of Esther (Esther 10:4 – 16:24)
• Wisdom
• Ecclesiasticus (aka Sirach)
• Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy
• Song of the Three Children (Daniel 3:24–90)
• Story of Susanna (Daniel 13)
• The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14)
• Prayer of Manasseh
• 1 Maccabees
• 2 Maccabees

The King James version of the Bible contains the Apocrypha. It also contains a Foreword which specifically warns against subtracting from the books contained there. It specifically mentions the Apocrypha as books which should not be removed.

So, if you believe the King James has a special place, or was specially inspired or that God did something in the translation to guarantee accuracy...

What do you do with the Apocrypha? Do you accept these books? If not, why not?

-Jarrod

Disclaimer: I'm not KJO and I do not believe that the translation (or any other translation) is inspired.

Having said the above, your question is not a difficult one. The KJV translators separated the apocryphal books from the inspired books, by putting them in a separate section, with "Apocrypha" (meaning "hidden" or "spurious") on every page (this is completely different from the approach of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, both of which mix the apocryphal books in amongst the rest, implying that they are also inspired Scripture). They also gave several reasons why they considered the apocryphal books inferior and uninspired; but, useful to read.

The team, within the KJV translators, tasked with translating the apocryphal books wrote the following about them:


1. “Not one of them is in the Hebrew langue, 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 Book of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanies
is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the bible, such a prayers for the dead, and sinless
perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical
incantation. For these and other reasons, the Apocryphal books, which are all in Greek,
expect one which is extant only in Latin, are valuable as ancient documents, illustrative
of manners, language, opinions and history of the East.”

 

[Rella]

The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D.

WIKI says

The Apocrypha controversy of the 1820s was a debate around the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the issue of the inclusion of the Apocrypha in Bibles it printed for missionary work. The Society did include the Apocrypha in Bibles for use in continental Europe, where it was normal for Protestant as well as Catholic readers to have the texts of the

When Was The Apocrypha Taken Out Of The Bible - BibleTalkClub.net

During the birth of Christianity, some of the Jewish apocrypha that dealt with the coming of the Messianic kingdom became popular in the nascent

www.bibletalkclub.net

During the birth of Christianity, some of the Jewish apocrypha that dealt with the coming of the Messianic kingdom became popular in the nascent Jewish-Christian communities. Christianity eventually gave birth to new apocalyptic works, some of which were derived from traditional Jewish sources. This was not strange, as the large majority of Old Testament references in the New Testament are taken from the Greek , which is the source of the Deuterocanonical books as well as most of the other biblical apocrypha.

Slightly varying collections of additional Books form part of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox canons. New Testament possible reliance on these books includes these examples: James 1:19-20 shows dependence on Sirach 5:13-14, Hebrews 1:3 on Wisdom 7:26, Hebrews 11:35 on 2 Maccabees 6, Romans 9:21 on Wisdom 15:7, 2 Cor. 5:1, 4 on Wisdom 9:15, etc.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The Apocrypha is a group of books of the Bible that come from the period between the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament, as well as some additions to existing books:

• 1 Esdras (3 Esdras)
• 2 Esdras (4 Esdras)
• Tobit
• Judith
• Rest of Esther (Esther 10:4 – 16:24)
• Wisdom
• Ecclesiasticus (aka Sirach)
• Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy
• Song of the Three Children (Daniel 3:24–90)
• Story of Susanna (Daniel 13)
• The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14)
• Prayer of Manasseh
• 1 Maccabees
• 2 Maccabees

The King James version of the Bible contains the Apocrypha.

Not any more. they were removed in 1885 because they were considered on no real value.

What do you do with the Apocrypha?

Ignore 'em.

 

[Mikeuk]

Not any more. they were removed in 1885 because they were considered on no real value.

Ignore 'em.

Considered by whom and with what authority?
Which says it all about “ reformers”
They believe they choose what is scripture ,as well as what it means.
Yet none of them were “ sent”.
And they contradict all those who were sent As early fathers testify.

