History of The English Bible

Puritans and the Pilgrims fled took with them their precious Geneva Bible, and rejected the King’s Bible. America was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible.

1611 AD: The King James Bible Printed;with All 80 Books.
passages with references to the Apocrypha
Mat 6:7 Ecclesiasticus 7:14
Mat 23:37 2 Esdras 1:30
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 Ecclesiasticus 35:9
Heb 1:3 Wisdom 7:26
Heb 11:35 2 Maccabees 7

Jesus and Paul quote from the Septuagint
300 of 350 quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. apostate.com/2.0/english-bible-versions

The Maccabean Revolt began in 168-167 B.C. when the Romans expelled Antiochus Epiphanes from Egypt, a man who began to vent his rage upon the Jews. He massacred vast numbers of Jews on their Sabbath day, took many captive, erected a fortress on Mt. Zion, and attempted to abolish all vestiges of Jewish worship and practice. The Temple was dedicated to the false god Zeus, and upon the newly erected altar a pig was sacrificed! (The apocryphal book of Maccabees, apparently quoting Daniel 11:31, calls this act the “abomination of desolation.”) heraldmag.org/2002/02so_7.htm

The Reformation Attack on the Bible. The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books—Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation—and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well.

The Bible was not originally inspired with divisions by chapter and verse. The ancient manuscripts didn’t have them.modern chapter divisions were apparently devised by Stephen Langton, who was an Archbishop of Canterbury in England. He started to do this around 1227 A.D. The Wycliffe English Bible did use them, as it was circulated in 1382.

the chapter and verse system was not inspired by God, and can be a distraction in some cases, or cause readers to separate thoughts or ideas that weren’t originally separate when the inspired writers wrote Scripture biblestudy.org/question/biblever.html

The History of the Textus Receptus

Erasmus’s third edition of 1522 contained one truly unfortunate innovation: The “Three Heavenly Witnesses” in 1 John 5:7-8. These were derived from the recently-written Codex 61, and (as the famous story goes) included by Erasmus “for the sake of his oath.” Sadly, they have been found in almost every TR edition since. Erasmus made his own Greek translation from the Latin. He admitted to what he had done, but the result was a Greek text containing readings not found in any Greek manuscript – but which were faithfully retained through centuries of editions of the Textus Receptus. This included even certain readings which were not even correct Greek (Scrivener offers as an example Rev. 17:4 AKAQARTHTOS).
What a tragedy, then, that it was the Bible of Protestant Christendom for close to four centuries!

King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles.

The New Testament writers, except for Matthew, when they are quoting the Old Testament, usually quote from the LXX. The differences in readings between the Mt and the LXX were formerly explained by assuming that the LXX translators were sometimes not very good translators. However, very ancient Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible, recently found at Qumran and elsewhere, often agree with the LXX against the Mt. Accordingly, it is now generally supposed that the LXX is a fairly accurate translation of Hebrew manuscripts available at the time, and that sometimes the manuscripts that the LXX translators worked from differed from the manuscripts that became the basis for the standardised Hebrew text that we know today.

Jerome was determined to make his translation from the Hebrew, because he wanted a text that he could use as a basis for argument with Jewish opponents, without having them object, "But that is not what the Hebrew text says."

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.