Critics of Christianity and the Bible used by evangelicals love to mention that the Bible doesn’t include some of the sacred books that should be included. By this they mean that Bibles evangelicals use do not accept the apocryphal, or deuterocanonical books. They even point out that in the original edition of the King James Version, these books were included. However, they fail to note that when they used to be included in the KJV, they were separated from the true 66 books of the Bible and were not considered sacred but were included for some historical value.
We evangelicals reject the apocrypha for good reason and here’s a quick overview of why each book is excluded:
I Esdras: This book claims Zerubbabel (Zorobabel) was serving as a bodyguard for King Darius I of Persia. After writing an eloquent and wise statement to the king, Darius granted Zerubbabel’s wish to construct the temple in Jerusalem and was sent to Jerusalem from Persia with men to help him.
This is incorrect historically. The true historical record tells us that Zerubbabel led the first wave of Hebrew captives back to Jerusalem from Babylon to rebuild the city. The first wave of captives were sent back under the orders of the Persian king Cyrus, Darius I’s predecessor. When Darius came to power, Zerubbabel was already in Jerusalem serving as governor. He couldn’t have been Darius’s bodyguard.
II Esdras: Chapter 7 of this book says that when Christ returns from heaven with his bride, the church, “After these years shall my son Christ die, and all men that have life. And the world shall be turned into the old silence seven days, like as in the former judgments: so that no man shall remain. And after seven days the world, that yet awaketh not, shall be raised up, and that shall die that is corrupt.”
This is not in agreement with true scripture. Firstly, Jesus has risen never to die again. Secondly, since the dead in Christ shall rise and be caught up with him in the air along with those of us saints that are still alive at the rapture, when we return with Christ to reign with him for 1000 years, there will be men inhabiting the Earth and there will never be a period when “no man shall remain.”
2 Esdras also says in chapter 9, “And every one that shall be saved, and shall be able to escape by his works, and by faith, whereby ye have believed, Shall be preserved from the said perils, and shall see my salvation…” This is clearly a salvation-by-works doctrine which is a false doctrine according to Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Tobit: According to Tobit 12:9 “For alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin. Those that exercise alms and righteousness shall be filled with life.” This is contrary to sound doctrine because Galatians 2:16 says “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
Tobit 6:6-7 also teaches false doctrine–“Then the young man said to the angel, Brother Azarias, to what use is the heart and the liver and the gal of the fish? And he said unto him, Touching the heart and the liver, if a devil or an evil spirit trouble any, we must make a smoke thereof before the man or the woman, and the party shall be no more vexed.” Using fish parts to chase off devils is the use of magic, which is clearly spoken against throughout the Bible.
Judith: This book starts off on the wrong foot by giving erroneous information in Judith 1:1–“In the twelfth year of the reign of Nabuchodonosor, who reigned in Nineve, the great city; in the days of Arphaxad, which reigned over the Medes in Ecbatane.” Nebuchadnezzar was a Chaldean and king of the Babylonian empire who reigned from the city of Babylon. Nineveh was the Assyrian empire’s capital. Nebuchadnezzar was not Assyrian.
Judith’s first chapter also says that Nebuchadnezzar conquered the Medes by taking the city of Ecbatane. This never happened. It was the Medes & Persians who eventually conquered Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson.
Additions to the book of Esther: This book is also filled with historical errors. In 2:4 of this book, Mordecai (Mardocheus) is said to have been taken captive from Jerusalem with king Jehoiachin by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. Jehoiachin was taken captive in 591 B.C. The real book of Esther in the Bible takes place between 483 and 473 B.C. and tells us Mordecai lived during the reign of Ahasuerus (Xerxes), king of Medo Persia. The apocryphal Esther takes place in the second year of Artaxerxes I, which would be 466 B.C. If we do the math, the apocryphal Additions to Esther then would make Mordecai more than 125 years old (591 minus 466). This is highly unlikely that Mordecai lived to be over 125 years old, so the Additions to Esther obviously has the historical timeline messed up.
The Additions to Esther also gets Haman’s (Aman’s) heritage totally wrong. 7:10 of the book claims Haman (Aman) was Macedonian and had Persian blood. The real Esther in 3:1 tells us Haman is an Agagite, not Macedonian, and Agagites were Amalekites.
