The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible

Handsonapologetics ^ | Gary Michuta

[GonzoII]

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible

By Gary Michuta

King James I at the Hampton Court Conference

"Dr. Reynolds...insisted boldly on various points ; but when he came to the demand for the disuse of the apocrypha in the church service James could bear it no longer. He called for a Bible, read a chapter out of Ecclesiasticus, and expounded it according to his own views ; then turning to the lords of his council, he said, " What trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus ? By my soul, I think Ecclesiasticus was a bishop, or they would never use him so."

(John Cassell’s Illustrated History of England, text by William Howitt, (W. Kent & Co.:London), 1859, vol. 3p. 15)

In 1604, the Church of England commissioned a new English translation of the Scripture, which later became known as the King JamesVersion. According to it dedication to the king, the hope was that this new version would “counteract the barbs” of Catholics and a foil to the “self-conceited” Protestants “who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil…” [Preface and dedication to the King, 1611 King James Bible], namely religious dissenters like the Baptists and others. Ironically, the Church of England had moved to other translations and the King James Bible (K.J.V.) had become, at least for a time, the translation for those groups that would have been considered dissenters. Today, the New International Version has become the best selling translation among Protestants, but the King James is still widely used and revered by non-Catholics.

Bible translations are interesting in that they can provide a snapshot of the beliefs of their translators at that time. The Latin Vulgate, for example, can show us how certain words were understood in the fourth century when it was translated by St. Jerome. The King James Bible is no exception. When one compares the original 1611 edition with subsequent editions, one can discern some very important changes in viewpoints. If you own a King James Bible, the first and biggest change you will notice is that the original 1611 edition contained several extra books in an appendix between the Old and New Testaments labeled “The books of the Apocrypha.” The appendix includes several books, which are found in the Catholic Old Testament such as the books of  Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1st and 2nd Maccabees and others.

Table of Contents KJV 1611

Some may be tempted to dismiss the omission of these books from the King James Bible as superfluous “add on” to the translation and that its omission really does not change anything important about the King James Bible. On the contrary, the so-called "Apocrypha” formed an integral part of the text, so much so that the Protestant scholar E. G. Goodspeed once wrote:

“[W]hatever may be our personal opinions of the Apocrypha, it is a historical fact that they formed an integral part of the King James Version, and any Bible claiming to represent that version should either include the Apocrypha, or state that it is omitting them.  Otherwise a false impression is created.” [Story of the Apocrypha (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939, p. 7]

If you pick up a modern copy of the King James Version and open to the title page, chances are you’ll not see any mention of the deliberate omission of these books (e.g. “The King James Version without the Apocrypha”). After all, who would want to put a negative statement about a product on the title page? However, perhaps to avoid false advertising, publishers do notify you that books are missing by cleverly stating the contents in a positive fashion like “The King James Version Containing the Old and New Testaments.” If you didn’t know that the Apocrypha was omitted, you’d probably assume that complete King James Bible since most modern Protestant Bibles contain only the Old and New Testaments anyway. Hence, as Goodspeed warns “a false impression is created.”

The Cross-references

The King James “Apocrypha” had a much more integral roll in its early editions than simply being an appendix unconnected to the two Testaments. Instead, the 1611 King James Bible included (like the Geneva Bible) cross-references from the Old and New Testaments to the so-called “Apocrypha.” Like modern cross-references, these were meant to refer the reader back to the text cited in order to provide further light on what had just been read. There were 11 cross-references in the New Testament and 102 Old Testament that referred Protestant readers back to the “Apocrypha.” The New Testament cross-references were:

	Mat 6:7	Sirach 7:14
	Mat 27:43	Wisdom 2:15-16
	Luke 6:31	Tobit 4:15
	Luke 14:13	Tobit 4:7
	John 10:22	1 Maccabees 4:59
	Rom 9:21	Wisdom 15:7
	Rom 11:34	Wisdom 9:13
	2 Cor 9:7	Sirach 35:9
	Heb 1:3	Wisdom 7:26
	Heb 11:35	2 Maccabees 7:7





1611 KJV Heb. 11:35 - 2 Mac. 7:7

1611 KJV Matt. 27:43 - Wisdom 2:15-16





1611 KJV Heb. 11:3 - Ws. 7:26

1611 KJV Luke 14:13 - Tobit 4:7

Like the early editions of the Geneva Bible, the editors of the Authorized Version believe that the non-Catholic readers should aware of what the “Apocrypha” had to say in regards to these passage. While some are mere correspondences of thought, others point to an awareness or even a dependence upon the “Apocrypha” by inspired New Testament writers. I detail these important passages in Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible (Grotto Press, 2007).

