Don't get me wrong I love the (complete) KJV.
I just ordered this baby last week!
I'll be adding the cross-references to and from the Deuterocanonicals that are not contained in it. -There are quite a few in this version.
I "looked inside this book" at Amazon and it has one of
my favorite references to Revelations from Tobit:
TOBIT 12:15: “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One.”
>Rev 8:2-4: “And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets. 3. And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. 4. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.”
>Lk 1:19: “And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.”
1 posted on
03/17/2012 7:26:58 AM PDT by
GonzoII
To: GonzoII
" What trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus ?" I know not me Lord, to the tower with 'em??
2 posted on
03/17/2012 7:32:26 AM PDT by
GonzoII
(Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
To: GonzoII
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1)
“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)
“It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63)
“Being confident of this very thing,that He that hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:” (Philippians 1:6)
“But He[God] hath made Him[Jesus] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)
“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.” (1 Peter 1:23)
3 posted on
03/17/2012 7:46:43 AM PDT by
LetMarch
(If a man knows the right way to live, and does not live it, there is no greater coward. (Anonymous)
To: GonzoII
Somewhat of a frustrating article. It keeps stating that the “Catholic” Bible is better than the “Protestant” Bible because it does contain much of the Apocrypha and that the Apocrypha is important, but it doesn’t say why it is important.
4 posted on
03/17/2012 8:06:51 AM PDT by
SuzyQue
To: GonzoII
The KJV was good enough for George Washington, than it is good enough for me.
5 posted on
03/17/2012 8:11:33 AM PDT by
gusty
To: GonzoII
As I have posted on other threads, the KJV and the Geneva bibles are available with the Apocrypha. Everyone should read these books at least once to see why they are irrelevant.
My copy of the Catholic NAB says that TOBIT and JUDITH are religious NOVELs. Who would base their salvation and beliefs on a NOVEL! Even I won’t read modern Christian prophetic fiction from a bookstore.
The Apocrypha should be placed in the same category as THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS, which for many years was considered, by some, as Sacred Scripture. Even JEROME wanted them out of his translation of the scripture but the Pope wanted them in, so they are in.
It should be noted that the great Protestant Writer JOHN BUNYAN found comfort in some of the Apocrypha (GRACE ABOUNDING to the CHIEF OF SINNERS). I believe it was in Eccleasticus.
You have a CAMBRIDGE bible! That is what I use. I get mine from http://www.bibles-direct.co.uk/
I also have an English OXFORD bible, not one of those US printed versions with lots of “footnotes” which detract from what is written.
To: GonzoII
There is a reason it is called the “Apocrypha”. It will always be contested.
By the way, there was a KJV called “the naughty Bible” too because when it was printed the commandment said “Thou shalt commit adultery”.
8 posted on
03/17/2012 8:19:29 AM PDT by
sigzero
To: GonzoII
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus.
Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith.
Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”
-Cardinal Cajetan (16th century)
13 posted on
03/17/2012 8:32:42 AM PDT by
Mr Rogers
("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
To: GonzoII
17 posted on
03/17/2012 8:39:43 AM PDT by
ntnychik
To: GonzoII
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”). . . . 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.”And if you pick up a first edition of the King James Version as published in 1611, chances are you'll not see any mention of the deliberate inclusion of these books, as the original title page cleverly states the contents in the fashion, "The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New," without any mention of the Apocrypha.
Seemingly this author did not bother to look this fact up before attempting to spin the modern KJV as being more devious than it actually is.
To: GonzoII
Wouldn’t early Christians, indeed even Christ & the Apostles have been familiar, if not conversant, with these books, or at least with their content?
While I’m not suggesting any tinkering with any Bible, wouldn’t they be at least important from a scholarly perspective?
36 posted on
03/17/2012 9:28:12 AM PDT by
P.O.E.
(Pray for America)
To: GonzoII
The KJV is awesome, but can be a bit tedious to decipher - I use the NIV despite its “faults”.
45 posted on
03/17/2012 10:13:32 AM PDT by
trebb
("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
To: GonzoII
54 posted on
03/17/2012 11:46:58 AM PDT by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: GonzoII
I'll be adding the cross-references to and from the Deuterocanonicals that are not contained in it. -There are quite a few in this version. ??? If it is KJV w/Ap , then why are you adding-- is it missing the Xrefs that KJV-v.1 contained.?
86 posted on
03/18/2012 4:15:52 PM PDT by
urtax$@work
(The only kind of memorial is a Burning memorial !)
To: GonzoII
" The King James “Apocrypha” had a much more integral roll..."Uh... a much more integral... uh... "role"?
126 posted on
03/20/2012 3:30:16 PM PDT by
OKSooner
(Never take a known wise-@$$ shooting with you.)
To: GonzoII
And I would add that anyone printing the 1611 edition of the KJV should include the translators comments. Therein the translators retain the right (and those that follow) to revisit their work and make whatever corrections and updates found necessary.
Given that apocrypha are not accepted as part of “all Scripture” it is not surprising they are now left out of later editions.
Of course it must be noted that many KJV Bibles printed barely have the publishers identified let alone any notes or commentary.
255 posted on
03/24/2012 2:26:03 AM PDT by
count-your-change
(You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: GonzoII
I prefer KJV as well
I remember when the Living Bible came out in late 60s or 1970...easier to read but less character and texture...I think the Revised Standard was already around but we never used it...the Living Bible did make headway
very few churches use KJV anymore except for special verses and usually with Strongs along too if the words have more special than usual signficance...at least in my Southern Baptist church
Willaim Tyndale must feel vindicated after such a brutal execution
264 posted on
03/24/2012 9:31:19 AM PDT by
wardaddy
(I am a social conservative. My political party left me(again). They can go to hell in a bucket.)
To: GonzoII; mgist; raptor22; victim soul; Isabel2010; Smokin' Joe; Michigander222; PJBankard; ...
+
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Add me / Remove me
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
615 posted on
12/25/2012 4:50:18 PM PST by
narses
To: GonzoII; mgist; raptor22; victim soul; Isabel2010; Smokin' Joe; Michigander222; PJBankard; ...
+
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Add me / Remove me
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
616 posted on
12/25/2012 4:50:54 PM PST by
narses
To: GonzoII; mgist; raptor22; victim soul; Isabel2010; Smokin' Joe; Michigander222; PJBankard; ...
+
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Add me / Remove me
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
617 posted on
12/25/2012 4:51:57 PM PST by
narses
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