Wisdom of Solomon: 11:17 tells us “For thy Almighty hand, that made the world of matter without form,” whereas Hebrews 11:3 tells us God made the world out of nothing.
According to Wisdom of Solomon 3:16-19, “As for the children of adulterers, they shall not come to their perfection, and the seed of an unrighteous bed shall be rooted out. For though they live long, yet shall they be nothing regarded: and their last age shall be without honour. Or, if they die quickly, they have no hope, neither comfort in the day of trial. For horrible is the end of the unrighteous generation.” This claim that children of adulterers have no hope of salvation is contrary to Romans 10:13, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach/Sirach/Ecclesiasticus: Sirach 1:22 says “A furious man cannot be justified; for the sway of his fury shall be his destruction.” The true Bible teaches us differently. Some fury can be justified. For instance, when Christ entered the temple and saw the money changers conducting business, he showed extreme anger and kicked them out of the temple because of his righteous zeal for the Lord’s house. The Lord also told us in Matthew 5:22 that he who is angry with his brother without a justifiable cause is in danger of judgment. Additionally, Paul said we can be angry and not sin in Ephesians 4:26.
Sirach also teaches our works atone for our sins. Sirach 3:3 says “Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins.” The true Bible says the Lord Jesus’ death on the cross atones for our sins.
This book also teaches that females originated sin when it says “Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die.” The true Bible tells us “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,” [Romans 5:12]
Baruch: This book begins with historical inaccuracies. It was supposedly written by Baruch, son of Neriah, who is mentioned in the book of Jeremiah several times as one of Jeremiah’s contemporaries. Baruch 1:8-9 claims that Baruch took the vessels that were taken from the temple by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon and returned them to Judah during Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. The true Bible in Ezra 1 tells us these vessels were not returned until the reign of Cyrus 70 years after Judah’s captivity and long after Nebuchadnezzar died.
Letter of Jeremiah: This apocryphal book is also in Baruch 6. It has a glaring historical error–“So when ye be come unto Babylon, ye shall remain there many years, and for a long season, namely, seven generations: and after that I will bring you away peaceably from thence.” But the real Jeremiah clearly stated in Jeremiah 25:11 that Judah would be captive to Babylon only 70 years, and that’s exactly what happened.
Prayer of Azariah/Additions to Daniel: The account of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace in this book contradicts the true account in the true book of Daniel. The Prayer of Azariah says “But the angel of the Lord came down into the oven together with Azarias and his fellows, and smote the flame of the fire out of the oven; And made the midst of the furnace as it had been a moist whistling wind, so that the fire touched them not at all, neither hurt nor troubled them,”[v. 26-27]. Daniel 3:24-27 says that the fire never went out and that Nebuchadnezzar, when he saw four men instead of just the three thrown into the furnace, approached the fiery furnace and called the three Hebrews to come out of the flames.
Susanna (another addition to Daniel): The error of this book was immediately discovered in the language it was written in–Greek. The Jews did not speak Greek until hundreds of years after Daniel’s death.
Bel and the Dragon (another addition to Daniel): Also rejected from true scripture like Susanna since it was written in Greek when it supposedly was written by Daniel, who didn’t speak Greek. The book tells an unbelievable story of how Daniel was thrown in the lion’s den for killing a dragon who the Babylonians worshiped. When the Babylonians found out Daniel killed their dragon, they went to Cyrus king of Persia and said “…Deliver us Daniel, or else we will destroy thee and thine house. Now when the king saw that they pressed him sore, being constrained, he delivered Daniel unto them.” [Bel, v. 29-30]
This story errs on two counts. Firstly, Daniel’s being thrown in the lion’s den in Bel and the dragon contradicts the circumstances of why he was really thrown in the lion’s den in the true Bible. Secondly, this Cyrus king of Persia is the same warrior that destroyed Babylon to conquer the Babylonian empire. No Babylonian would have approached him with threats of destroying him and his house.
I Maccabees: This book is mainly historical, but contradicts 2 Maccabees, which was written at the same time and supposedly by the same writer. In 1 Maccabees 13:31, the Greek general Tryphon is said to have killed Antiochus Epiphanes to reign as king in his place. In 2 Maccabees 1:13-16, Antiochus Epiphanes was killed by priests at the temple in Nanaea. But 2 Maccabees 9 says Antiochus Epiphanes died in the mountains of Ecbatane from an incurable disease of the bowels.
