Is King James correct?


#1

I was just thinking about the 7 books not in the King James bible and some things started to unfold in my head. I know about the Jewish meetings in Jerusalem and Alexandria (the great Library) but what about those 7 books. Protestants reject them because they claim they were added at a later time, after the rest of the bible had already been put together. They say its even kept in records for the dates they were put in. Could someone please explain how we should know that those 7 books truly belong? Thank you.

SG


#2

Well, if the Jewish people did not have those seven books were did Hannukah come from? Nowhere in the bible do you find the holiday Hannukah. Guess what? Get yourself a Catholic bible and it is in Macabees.


#3

[quote=Saint_George]I was just thinking about the 7 books not in the King James bible and some things started to unfold in my head. I know about the Jewish meetings in Jerusalem and Alexandria (the great Library) but what about those 7 books. Protestants reject them because they claim they were added at a later time, after the rest of the bible had already been put together. They say its even kept in records for the dates they were put in. Could someone please explain how we should know that those 7 books truly belong? Thank you.

SG
[/quote]

You can start with the fact that the original KJV DID have those 7 books in it. It was much later (1800s) that they were removed.


#4

Have you seen this article by Jimmy Akin?

geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/deuterocanonicals.html


#5

First of all the concept of “The Bible” is fairly modern – in ancient times, the Scriptures were a collection of separate books (actually scrolls.)

In the time of Christ, the Saducees accepted only the first five books of the Old Testament (the Pentateuch or Torah) as Scripture. Other Jewish sects accepted more books – perhaps some that vanished from history and were only found in the Deat Sea Scrolls.

The Ptolomies of Egypt were all patrons of the Library of Alexandria. Ptolomy also encouraged Jews to settle in Alexandria – and asked them for a copy of the Bible – in Greek – for the Library. The Jewish leaders in Alexandria were initially reluctant to translate the Bible, but came under pressure from the Jewish people in Alexandria, who spoke Greek, not Hebrew as their “mother tongue.”

The Bible (or most of it) was translated by a group of 70 Jewish scholars (some sources say 72) and this Greek translation is called the Septaugent (sometimes abbreviated LXX.) By about 200 BC, all of the current books of the Old Testamen had been translated and were considered a definitive list of the inspired works by most Jews world-wide.

The Septaugent was accepted as valid even in Judea, where the people spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew anymore. Most educated Jews spoke Greek, however, and the Septaugent was the most widely-used Bible in Jesus’ time. Note that in the Gospels all Jesus’ quotes from the Bible are from the Septaugent, with its characteristic phrasing.

The Church slowly accepted the idea of a New Testament, as well, and finally Pope Damasus I proclaimed the Canon of both the New and Old Testaments near the end of the 4th Century. The Jewish Canon only evolved a few hundred years later, under the leadership of the Ben Asher clan, the Masorites (“handers-down.”)

For more than 1600 years, from the time of Christ until the Reformation, the books listed by Damasus I were accepted thorughout Chrisendom.


#6

Just as a clarification, there are nearly 22 editions and revisions of the King James Bible. The KJV as approved by the Anglican Church included and still includes the Duterocanonical books.

It was not until the 1800’s that Baptist, Presbyterian, and other groups began to exclude the Duterocanonicals from the “Bible Society” editions they were producing. Every KJV I have that was published under the authority and by order of the Anglican Church includes the Duterocanonical books.

Rob+


#7

tinyurl.com/dj8dr

This is one of the few versions of the KJV that I know of which contains the Apocrypha. It’s placed between the Old and New Testaments.


#8

[quote=Saint_George]I was just thinking about the 7 books not in the King James bible and some things started to unfold in my head. I know about the Jewish meetings in Jerusalem and Alexandria (the great Library) but what about those 7 books. Protestants reject them because they claim they were added at a later time, after the rest of the bible had already been put together. They say its even kept in records for the dates they were put in. Could someone please explain how we should know that those 7 books truly belong? Thank you.

SG
[/quote]

Because they were not removed, even from the King James version, until the 1800s; 18 centuries after Jesus.


#9

Thank you for all of your replies. I was just told that the Reason that the 7 books were removed or put in the apocrypha was because they were said to have been added later. However I now have proof they weren’t, thanks to a little history lesson :rotfl:


#10

Here are some interesting and relevant links:

jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm (one explanation)
booksofthebible.com/p3698.html (Luther’s Bible)

catholicapologetics.net/martin_luthers__apocrypha.htm (Luther’s Bible)

exorthodoxforchrist.com/canon_of_new_testament.htm (another explanation)


#11

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.