In addition to the eleven cross-references in the New Testament, the 1611 King James also sported 102 cross-reference  in the Old Testament as well bringing to total up to 113 cross-references to and from the Apocrypha overall. No wonder Goodspeed could say that the "Apocrypha" was an integral part of the King James Bible!

The King James Bible was not the only early Protestant Bible to contain the “Apocrypha” with cross-references. As we have seen in a previous article (Pilgrims’ Regress: The Geneva Bible and the “Apocrypha”), the "Apocrypha" also played an integral role in other Protestant Bibles as well.

As I mentioned earlier, translations serve as historical snapshots of the beliefs of the translators and readers. The very presence of these cross-references shows that the translators believed that the "Apocrypha" was at work within the New Testament writings and that Protestant Bible readers would benefit from reading and studying the New and Old Testaments in light of these books. Sadly, today this noble heritage has been lost.

Now You Read Them, Now You Don’t…

Those who viewed the "Apocrypha" as somehow being the last vestige of "popery" pressed for the Apocrypha appendix and its cross-references to be removed altogether from the Bible. In 1615, George Abbott, the Archbishop of Canterbury, went so far as to employ the power of law to censure any publisher who did not produce the Bible in its entirety (i.e. including the "Apocrypha") as prescribed by the Thirty-nine Articles. However, anti-Catholic hatred and the obvious financial advantages of printing smaller Protestant Bibles began to win out against the traditionalists who wanted the Bible in the form that was given in all previous Protestant translations up until that point (in the form of Luther's Bible - with the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments). The "Apocrypha" remained in the King James Bible through the 1626, 1629, 1630, and the 1633 editions. By 1632, public opinion began to decidedly turn against the "bigger" Protestant Bibles. Of the 227 printings of the Bible between 1632 and 1826, about 40% of Protestant Bibles contained the "Apocrypha." The Apocrypha Controversy of the early 1800's enabled English Bible Societies to flood the bible-buying market with Apocrypha-less Protestant Bibles and in 1885 the "Apocrypha" was officially removed with the advent of the Revised Standard Version, which replaced the King James Version.

It is hard to pin point the exact date where the King James Bible no longer contained the "Apocrypha." It is clear that later editions of the KJV removed the "Apocrypha" appendix, but they continued to include cross-references to the "Apocrypha" until they too (like the Geneva Bible) were removed as well. Why were they removed? Was it do to over-crowded margins? The Anglican scholar William H. Daubney points out the obvious:

“These objectionable omissions [of the cross-references] were made after the custom arose of publishing Bibles without the Apocrypha. These apparently profess to be what they are not, entire copies of the Authorized Version … Plainly, the references to the Apocrypha told an inconvenient tale of the use which the Church intended should be made of it; so, either from dissenting influence without, or from prejudice within the Church, these references disappeared from the margin.” [The Use of the Apocrypha In the Christian Church (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1900), 17]

What was the inconvenient tale these cross-references told? They showed that the so-called Apocrypha actually plays a much greater role that most modern Protestants are willing to admit. Moreover, the cross-references showed that the church believed that knowledge of the so-called "Apocrypha" and their use in the New Testament benefited Christians who wished to understand the Bible. Sadly today, many Protestants use the King James Bible have been handed on to them in an unaltered and uncompromised form. The reality is that its contents had undergone several substantial changes beginning with Martin Luther's gathering together the Deuterocanon and placing it in an "Apocrypha" appendix and later when that appendix (and its cross-references) were removed altogether from Protestant Bibles.

 

[Dutchboy88]

"I hope you are not implying that is an infallible interpretation? Why then would St. Paul draw an analogy between misunderstanding and tongues if we are to assume that is what he meant?"

Absolutely infallible EX MY CATHEDRA. How do I know? I read the context. Of course it is about foreign tongues. Read through Acts and notice that the first public pronouncement of the Gospel included Jews speaking some 17+ different languages to other international Jews gathered in Jerusalem for Pentecost (Acts 2). Peter informed the multi-cultural crowd that these locally born & raised men, men without formal educations, were not drunk, but simply speaking the "...mighty deeds of God." in dialects known only to a select few in the crowd...a true miracle.