1 Maccabees 1:15 says that some of the male Jews reversed their circumcision. How was that even possible at that time? So obviously the writer couldn’t get his facts straight and this tells us that both 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees can’t be trusted.
II Maccabees: In 2 Maccabees 12:45, it states “And also in that he [Judas Maccabeus] perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.” From this text comes the false teaching of the existence of purgatory.
True scripture from God teaches that reconciliation with God and deliverance from sin can only be made when one is alive. “Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come, [John 8:21]. So if someone dies in their sin, they cannot go to be with Jesus. It is too late for their deliverance from sin. 2 Maccabees preaches a different gospel.
Adding to God’s word
There are several warnings throughout the Bible against false teachings and adding to what God has spoken through his chosen writers. All of the books that exist outside of the 66 books God wants in the Bible have shown how they fall far short of God’s truths and the historical accuracy of the Bible. God does not contradict himself like the apocrypha contradicts God’s doctrines and God’s historical records. So we come to the conclusions that are stated in God’s word about anything written that tries to pass itself off as being on the same level as the Bible–
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. [Proverbs 30:5-6, emphasis mine]
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. [Galatians 1:8-9]
So the apocrypha is truly anathema.
–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–
sunandshield.wordpress.com 
Harry,
It’s been awhile, I’ve been battling calvinists for the last few weeks (not alot of luck, but the gospel was proclaimed) Now to this business at hand, very good post here for the most part. I find it peculiar that kjv onlyist take solace in the fact that the apocrypha was separated from the other books. When I pick up a book I take that book as a whole. So that really is a lame argument. Now I don’t know if you know this but in early copies of the kjv, there are footnotes in other books of the bible referencing the books of the apocrypha, so apparently the translators thought there was quite alot of good material contained in those books. If you are aware of this I’m sure that you’ll have a reason why they referenced them, if you don’t know about it,let me know and I’ll run the information down. By the way I used to be a kjv onlyist myself and came out of it some years ago. I may have already talked about this, but just a recent example. I am now attending a very small Baptist church (about 15 people on Sunday)the pastor is great and loves his kjv, well he happened over to Phil 4:6 to make some point which did tie in nicely with his sermon. But when I got into the car and started home I took my hands off of the steering wheel and told my son that I wasn’t even worried about whether we stayed on the road or not because we had just read in the Word of God “to be careful for nothing” I made my point. Harry your kjv is full of this sort of thing. Now you and I know from having been exposed to the kjv all our lives what many of these things mean, but would my 16 yr old son?
In His Grace,
Greg
LikeLike
You say the kjv translators referenced the apocrypha. How they referenced those books is the real question, if they really referenced them. I haven’t seen an early copy to verify what you’re saying. It could be, for example, that the books were referenced as a contrast to what the real word of God says to point out the errors in the apocrypha. When you read the prophets you will find they include the words of those who opposed them, but just because their words appear doesn’t mean they are words to be embraced. The book of Job is full of the bad advice of his friends whose words on the surface seem to ring true, but it is revealed that their words were inapplicable to Job’s situation and they were indeed “miserable comforters” as Job and God eventually point out. The same can be said of the apocrypha.
You said you take a book as a whole, then why would you misquote Phil. 4:6 to your 16-yr-old? Phil. 4:6, just like all scripture, must be taken in context and compared with other scripture to make sure one has the correct interpretation. The Bible as you said must be taken as a whole which makes your argument against the kjv inauthentic. If you really took the Bible as a whole, it would be obvious the apocrypha doesn’t fit and that the kjv is translated with an unsurpassed excellence and you would have easily corrected the wrong ideas you conveyed to your son as you drove. Since you know the kjv so well, you could have easily used an example like Peter’s imprisonment in Acts where the angel freed him to show that although Peter was careful for nothing, he had to take the actions himself of putting on his clothes and following the angel out of the jail to safety. He also went back to preaching the gospel the next day. So your argument has no merit. When you disciple someone, you do what Paul did when he said “…I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you…”
LikeLike
I looked back at my post and I can not see for the life of me how I misquoted anything, I put an extremely high priority on the precious Word and I never want to misquote it. Now let’s try it again Philipians 4:6 KJV says “Be careful for nothing: but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God” Now let me tell you and anyone else that is looking at this post – the first part of this verse is wrong. The whole bible “in context” teaches us to be very careful about nearly everything in our christian walk, to support a 17th century english translation that teaches otherwise is foolishness. This archaic statement is corrected in most of the new translations. “Be anxious for nothing” is the proper reading and makes sense. The kjv is rife with this sort of thing. Just one more “For the love of money is the root of all evil” this in not true. Most of the new translations have the proper rendering “for the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.”