So A history lesson needed for Bob , who clearly has no idea where his Bible came from.

Those who think scripture identifies itself , should note even the Mormons claim the same argument for the Book of Mormon. It doesnt work for them either.

As Jerome noted whatever he thought was scripture was irrelevant - it was for the inspired church to decide in council
And it did so the real Bible has all the books including those later called apocrypha . That is the final decision,
Just say thanks to the Catholic Church , without which you don’t have a New Testament.

But Uninspired Luther discovered his uninspired view of doctrine contradicted scripture.
Take macabees which speaks of prayers for dead .
So like marcion with the first heretical canon, Luther decided to junk what he didnt like.

So he looked for a reason and chose a Judaist rabbinic decision!!!
yes rabbinic , Post Christ As authority.

If logic were Luther’s strong suit, he would know that rules out all the gospels too, since rabbinic tradition did not have the gospels either. But sadly joined up thinking wasnt Luther’s strong suit. Such was the temerity of Luther he wanted to remove james and - just like the JWs wanted to edit the word “ only” in places it didn’t belong.
Even Luther didn’t get away with that!
.

Really Bob, it’s high time you studied the early church , and developement of the canon , not your faux reformationist view of it.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Just say thanks to the Catholic Church , without which you don’t have a New Testament.

Which the "Roman Catholic Religious system" cautions me AGAINST READING with "understanding".

But Uninspired Luther discovered his uninspired view of doctrine contradicted scripture.

Except that Luther was the one who re-introduced THE MOST IMPORTANT TRUTH that Roman Caholicism had discarded: Being BORN AGAIN is by FAITH and NOT by works (Eph 2:8,9). That's why Roman Catholics have NO ASSURANCE of their own salvation.

Roman Catholics are taught to believe that "The Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we ARE the Children of God" (Rom 8:16) is a LIE.

BUT HEY!!! Since you're an "expert" about what the "whole Bible" says, what important Biblical truths am I missing by ignoring the "Apocrypha"??

Give me your list.

 

[Mikeuk]

Which the "Roman Catholic Religious system" cautions me AGAINST READING with "understanding".

Except that Luther was the one who re-introduced THE MOST IMPORTANT TRUTH that Roman Caholicism had discarded: Being BORN AGAIN is by FAITH and NOT by works (Eph 2:8,9). That's why Roman Catholics have NO ASSURANCE of their own salvation.

Roman Catholics are taught to believe that "The Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we ARE the Children of God" (Rom 8:16) is a LIE.

BUT HEY!!! Since you're an "expert" about what the "whole Bible" says, what important Biblical truths am I missing by ignoring the "Apocrypha"??

Give me your list.

You bought all the myths.
Ever since scripture became easily available The Catholic Church has encouraged reading it. So we do.

We revere scripture. It’s why the mass is wal to wall scripture, whose centre is the Eucharist, just like the early Christian’s, unlike protestant and evangelical services, which had little scripture and lots of preacher opinions. I was a member of both.

And you clearly do make words mean what YOU think , not what is there as verified by the faith handed down.
Jesus contested works of the law.

We are indeed born again by baptism. Saved by grace through faith - provided you use the biblical meaning of faith.

Speak for whatever bit of christianity you belong to and understand, You clearly don’t know catholicism. And even Less about church history

 

[Bob Carabbio]

You bought all the myths.
Ever since scripture became easily available The Catholic Church has encouraged reading it. So we do.

Chuckle!! Not in Boston of the '30s and '40s. I know what my father was taught at the time, because he passed it on.
The Pope himself in 1974 CAUTIONED the Roman Catholics who were part of the Charismatic outpouring (and there were MANY of them in Central Ohio at the time) NOT TO ACCEPT any Bible texts that called into question, the "Traditions" of Catholicism.

Bottom line The Roman Catholic pontification is that "the Bible says what WE SAY IT SAYS, because WE SAY SO"!!!

