Why do some Christians lie and tell us that they use the 1611 King James, when there is no Apocrypha . . .?
in their Bible?
Then they make some kind of sophistic remark like it was taken out with good reason . . . that’s not a 1611 King James then! The 1611 King James Version had an Apocrypha in it, and if it’s missing from YOUR Bible, then PICK ANOTHER DATE. A lie is a lie. If you’re talking about God’s word, and it’s important to you. stop lying.
THEN PICK ANOTHER DATE! IT’S NOT a 1611 BIBLE without the Apocrypha!
Dan,
What date was the King James Version Bible printed without an Apocrypha. Better yet, WHAT PRIINTING DATE IS ON THAT FRIGGIN’ BIBLE YOU
HAVE NOW?!?!?! If it’s NOT 1611, then stop lying!!!
Ivanhoe,
THEN PICK ANOTHER DATE. If there is no Apocrypha. it’s NOT a 1611!
No chance,
It’s not about the Bible at all actually! lol
It’s about how people get trapped into saying something traditional to say, a phrase without a genuine thought in their heads, and head off like sheep to the slaughter. I want Christians to be smarted than that, it is a war against the evil spirits after all. They are smart enough to get Christians to say they use 1611 King James Bibles, when they most likely never even seen one.
We have to be smarter than that!
mopar Mike,
You can’t be close to God, and reject what I’ve been saying about him and faith, grace, peace with God through Christ. So you sound like another person who has succumbed to the powers of darkness, preaching another Gospel, which is not a Gospel at all, who don’t think Gay people can be Christian. Furthermore, you assume too much about my sexual life. It’s typical, and a lie. So repent yourself, you just bore false testimony about me, and you probably wont repent, seeing that your stance is right, and will not accept any other testimony no matter what I say.
Paul,
I used to have an Oxford Bible with Apocrypha. So there is an Apocrypha in some Bibles. You just listen to the traditionalists concerning the Apocrypha, and make assumptions, and then judge by those assumptions. And Christian who is a serious Bible student should read the Apocrypha, in my opinion.
If you don’t read Maccabees at least, you wont understand the mindset of the Zealots during the time of Jesus.
1) Why do some Christians lie and tell us that they use the 1611 King James, when there is no Apocrypha . . .?
in their Bible?
They aren’t *intentionally* lying (at least, in my experience) – they simply have been misinformed, and they are repeating that misinformation.
2) Then they make some kind of sophistic remark like it was taken out with good reason . . . that’s not a 1611 King James then!
Agreed….though you may be being a little too picky here.
The 1611 editions of the King James Version did include the Apocrypha and did not employ modern spelling standards. Also, it employed a Germanic font rather than Roman font. As far as I know, there is no 1611 reprint available that omits the Apocrypha. Extremely few people use an actual 1611 edition (or reprint thereof – even a reprint using Roman font, which is available) – but some **believe that they are** using a 1611 edition when they are not.
http://www.bibleselector.com/r_kjv.html
Nearly all people use the King James Version "Standard Text", which was produced in 1769 (and which is now available either with or without the Apocrypha, though originally it, too, included the Apocrypha).
However, I would say that it would not be a lie if a Christian said, "I use the 1769 King James Version" – because the wording *is* identical, even if the contents are not. In other words: nearly all modern editions are reprints of that 1769 Standard Text (whether or not they include the Apocrypha) – so it *is* justifiable to claim that they are using the 1769 text, even when their Bible was not published in 1769 and even though it does not include all of the contents of the 1769 edition.
Conclusion: for most people, it is not correct to claim that they are using a 1611 KJV. However, I would say that it *is* accurate to claim that a reprint of an edition (e.g. the 1611 edition) *is* "the 1611 edition" even if some of the contents are not included (like the Apocrypha) and even if it does not use the same font. SO: in my opinion you are being a *little* too persnickety about this, but your point *is* still a valid one – there are certainly significant differences between the 1611 edition and most modern editions (as can be seen by comparing the samples at the above web site).
- Jim
November 28th, 2011 at 7:34 am
The 1611 KJV said that the apocrypha was not God’s Word. It was only there as reference material since some religious people insisted on reading it. Once boldness was in place, then they removed it as it ought to be removed.