Now I’ll finish with an open book test for you Harry. Open your kjv to 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 Now are you ready, I want you to read those 3 verses and tell me what they mean w/out referring to any commentaries or newer translations. OK, I’m waiting, finished. Alright, go ahead now and get on the internet and look it up in the NIV, I know you wouldn’t have such a book in your house. Now, read, pretty nice huh, to read the precious Word with understanding, thats what our Lord wants, that’s what translations are for. By the way this may seem like I’m attacking the kjv, I’m not, but you seemed to attack my pointing out the very obvious problems with the Phillipians verse, so I struck back, if you kjv folks would admit to some problems in the kjv you would be taken much more seriously. The kjv is a fine translation, for its time it was very good. There were good english translations before the kjv and there are very good translations after the kjv.
In Christ,
Greg
LikeLike
The meaning of Phil 4:6 is provided in the context of the verse. To “request” means to ask for something, meaning a person lacks something. A supplication is to ask for something to be supplied that one is lacking. This definition is implied in the root of the word “supplication.” And the way the verse is worded, one can tell its a contrast of two ways of things–instead of doing this, do that. So if we are being told to make a request and ask for something to be supplied, then we are also being told not to do the opposite. When one does not make a request when one lacks, worry is the natural thing to do. Therefore, “be careful for nothing” must mean not to worry but pray instead. All of this can be deduced by carefully reading just this one verse.
Here is the context for the “love of money” verse:
But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. [1 Tim. 6:9-10]
So we can deduce that those who desire riches fall into temptations, snares (traps), many (all kinds of) foolish lusts, many (all kinds of) hurtful lusts, and many (all kinds of) sorrows. So the kjv is sufficient in explaining the meaning of the words.
The context of 2 Corinthians is that there were those in the church questioning Paul’s authority and the authority of his associates. He had to defend his apostleship and point out how rampant sin in their congregation negatively affected them spiritually. So his mouth was open to them to speak God’s truth to them in love. His heart was enlarged for them out of the abundant love of Christ he had for them in his heart. The love of Christ he and his associates had for Corinth was not restricted (straitened), but they had restricted the love of Christ deep within themselves (bowels). If they wanted a recompence (reward, godly benefit) in the deepest part of their spirits (bowels), he admonished them in love to enlarge their hearts in the abundant love of Christ as Paul and his associates had done toward them. And I didn’t need a commentary to figure this out. The words in the scripture were sufficient as the Holy Spirit within me gave me the understanding. I also didn’t need another Bible version.
So tell me, are those who have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ in the process of being saved, or are they already saved?–
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. [1 Cor. 1:18, niv]
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. [1 Cor. 1:18, kjv]
Another question–who did Nebuchadnezzar see in the fiery furnace with the three Hebrew men he had thrown into the furnace? The son of God (Jesus) or a son of the gods?–
He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.” [Daniel 3:25, niv]
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. [Daniel 3:25, kjv]
One last question–Are we as Christians supposed to beat our bodies like Muslims, Hindus, and Catholics in their rituals like self-flagellation, or are we to bring our bodies in subjection to God’s will?–
I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. [1 Cor. 9:27, niv]
But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. [1 Cor. 9:27, kjv]
Newer versions of the Bible use manuscripts compiled by Westcott and Hort, who were occultists and steeped in New Age doctrines and their doctrines are placed in the newer versions of the Bible.
LikeLike
Harry,
Your logic is sound, but incomplete. One of the errors of logic is to mislead by omission. You say that the book of I Esdras was “incorrect historically” and thereby rejected. However, you have omitted that the Easter story in the four Gospels differ significantly and by your logic, since they can’t all be correct, then are they “false teachings?” Specifics on the inconsistencies of these four stories can be provided in detail, if necessary.
