If the King James version was good enough for the Apostles and Paul, it’s good enough for me.
That right there, that is funny.
:)
The original 1611 King James Version contained the Deuterocanon and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without it with heavy fines and a year in jail.
Up until the late 1800’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had these books written hundreds of years before Christ called the Deuterocanon that were part of Wycliffe’s bible ( the original printing even commended the Book of Tobit) and part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible, until their removal in the late 1800’s!
Only for the last 120 plus years have protestants rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something ‘Roman Catholic’ about it.
Numerous references to it in the margins (of books considered canonical) treating it the same as other Scripture:
● Matt. 6:7 references Ecclesiasticus 7:14
● Matt. 23:37 references 2 Esdras 1:30
● Matt. 27:43 references Wisdom 2:15-16
● Luke 6:31 references Tobit 4:16
● Luke 14:13 references Tobit 4:7
● John 10:22 references 1 Maccabees 4:59
● Rom. 9:21 references Wisdom 15:7
● Rom. 11:34 references Wisdom 9:13
● 2Cor. 9:7 references Ecclesiasticus 35:9
● Heb. 1:3 references Wisdom 7:26
● Heb. 11:35 references 2 Maccabees 7:7
● MATTHEW 27:43: He trusts in God; Let God Deliver Him now, if he desires him; for He Said, ‘I AM The Son Of God.’”
~OT Deuterocanonical “Wisdom Book” is Matthew’s source on the clear reference to “The Son of God” above.
WISDOM 2:15-16, 17-18: Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him in the end. 18 For if the righteous one is the Son of God, God will help him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
~Whereas, Psalms 22 omits “Son of God”.
The Onlyists claim, ‘The King James translators knew the Apocrypha was not scripture, so they placed it BETWEEN the Old and New Testament...’ [James L. Melton, “Fables And Facts About The King James Bible”, Bible Baptist Church: Sharon, TN, 1996;
http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/fables.html
But if they knew it was not Scripture, then why include it at all? And if there was nothing wrong with it, why take it out later? In contrast, most of the MODERN versions [NIV, NKJV, RSV, etc...] criticized by the KJV-Onlyists do not contain the Apocrypha at all... and never did!
There is no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880s that has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination.
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history
“If the King James version was good enough for the Apostles and Paul, it’s good enough for me.”
ha ha nicely played.
There ya go!