The phenomenon began to be thought of as a measure of spirituality, but Paul disabused the Corinthians of such a worldly view. Foreign tongues is something that was intended to shock unbelievers. If someone in a believers' gathering stood and spoke in a foreign tongue and no one was there to translate, the speaking did no good. Paul is explaining that if he cannot understand the language, "...the speaker is a foreigner to me". This is not eisegesis (the Roman view), but exegesis (let the writer speak to you). And don't go to the "private interpretation" argument. The text stands in perspicuity.

[editor-surveyor]

There was no “catholic Bible” in english until the KJV came along, and the catholics adopted it and renamed it the Douay Rheims (with some small changes).

Catholic Bibles of various sorts existed in latin, but in the catholic dominant countries few people were so literate as to be able to read latin, so effectively they had no Bible.

The Apocrypha are mostly historic books with little or no spiritual guidance, but some have tried to fashion doctrinal issues from them. None of those supposed doctrinal points from the Apocrypha are found supported anywhere in the general 66 canon.

[D-fendr]

I believe Douay-Rheims proceeded the KJV by 29 and 2 years respectively.

[D-fendr]

I got that backwards:

Rheims, NT: 1582

Douay, OT: 1609

KJV: 1611

[Natural Law]

"Absolutely infallible EX MY CATHEDRA."

It's statements like that that make it difficult to take you seriously. You ask us to accept that you alone, from among the 2 billion Christians in the world, can infallibly interpret Scripture. Not even all of the Apostles had this ability and they were gifted with signs to demonstrate their veracity.

Do you mean to say that any of the other 1.999999+ billion who disagree with you on any point of interpretation are in error and that your problem is not only with Rome, but Geneva, Westminster, Wittenberg and thousands of other church headquarters around the world?

Do you also have the gift of tongues or interpretation to enable you do the translations from Aramaic to modern 21st century English or are you trusting in other infallible humans? How did you determine that the Epistle of Barnabas was not inerrant? How about the Gospel of Thomas or Philip, or Andrew or the dozens of other writings available at the time of St. Paul that the Church rejected as canon?

I think you are doing God, yourself and the world a gross disservice by limiting your gift to a few plunked out postings on FR. You need to take this world wide.

[editor-surveyor]

Look a little deeper and compare what was then and what they are now.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “You ask us to accept that you alone, from among the 2 billion Christians in the world, can infallibly interpret Scripture” <<

.
All Christians can and do correctly read the Bible, because it was given to us to be read in plain language, at face value. To assert that God’s word needs interpretation, and that that interpretation is given to only the few is Nicolaitanism. That is exactly what Christ was denouncing in the “letters to the churches.”
.

[Natural Law]

"I got that backwards..."

It is a moot point in that there was no common English language before this time, not any market for an English version. St. Aldheim did create a translation in the 7th century to be used by the clergy in teaching the scripture to illiterate English peasants who knew no Latin.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “It is a moot point in that there was no common English language before this time, not any market for an English version” <<

.
Very true. In fact it continued to mature at a rapid rate for another 100 years or so.
.

[Natural Law]

"All Christians can and do correctly read the Bible, because it was given to us to be read in plain language, at face value.

Are you saying that all Christians correctly interpret Scripture or only that small fraction that agree with you?And what language is "plain language"?

(Note: you need to research what Nicolaitanism really is before you attempt to paint the Church with that heresy or at lease attempt to substantiate your assertion.)

[MarkBsnr]

"Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelelled as far as Phenice and Cyprus, and Antioch, PREACHING THE WORD TO NONE BUT UNTO THE JEWS ONLY." Acts 11:19.

The Jewish Christians that were forced to flee from the persecution of Acts 8:1,2 went into Phenice, Cyprus, and Antioch establishing Christian Churches to all, including Gentiles...uh, no, that's not right...they established JEWISH churches.

Let's take a look at that entire passage, if you don't mind.

Acts 11: 19 Now those who had been scattered by the persecution that broke out when Stephen was killed traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, spreading the word only among Jews. 20 Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. 21 The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.

Why would you have truncated this passage? Would it possibly have been to try to support a purported division between Gentile and Jew, when the whole effort of early Christianity was to establish Christianity irrespective of origin? My point is that Paul, championed by many as the evangelizer to the Gentiles, spent more time with the Jews. Peter and many of the other Apostles, also believed by those same individuals to be evangelizers to the Jews, were in fact the opposite. Since there were no Jewish populations in India, Thomas, for instance was the most evangelizer of the Gentiles. You should look up the history of the Thomite Christians of Eastern India. It's a fascinating history.