LikeLike
My logic is sound and complete regarding the apocryphal books. But what isn’t complete or exhaustive are the examples I gave from 1 Esdras and the others on their false doctrines. The historical error was just one example of several. For instance, in the letter Zorobabel wrote to the king in 1 Esdras, there are several doctrinal errors that I didn’t highlight.
As far as the gospels are concerned, there aren’t any significant differences in the “resurrection” accounts. And I stress the term “resurrection” because even if many Christians equate Easter with the day Jesus resurrected this is inaccurate. Easter is a separate, pagan holiday. Jesus resurrected after the Passover celebrations which come before Easter by a couple of weeks on the calendars in use at that time.
Anyway, back to the accounts. What you have are several eyewitnesses who tell the resurrection accounts from their point of view. They just emphasize different details, they aren’t contradictory. Your argument is nothing new. I’ve had people tell me that before and I can refute them if you do choose to go into detail. So, as Pat Benatar used to sing–“hit me with your best shot.”
LikeLike
Harry,
Let’s slow down and cool off abit. I want for you and anyone else reading this post to understand that we agree far more than we disagree, your site here is very good for the most part and you have wonderful, solid, biblical teaching. Oh how I wish that you had more light on the translation issue, and you probably wish I had more. It sounds condescending, but I must say it anyway, I once was where you were. As I read your response there are certain things I wish to respond to but I know I want answer all your questions. So let’s begin.
1 Cor 1:18 – I have no problem with this verse at all. The niv alludes to salvation (at least in this verse) as to being a process of “being saved” I actually kind of like it. I know that I am “saved” I know that I am sealed until the “day of redemption” Paul said these things I write unto that you “know” that you have salvation. And as I sit here typing I know that I am being saved (wonderful)
Now to Daniel 3:25 You spoke earlier about some of Job’s friends getting bad advice and this bad advice being recorded in the precious Word of the Lord. Do you really believe that this wicked king would have recognized the Son of God? I think from his world view and his understanding from the time that this was written that “son of the Gods” is appropriate. Now I threw this out and did not dig deeply into any of the original languages on this and probably will later, but my fingers were itching to get to this post. B
LikeLike
A “process” is a “series of actions or operations conducing to an end.” If one is in the “process” of “being saved”, he or she is taking a series of actions or operations in and of themselves to become saved. Simply put, the term “being saved” is a salvation-by-works doctrine. All of our acts of righteousness are like filthy rags in God’s sight. It is by grace that we are saved through faith. We are not saved by works and we are told this repeatedly throughout the Bible so why do you “kind of like” this wording when it’s false doctrine?
As for Nebuchadnezzar, you seem to have overlooked the fact that several years before the fiery furnace, Nebuchadnezzar had a dream and Daniel was the only one who was able to interpret it for him because God worked through him. At the end of the interpretation, Nebuchadnezzar said, “Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret,” [Dan. 2:47] And even before the dream when Daniel along with Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (Shadrach, Meshach, & Abednego) refused to eat from the king’s menu to stick with their kosher food, they were found to be more fit than all the other eunuchs. Then they were brought before Nebuchadnezzar and served him and communed with him regularly. “And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm,” [Daniel 1:20]. So these young men witnessed to Nebuchadnezzar on a regular basis about Jehovah. He knew about the Son of God by the time he threw Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the furnace. They even witnessed to Nebuchadnezzar about God right before he had them thrown in. Your argument is therefore inaccurate.
LikeLike
Sorry I hit the submit before I was finished. To pick up where I left off. I don’t propose that the niv or other newer translations are perfect, they aren’t, I do believe that they are easier to read and understand, and isn’t that the purpose? And yes I believe that they are vastly more accurate.
1 Cor 9:27 – Of all the folks I have debated this topic with you are the first one to mention this verse, this verse in the newer translations I feel is very unfortunate. I definitely prefer the kjv’s rendering. Now the new versions have their reasons for translating this way but I’m not going into that here.
Now to brothers Wescott and Hort. Never in the history of the world have 2 good men been so lied about and gossipped about, you can apologize to them when you get to heaven. You have consumed the “kool aid” on this one, as Bill O’reilly says. I hope you are not a diciple of Peter Ruckman or Gail Riplinger, oh my please say your not because our conversation will be finsished. Now are these perfect men, no, did they ever do anything foolish or wrong, yes, btw have you? But their great work has advanced the kingdom of God tremendously. Would to God that I would have the rewards that these great men will have in heaven.