References :
I am a Christian
November 28th, 2011 at 8:14 am
HUH! They don’t use the 1611 bible. The apocrypha is found to be false and rightly so, because they are not the inspired Word of God.
References :
November 28th, 2011 at 9:01 am
Well, first of all, quit with the stupid generalizations already. I never claimed to use that particular version of the King James Bible and I do agree the Apocrypha was a papal addition, as they’ve been jacking with all the various versions of the Bible including writing their own. The King James is simply the least jacked.
References :
November 28th, 2011 at 9:45 am
The Apocrypha was never in the text of the AV1611, it was placed in between the Old and New Testaments.
References :
November 28th, 2011 at 10:13 am
who….cares
References :
November 28th, 2011 at 10:44 am
You know Tuberroot. If there is one thing I’ve observed in my 20 years as a Christian, it’s that those who are obsessed with different versions of the bible, and this and that taken out and this greek word means this or that, and not meaning this. Are those who are trying to manipulate the word of God to support sin their life.
I see this especially with so called theistic evolutionist and so called gay Christians. My friend I’m going to exhort you in the best way I know how. Repent and believe the good news. You can’t be bi and Christiana my friend, and you are deceiving yourself greatly if you think you can. You’re are only going to cause yourself pain and prolong your recovery, not to mention the fact you’re confusing those young in the faith.
Repent now , except Christ, and live.
References :
November 28th, 2011 at 11:12 am
There is no apocrypha in any Bible. Apocryphal books by definition are texts that never were part of the Holy Bible, which were rejected when the 73 divinely inspired books of the Bible were first compiled by the bishops of the Catholic Church at the end of the 4th Century. None of these 73 books are apocryphal. They are the Word of God, which the Christian Church has used continuously for 1,700 years. The fact that Protestants call these books "apocryphal" just means they want to give their founder, Martin Luther, an excuse for trashing 7 books of God’s Holy Word. If they want to consider these books, which every Christian on earth had used for 1,200 years before Luther was born, apocryphal, than they should also classify as apocryphal the 3 New Testament books Luther fully intended to trash. He had to back down because his followers were at the point of rebellion over trashing the writings of the apostles, but if he had the power to define what parts of God’s Word could be trashed, all ten of his choices should be respected by his followers, not just the 7 books he actually removed from the Protestant Bible.
References :
November 28th, 2011 at 11:24 am
For some it is more convenient
References :
November 28th, 2011 at 11:50 am
1) Why do some Christians lie and tell us that they use the 1611 King James, when there is no Apocrypha . . .?
in their Bible?
They aren’t *intentionally* lying (at least, in my experience) – they simply have been misinformed, and they are repeating that misinformation.
2) Then they make some kind of sophistic remark like it was taken out with good reason . . . that’s not a 1611 King James then!
Agreed….though you may be being a little too picky here.
The 1611 editions of the King James Version did include the Apocrypha and did not employ modern spelling standards. Also, it employed a Germanic font rather than Roman font. As far as I know, there is no 1611 reprint available that omits the Apocrypha. Extremely few people use an actual 1611 edition (or reprint thereof – even a reprint using Roman font, which is available) – but some **believe that they are** using a 1611 edition when they are not.
http://www.bibleselector.com/r_kjv.html
Nearly all people use the King James Version "Standard Text", which was produced in 1769 (and which is now available either with or without the Apocrypha, though originally it, too, included the Apocrypha).
However, I would say that it would not be a lie if a Christian said, "I use the 1769 King James Version" – because the wording *is* identical, even if the contents are not. In other words: nearly all modern editions are reprints of that 1769 Standard Text (whether or not they include the Apocrypha) – so it *is* justifiable to claim that they are using the 1769 text, even when their Bible was not published in 1769 and even though it does not include all of the contents of the 1769 edition.
Conclusion: for most people, it is not correct to claim that they are using a 1611 KJV. However, I would say that it *is* accurate to claim that a reprint of an edition (e.g. the 1611 edition) *is* "the 1611 edition" even if some of the contents are not included (like the Apocrypha) and even if it does not use the same font. SO: in my opinion you are being a *little* too persnickety about this, but your point *is* still a valid one – there are certainly significant differences between the 1611 edition and most modern editions (as can be seen by comparing the samples at the above web site).
- Jim
References :