We revere scripture. It’s why the mass is wall to wall scripture,

According only to Roman Catholic INTERPRETATION thereof.

whose centre is the Eucharist, just like the early Christian’s,

Which is nothing more than a "Religious fantasy" at best. Protestants do what Jesus TOLD US TO DO - in rememberance of HIM.

And you clearly do make words mean what YOU think ,

Exactly like your denomination has always done. Just because your leaders wear dresses and funny hats, doesn't give them authority to change the meaning of God's WORD.

We are indeed born again by baptism.

Totally FALSE. We're Born again BY FAITH as the result of Conviction of our SIN by the Holy SPirit.

provided you use the biblical meaning of faith.

And what do YOU THINK that is??? I know, do you???

Speak for whatever bit of christianity you belong to and understand, You clearly don’t know catholicism. And even Less about church history

That's what you HOPE anyway. Chances are I know more about what THE BIBLE REALLY SAYS than you do, and there's absolutely no reason for me to bother with what the Roman Catholic religious system feed their victims.

 

[Mikeuk]

Chuckle!! Not in Boston of the '30s and '40s. I know what my father was taught at the time, because he passed it on.
The Pope himself in 1974 CAUTIONED the Roman Catholics who were part of the Charismatic outpouring (and there were MANY of them in Central Ohio at the time) NOT TO ACCEPT any Bible texts that called into question, the "Traditions" of Catholicism.

Bottom line The Roman Catholic pontification is that "the Bible says what WE SAY IT SAYS, because WE SAY SO"!!!

According only to Roman Catholic INTERPRETATION thereof.

Which is nothing more than a "Religious fantasy" at best. Protestants do what Jesus TOLD US TO DO - in rememberance of HIM.

Exactly like your denomination has always done. Just because your leaders wear dresses and funny hats, doesn't give them authority to change the meaning of God's WORD.

Totally FALSE. We're Born again BY FAITH as the result of Conviction of our SIN by the Holy SPirit.


And what do YOU THINK that is??? I know, do you???

That's what you HOPE anyway. Chances are I know more about what THE BIBLE REALLY SAYS than you do, and there's absolutely no reason for me to bother with what the Roman Catholic religious system feed their victims.

All I can say is catholics ( and orthodox) perform the eucharist taught by John the apostle evident in the writings of first and second geberation disciples of John and all since - which is why there must be a physical church to perform it and bishops in succession required for a valid Eucharist.

The catholic Church in council decided the canon on which you rely , with the power given to bind and loose , embodying the faith handed down as tradition .

The Roman Empire fell after a few hundred years, There have been many massive empires built and fallen.

Protestant factions form, disagree, fall out and schism again and again, when people like you decide they know “ better”
most Lutherans don’t believe what luther did , most calvinists don’t believe what Calvin. Did,

But despite all the physical and religious empires growing and collapsing
the Catholic Church stil stands teaching what it always has, with the centre of the mass as a eucharist unchanged.
unyielding to secular moral values changing.

Christ promised his church would be one .
It still is.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

All I can say is catholics ( and orthodox) perform the eucharist taught by John the apostle

But not according to Jesus own words.

the Catholic Church stil stands teaching what it always has, with the centre of the mass as a eucharist unchanged.

That's a Joke!!! The Catholic systems change their teachings with the tides.

HEY - they don't even give WINE in their "Eucharist" any more (since: "Only the priest must celebrate as Jesus instructed, with both wine and bread; the laity receives the entirety of Christ by consuming either one"). Catholics couldn't even get THAT right (wine is expen$ive, after all, and shouldn't be wa$ted on the Laity). AND JUST LOOK AT THE MESS that your Latest "Pope thing" is causing!!!

Christ promised his church would be one .
It still is.

ABSOLUTELY!! There's never been more than ONE CHURCH created, and paid for by Jesus. It IS the PILLAR, and the GROUND of the TRUTH. His Church is still On Schedule, and in budget, and will remain so till the end of the age.

That, however, has nothing to do with the "Catholic denominations" (Roman and otherwise), who, 500 years after the fact, created their OWN Religious systems which are mixtures of Biblical, and Pagan beliefs and practices, largely unrelated to anything that Jesus taught.