Now to one of the strangest things that I find with kjv onlyist. They love to slam catholics and homosexuals. Their precious book which I feel they “idolize” was compiled “the greek” by a catholic priest, that remained a faithful catholic until his dying day, Erasmus. He had about a half dozen manuscripts which he worked from. Harry do you know how many manuscripts modern translators have today to work from? Over 5,000!!!! And then was authorized by what most serious historians say was a homosexual king! Unbelievable! Now I don’t gasp at this, I think it simply shows that God can use anything or anyone to promote the Word of God.
I guess I’ll finish with this. One of the main reasons I’m not a king james man is because my Lord and Saviour wasn’t. Here it comes, another open book test. Please turn to Luke 4:14 and read down to v-20, bear with me I’m going to paraphrase alittle. Jesus went to the synagogue,as was his custom, on the Sabbath day. He stood up to “read” the scroll of Isaih that was handed to him, he unrolled it and started to read. Where He read from was Isaiah 61:1-2, please read both passages, they are not the same are they. Our precious Saviour accepted as the Word of God a copy of Isaiah that the kjv doesn’t record properly, if you’re a kjv man.
Harry stop worshipping a book. Use your kjv until Jesus comes back, just understand that it is a work of man and as such is imperfect. The Lord says that He will write His laws on our hearts. We are to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.
LikeLike
This comment of yours is historically and biblically inaccurate. These are some of the same arguments used over and over by those who want to tear down the true word of God as found in the kjv. God told us that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. King David by the Holy Spirit even said that God’s word was magnified above his name [Psalm 138:2]. So God has made it clear that our very lives depend on his words and his words are of the utmost importance and yet you mock me for upholding its importance by telling me to stop worshipping it. What you’ve spoken in your comments shows that you really don’t honor God’s word as much as you claim. And you further insult God and his word and his saints by claiming the kjv is just a work of man and is imperfect. If it is so imperfect, then one can never really know what the truth is. And if one can never really know the truth is, one can never really know if one is saved or if one even needs salvation. Then the illogical, ungodly conclusion that is reached from your argument is that no god or religion is better than any other.
It says in Proverbs 10 that “in the multitude of words there wanteth not [lacks not] sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.” Thus here you are making comment after comment in your pride to try to win an argument instead of trying to glorify the God of glory and have revealed by your multitude of words how you embrace sin. It’s enough to make me want to weep for you right now.
I do not bow down to any human like Ruckman or Riplinger. I am speaking based on what has been revealed to me by the Lord. My embracing the kjv is based on the tried and true family of inerrant manuscripts that the kjv uses. You are wrong about Westcott and Hort. They were unbelievers and if you read “The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott” and “The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort” you will see how ungodly they were. You get on my case about being a disciple of Ruckman or Riplinger (which I’m not), and yet you follow such ungodly men. That makes you a hypocrite.
And your trying to slam King James himself won’t work either. It was Catholics who tried to assassinate him and Parliament when he had gathered sound, spiritual scholars together to put God’s word in the language of the common people so they could be enlightened. When their assassination plot failed and they were executed, other Catholics who hated him for the same reason decided to assassinate his character by saying he was a homosexual. Only they did this after his death so he wouldn’t be able to address the lies.
And for the record, Erasmus was not a faithful catholic. He hated the papacy. He ate meat on Fridays during Lent, refused to fulfill his duties as a priest, and snubbed roman catholic vigils. What you have bought into is revisionist history. But I will not argue any more with you. You have said your piece and I will not be swayed from what I know to be the truth. You can choose to continue embracing your false doctrines and hardening your heart against God. I have shaken the dust off my sandals and am moving on. You do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God. Any further arguments you have will have to be worked out with someone other than me.
LikeLike
It was KJV bible that my Grandmother gave to me, and it was this bible that I clearly saw in a vision when Jesus or one of his messengers said plainly “This is the word of God” to me last January.
The message wasn’t “go get another version yours isn’t relevant”. It was plain and I heard it and saw it clearly. So I am comfortable in the fact that God would never tell me the wrong version to build my life upon!
LikeLike
Allison,
The kjv is the “Word of God” I’ve never said it wasn’t. However if you were german and didn’t speak english wonder what God would have given you?