[Dutchboy88]

"It's statements like that that make it difficult to take you seriously. You ask us to accept that you alone, from among the 2 billion Christians in the world, can infallibly interpret Scripture. Not even all of the Apostles had this ability and they were gifted with signs to demonstrate their veracity'

Aw, come on Natch (can I call you Natch?). You can call me Dutch or really anything you like. But, please, I was just sort of kidding around. You know, like a pope claims to speak ex cathedra and everyone is supposed to think his words are infallible.

My contention was the text is so clear if you use reasonable hermeneutics, read the context, watch the scene in your head, and connect the dots. Actually, if you notice, nearly the entire first letter to the Corinthians is about a tendency the Greeks had to revere worldly anything. The original problem began with Apollos' great oration skills and their love of "wisdom", but it meanders all over the place. Paul's letter is an admonition that the showy kinds of displays really have little to do with being a believer.

And, think about your next comment carefully. Do you actually think that the billion Buddhists are not in sincere disagreement with anything said about the Bible? Do you not think the and 1.5+ billion Muslims don't think you and I are wrong about the Bible. My FRiend, you are not worried about numbers any more than the apostle Paul was worried about numbers. Either what the Scriptures tell us is true (and the vast majority of the world is apparently going to die in their trespasses & sin) or we are just sentimentalists: God just has to give them a break because they were sincere.

You don't believe that or you would let me fall off the side of the earth and trust my sincerity to save me. No, you believe I am wrong. Dead wrong. And you wish to enlighten me to the truth of Rome. And, I you. Well, not to Rome. But, I do care that you believe the grace shed abroad by the Holy Spirit is not bound up through the dictates of Rome. Further, their doctrines of human mediation (alter christos), seven sacraments, and all the rest is primarily vain repetition. If Jesus has you in His crosshairs, you will be granted faith, by grace, and you will be rescued.

No, I don't have the gift of foreign tongues. And, I don't really trust any single translation or textbook. I search many sources and references. I do have three years of training in Koine' Greek and some Hebrew (very little). I have a degree in theology, which comes from a school which I now think slightly missed the mark. I would not attend that school again. But, each of us will stand before God and give an answer. I wish only to be found in Jesus, clothed in His righteousness. Attendance or association with an organization claiming exclusivity is not biblical.

And, the canon was closed long before the Roman Catholic Church was a figment of its own imagination. Read those tomes and you will see why things like the Gospel of Jesus do not belong in there.

And, sarcasm does not suit you. You seem to be a kinder person than that.

[MarkBsnr]

Paul's ministry and commission are much more interesting than you give him credit for. Do you suppose there is a reason Paul went to the Jew first? "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; TO THE JEW FIRST, and also to the Greek." Rom. 1:16.

Why would you say that I don't find Paul's efforts uninteresting? I find them utterly fascinating. Paul's efforts helped turn around a floundering Church. I do not understate his importance. I just do not find his teachings to be equal to that of the direct words of Jesus. They (as well as the words of the other Apostles) are nearly as important, but we must not confuse the Creator and the created.

But he also had a ministry of revelation. The Apostle to the Gentiles, The dispensation of the grace of God, the Church the Body of Christ, the One New Man, the fellowship of the mystery (Eph. 3:9). All by direct revelations to him from the risen Christ, beginning in Acts 9.

Three years of daily exposure to Christ is less than one vision? Why are you cheapening the ministry of the other Apostles?

unless you just believe him to be just a really good salesman...

I believe him to be a really great salesman, but with the best product in the world and instructed by the Owner Himself. However, so were the Twelve...

[Natural Law]

"No, you believe I am wrong. Dead wrong"

I do not believe that Salvation can only come through the Catholic Church if that is what you mean. No one, certainly not me, knows the mind of God and I trust in His infinite mercy.

I do, however, believe that intentional mischaracterization of the teachings or history of the Church do not aid in anyone's path to Salvation. Sin hurts the sinner far more than it hurts the Church or God. That includes those who proclaim it is the Whore of Babylon and the spawn of hell as well as those who say there have never been errant and vile sinners who have claimed to be Catholic or wore the robes of the Catholic clergy.

My purpose for participating on these threads is to try to ensure that an honest discussion takes place with respect to the positions, doctrines, dogmas and history of the Church.

[MarkBsnr]

"The Gospels and Acts disagree with that statement. Jesus put a lot of time and effort into the creation of the Church. Peter and the 12, as well as Paul and his assistants show that that statement is wrong overall. The Church is an organization; else it is chaos."

Very kind response and, as usual, delivered well.