 

[Mikeuk]

But not according to Jesus own words.

That's a Joke!!! The Catholic systems change their teachings with the tides.

HEY - they don't even give WINE in their "Eucharist" any more (since: "Only the priest must celebrate as Jesus instructed, with both wine and bread; the laity receives the entirety of Christ by consuming either one"). Catholics couldn't even get THAT right (wine is expen$ive, after all, and shouldn't be wa$ted on the Laity). AND JUST LOOK AT THE MESS that your Latest "Pope thing" is causing!!!

ABSOLUTELY!! There's never been more than ONE CHURCH created, and paid for by Jesus. It IS the PILLAR, and the GROUND of the TRUTH. His Church is still On Schedule, and in budget, and will remain so till the end of the age.

That, however, has nothing to do with the "Catholic denominations" (Roman and otherwise), who, 500 years after the fact, created their OWN Religious systems which are mixtures of Biblical, and Pagan beliefs and practices, largely unrelated to anything that Jesus taught.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting John - who unlike you and any reformer , learned DIRECTLY from Jesus about the eucharist, who wrote John 6 but you claim did not know what it means so what HE handed down was false? Do you seriously suggest you know better than him?

The arrogance of protestants knows no limits!

There is no catholic “ denomination”
There is THE Catholic Church,
from which reformers split and then created thousands of denominations since none of them could agree with each other on the meaning of scripture ! And they split and split again endlessly , since they prefer the product of their own intellect to what the church taught For the precious 1500 years

Meanwhile the catholic mass has the Eucharist John learned from Jesus and taught , which has changed in only minor detail in 2000 years. It is as all the first fathers describe it, all the way to the reformation when it was profaned by reformers.

Go and study THE church Bob. What the first Christian’s who “were sent “taught.

To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant.

Tell me do you honour Mary as you should? As the Bible tells you to?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting John - who unlike you and any reformer , learned DIRECTLY from Jesus about the eucharist, who wrote John 6 but you claim did not know what it means so what HE handed down was false? Do you seriously suggest you know better than him?

SO why do you WITHOLD the "Wine" from your Laity, and just serve 'em the cracker??? You don't allow them to "Drink His Blood".

There is no catholic “ denomination”

Actually there are quite a few "Catholic Denominations", not to speak of the "Orthodox" denominations that Rome tossed under the bus back in 1055. You don't seem to mention that schism, caused by Rome, so they could run the show.

There is THE Catholic Church,

FALSE!!! There IS the "catholic Church" (the true Church of Jesus Christ) which has existed in unity since John 20:22.

The various Catholic denominations are in many way as fragmented as you think the Protestants are. and JUST LOOK at the mess in Rome right now!!! It wasn't real praise-worthy place in Luther's time, and the phony "Indulgences racket" was a MAJOR factor that brought on the reformation and we both know it.

Meanwhile the catholic mass has the Eucharist John learned from Jesus and taught , which has changed in only minor detail in 2000 years. It is as all the first fathers describe it, all the way to the reformation when it was profaned by reformers.

Eliminating the supposed "Blood of Christ" is more than a "Minor detail". What's you "Workaround" for doing that?? Too expensive to waste on the Laity????

Go and study THE church Bob.

I have - and WE BOTH KNOW that a LOT OF IT isn't very pretty, and much of Catholic history is steeped in Corruption, Nepotism, Immorality and outright MURDER. THANK GOD Romanism doesn't have a "Military" any more!!!!

What the first Christian’s who “were sent “taught.

It's all in the the BIBLE, so who needs to BOTHER with the fantasies, and phony ceremonies that the Catholic management incorporated over the centuries???

Tell me do you honour Mary as you should? As the Bible tells you to?

ABSOLUTELY!!! We Honor the REAL Mary, Jesus' mom properly according to the revelation of her obedient ministry as recorded in the BIBLE.

WE don't bother with the Blasphemous satanic "THING" that Rome has ginned together over the centuries to take Jesus' place.