Because He Lives,
Greg
LikeLike
I know Allison can speak for herself, but your question is a non-issue since she speaks English. But just to satisfy the curiosity of someone who comes across your question–the Unrevised Luther Version 1545 [Unrevidierten Lutherbibel 1545] would be the German Bible based on the Textus Receptus.
And in your previous comment, you said–“Use your kjv until Jesus comes back, just understand that it is a work of man and as such is imperfect.” By calling the kjv a work of man and imperfect, you are saying it IS NOT the word of God. Psalm 12:6 tells us God’s word is completely pure and perfect–“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” All scripture is given by inspiration of God. He breathed out the words to the writers as found in the Textus Receptus and they wrote down what God told them to write down. You just contradicted yourself. Proof once again that you really don’t know God’s word. You have been tossed about by every wind of doctrine that has come your way in the religious settings you’ve surrounded yourself in.
LikeLike
Harry,
I thought from your last post that I was going to be blocked from speaking here, then I saw Allison’s post and thought I would see if I could still comment.
Let me set the record straight. I love our Lord more than you know. I get up everyday with his Words on my heart. I try to live for Him at all times, and yet I do fail miserably at times. I am saddened that I have upset you with my different opinion about bible translations and I don’t wish to do that. After looking at some of the things I said I realize I could have been more gracious in my comments.
I want to try and clear something from your last post. First a question, was Psalms 12:6 true prior to the printing of the kjv translation? I’m hoping you are going to say yes. Now if you believe that God’s Word in print form existed prior to the printing of the kjv translation and that the Words of the Lord were pure Words prior to the printing of the kjv, I just hope you could see that the pure words of the Lord could be contained in translations other than the kjv translation just as they were prior to the kjv translation.
Another point that I feel you may have misunderstand me on is about the translation of the kjv itself. You said “By calling the kjv a work of man and imperfect, you are saying it is not the Word of God” Now friend you may have deduced that, but I promise you from the bottom of my heart that is simply not the case. The kjv is a wonderful, beautiful translation, just as some that came before it (Wycliffe’s, Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, The Great Bible, The Geneva bible, The Bishop’s Bible) God knows how to get His precious Word to english speaking people. What I want to convey here is that I know that the kjv translation is the Word of God, no doubt about it, but men (translators) put it together from looking at ancient manuscripts. You see in the U.S. many people look at the kjv as the “standard” I submit that the original manuscripts are the standard, for you see we had great translations before the kjv and I believe we have great translations after the kjv.
Let us remember that the whole purpose of any translation, in fact the sole justification for any bible translation is so that those who do not understand the words in the original languages can nevertheless gain access to them through words they do understand in their own languages. With that in mind when I come to a verse like 1 Thessalonians 4:15 “For this we say unto you by the word of the of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not (prevent) them which are asleep” this word (prevent) in our english today means to stop or hinder in 1611 it meant “to precede” a reader in 1611 would have had no problem with this verse, however to the present day reader I’m afraid this could present a problem, it does for me, however in some of the newer translations they replace (prevent) with (precede) Just one more if you’ll allow. Colossians 2:8 “Beware lest any man (spoil) you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” Now Harry to a 17th century reader “spoil” meant “to plunder, or take as plunder” to a modern reader “spoil” brings up images of decay or putrification. Most modern translations fix this.
Thank God for the kjv, I say with full faith that it does contain the Word of God. If you are happy with it and you can understand it, by all means keep on using it and studying it, however please understand it is but one of many english translations, many came before it and many have come after it.
Because He Lives,
Greg
LikeLike
New versions use corrupted manuscripts. Those manuscripts have been shown to have been tampered with–words erased or replaced by men. The Textus Receptus has not been tampered with. But since you’re not willing to do thorough research on this, you–like so many others–have bought into the lies.
God has always used men of God to preserve his word and hand them down. Why? Unbelievers have no reverence for holy things like God’s word. All the writers of the books of the Bible were believers.
Now why would God break away from this pattern and use occultists like Westcott & Hort to compile manuscripts for new Bible versions? The only person(s) I know of who would make us question the version that is 100% accurate and has stood the test of time (and cause us to question the only English version that completely uses the Textus Receptus) is Satan and those under his influence. This would include Westcott & Hort who founded the occultic Ghostly Guild, who sought advice from known wizards, who embraced communism, who called evangelicals “dangerous” and “unsound”, and who stated that Protestants were parenthetical and temporary.