Thank you. I do my best and when it is not my best, I am very kindly and effectively and repeatedly informed of that fact. With great emphasis!!! :)

But, (there's that "but"), the difference between an "organization" and a gathering is enormous. Rome has created an "organization", even a country. Yet, the English word translated "church" is a fabricated word from the Scottish term "kirk" intended to distinguish it. A feature not found in the Scriptural word. That word is of course "ecclesia" or "assembly" and the Greek NT will occasionally used it precisely for a chaotic mob.

A well put point. Let us examine other languages to find out what they use.

French: église
Italian: Chiesa
Spanish: Iglesia

It is the Germans and Northern Europeans who have changed it.

German: kirche
Norwegian: Kirke

But enough of this banter. Ecclesia means chaotic mob? Let us see.

We know that it means 'congregation' of a church, as well as an assembly of citizens in ancient Greece in a particular city-state. No chaos here.

In Acts 19, the assembly of citizens is normally a rather orderly and organized, well, organization. It is just that the intention of Paul to enter Ephesus turns the orderly assembly into confusion. It is not that the term is used to indicate chaotic mob, it is the normally orderly assembly that happens to be chaotic at this point in time when confronted by this intention of Paul. The ecclesia is not the description of the mob. The mob is formed from the members of the ecclesia in reaction to Paul.

I have reread Acts 2 and 10 and cannot find papalism. I find no apostolic succession. Again, please point out exactly where a "pope" is set up and a new one is going to be appointed after the death of the last one.

I had understood your term papalism to be the office in which Peter was serving. If you had said papal succession, then of course I would have pointed to the extensive succession preparation that Paul did in order to prepare for his death, as well as point out the succession of various others throughout the NT. If one understands the role of bishop to be an office, why then the next occupier of that office is a successor.

Sacerdotalism does not appear at the so-called "Last Supper" (a name the publishers added to the top of the pages). If this is the way Rome constructs a doctrine it is little wonder they could manufacture so much.

Ah, yes. A brain fart.

Let us try this instead.

John 20: 19Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. 20And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. 21He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

My error.

Indulgences are making a comeback but there is no evidence anywhere in the Scripture that a man can grant another man forgiveness before God. The Jews recognized that one would have to be God to do so.

See above.

Confession in booths. Of course I believe in confession. Even confessing sin against one another TO one another. But, this is not the confession in booths going on in the RCC which holds that men can grant one another forgiveness for some kind of penalty paid, such as six Hail Mary's, five Our Fathers. Nowhere is such nonsense found in the Scriptures.

For forgiveness, see above again.

The idea of paying off a debt to the Lord (or temporal lord) runs deep throughout the Bible both Old and New. It is true that the Church only began writing extensively about it in the second century, so this form of Church discipline gradually came to to entire Church probably more piecemeal as bishops gradually implemented it.

I apologize for the Prada shoes remark. I actually thought this was the case. In view the enormous amount of gold, silk, decor, pomp & circumstance granted this man, I still find the contrast between him and Jesus shocking, yet Jesus was God on Earth. It was the errant Pharisees who loved the center stage and the RCC just looks oddly similar.

An examination of the estate of JPII is highly illuminating. He was the steward of Christ, yet died nearly penniless. As did his predecessors going back centuries. He lived in small papal apartments in the Vatican. He has the use of his office, yet owns nearly nothing.

My intention is not to beat up the RCC (although that is tempting because of the great errors I notice), but to call to those involved with it to look closely at the Text. The doctrines this organization promulgates are simply not there. Much more could be said, but I have to go.

Vaya con Dios, my friend. Even though your heart may be as stony as a Biblical execution, God has Grace in abundance, enough for all.

[smvoice]

I'm glad you asked about Acts 11:19,20. "They therefore that were scattered aborad upon the tribulation that arose about Stephen travelled AS FAR AS Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the word to NONE SAVE ONLY TO THE JEWS." "But there were SOME of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene who, when they were come to ANTIOCH, spake UNTO THE GREEKS ALSO, preaching the Lord Jesus.

First we need to ask "who were these that were "scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, EXCEPT THE APOSTLES." Acts 8:1. It is to this same scattering that we read further Acts 11:19,20.

It most certainly was NOT the Apostles, according to Acts 8:1. We know that those who WERE scattered abroad spoke the word to none save ONLY TO JEWS. But there were SOME of them, who, when they came to ANTIOCH, spoke unto the GREEKS ALSO.

So..what does this mean to anything? Especially to Peter and the 11 who were STILL at JERUSALEM? When the Church at Jerusalem heard of this, they sent Barnabas to look into it and HE went to Tarsus to find Saul (later called Paul), and UNDER SAUL the Church at Antioch became the BASE OF OPERATIONS FOR THE EVANGELIZATION OF THE GENTILES with "the gospel of the grace of God."

And how do we know this?

It was from ANTIOCH that Paul went BY REVELATION to Jerusalem to communicate TO THE LEADERS THERE that gospel which he preached among the Gentiles. (Gal. 2:2).

And what was the result of this meeting of Paul and the LEADERS at Jerusalem (Peter and the 11)? Peter and the 11 promised to CONFINE THEIR MINISTRY TO ISRAEL, recognizing Paul as the Apostle of the Gentiles.

What do you think the circumcision/uncircumcision problem was about? Jewish Messianic Churches preaching the gospel of the kingdom as they were commissioned to do, and the gospel of the grace of God, Paul's commission to Gentiles, meeting head on. Would Israel accept Christ as Messiah? Or would she continue to reject Him? Would Gentiles have to go through Israel to be blessed, or would God open another door for them? Would Peter and the 11 sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel at any moment Israel accepts Him and He returns to set up His Kingdom? Or would they continue to reject Him and therefore the Gentiles would be forever without hope, strangers from the convenants and aliens from the promises?

God, in His grace, in SPITE of Israel's rejection of Messiah, provided a means for Gentiles to be saved APART FROM ISRAEL: "BY THE GOSPEL".

But it is all part of the transition taking place in Acts. From law to grace, from a kingdom of believers to a body of believers, from the gospel of the circumcision to the gospel of the uncircumcision, etc. From Biblical Prophecy to a Biblical Mystery, hid in God from the foundation of the world, until revealed to the Apostle Paul. Eph. 3:2,3,5,6,9.

[smvoice]

Why do you think I am "cheapening the ministry of the other Apostles"? When nothing could be further from the truth.

I think this here is where our problem is: Does your Church believe and teach Millenialism? That Christ is literally going to return to this earth and reign for 1000 years? And that Christ promised the 12 Apostles that they would be sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel when He sets up His Kingdom? And one more thing, does your Church teach and believe you are spiritual Israel?

ALL of these things matter in our discussions. Because if you believe you are spiritual Israel, then you MUST believe that the twelve Apostles will be judging you, spiritual Israel. And if you do not believe in the literal Millenial reign of Christ on this earth, then Israel as a real Nation, called by God, given covenants by God and a future Nation of priests and a blessing to all Gentile nations means nothing to you. If you believe that you are spiritual Israel, then the calling and commission of Paul mean nothing in the forming of the Church the Body of Christ, which is located in the heavenlies, in Christ. Our inheritance is different than Israel's inheritance. One is heavenly, the other is earthly. Of course the coming of Christ for His Body (the rapture) doesn't make any sense to your Church, why would it?

Peter and the 11 had a specific calling to Israel and Messiah. Paul had a specific calling to the Gentiles and the Church the Body of Christ. The foundation of BOTH is Christ. He is the chief cornerstone. Paul is no greater than Peter or John or James. But NONE is greater than Christ. He is the one who died for our sins. He is our Redeemer. And He is the author and finisher of our faith. But at the same time, Peter is no greater than Paul. They had different missions and callings. Both by Christ and both for God's purposes. Christ words and revelations to Paul as His words were to Peter and the 11. They are CHRIST'S WORDS. It seems to me that it is Paul's ministry that is cheapened by those who insist that the words of the risen Christ are of lesser value than Christ's earthly ministry.

[SuzyQue]

Just curious, where does the Geneva Bible fit in? I just downloaded a copy and am reading bits of it.

[D-fendr]

Geneva Bible was 1560.

Then the Bishops Bible in 1568.

The crown wanted to replace the Geneva Bible because it was seen as less than flattering to monarchies so they were looking for a replacement. But, the Bishops Bible was horrendous, hardly read. Hence the KJV.

If you happen to have access to National Geographic, they did a story a couple of months back on the KJV that you might like.

[editor-surveyor]

I’m saying that the face meaning of every sentence in the Bible is true, and that the only places where Christ used allegory are where he said that he did, and that his explanations to the disciples were for us, and that they are clear.

Allegory is rare in the Bible, and where it is used we are warned in the text, usually in advance.

A person of average intelligence will easily understand the Bible IF THEY WANT TO UNDERSTAND, and if they do not wish to understand, the Holy Spirit will help them become confused.