If you read their writings I mentioned in a previous comment, you would know these things. Satan has always attacked God’s word and yet you don’t even stop to think why there was a need, after centuries of English-speaking people being delivered, to change the Bible. And you don’t stop to wonder why churches have weakened spiritually and morally since newer versions have become more popular.
The newer versions are like the apocrypha. They contain enough sayings that repeat what’s in the Bible, but once they reel people in they do a bait & switch to promote false doctrines. New versions are double-minded. They’ll point to Jesus Christ one minute and then point to a different Christ the next. That’s one reason why so many believers tend to be double-minded, why churches are double-minded, denominations are double-minded and your comments are double-minded. Are you aware of what the kjv says about double-mindedness?
And the old meaning of the word “spoil” is still in use today. Haven’t you ever heard the phrase “To the victor go the spoils”? Or the phrase “the spoils of war”?
Please don’t try to back-pedal now when you have already spoken what is really on your heart in your previous comments.
LikeLike
It never fails to astound me how the Lord works.
I am attending Sunday School presently and it seems everyone at my church(I am not an official member yet), uses the New International Bible.
I was actually contemplating rather struggling with whether to purchase one for the sake of Sunday School studies last Sunday. Sometimes people are asked to read passages that we are studying aloud. I always have wondered why so many have gone to these other versions. I don’t find mine too difficult or outdated to understand, yet I do understand there are many levels and degrees of capability of understanding written word in any given individual. I in fact did purchase a New King James version for one of my daughters hoping the simpler text would encourage her biblical journey. But here I come across your article this week!
I will just keep handy my Old King James, and and if asked to read, will explain which Bible version I use.
Funny how in responding to your blog Harry, I seemed to answer my own question.
LikeLike
If you are asked to read, I pray the Lord will provide you at that moment the right words. I feel like I should warn you that some in the group may disapprove of your use of the KJV. But, of course, maybe they won’t mind. I’ve found that some Christians resent it if you use the KJV as if it doesn’t count as being God’s word. People tend to forget that in order to really understand God’s word, the Holy Spirit has to teach us.
I had to stop showing Greg’s further comments. Even after I addressed everything he said and highlighted his lack of understanding of the scriptures he mentioned and on the history of manuscripts used, he attempted to say that newer versions were based on the Nestle-Aland text, not on Westcott & Hort’s text, among other things. However he conveniently failed to mention (or wasn’t aware of) the fact that the Nestle-Aland text was derived directly from Westcott & Hort’s text. As the Lord Jesus Christ told us “Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit,” [Matthew 7:17]. So the Nestle-Aland text of manuscripts derived from Westcott & Hort which were derived from corrupted manuscripts have borne the evil fruit of newer versions.
I may cover all of this in more depth in a separate post.
LikeLike
Harry,
I rather enjoyed this piece as the discussion comes up more often than you would think having come from a Germanic, Catholic family. Some of the points you provided I had not yet been made aware.
Now, to address this rather heated debate between you and Greg:
A friend of mine who is a Greek professor of 10 years and of Hebrew for 8 years has thoroughly answered this question for ME, so I will attempt to convey.
Greg, the NIV, while attempting to be a more readable version, is inherently “numb” to many passages referencing spiritual gifts or activity. Unfortunately, it was translated with a bias.
HOWEVER, if one chooses to be a purist with the Bible, he must read only the Greek and Hebrew texts for it to be revealed to him in his own understanding of the language. One could ultimately argue that even the KJV has only been translated to the best understanding of the original texts by the translator. Simply put they are ALL translations to the best of the translator’s ability. Humans are fallible whether done purposely or by mistake.
For me, I trust the original manuscripts, but I don’t place my trust in simply ONE interpretation or translation alone since I can’t read Hebrew or Greek. At the advice of my bilingual friend, I picked up a comparative bible which includes FOUR of the best known translations in English, one of which is KJV. Immediately, I was able to obtain further understanding by reading each translation until it became known to me.
Generally, I start with the KJV and read the others for reference. Sometimes verses in the KJV can be EASILY misinterpreted if you don’t look at the root Greek or Hebrew from whence it came. Regardless the version, ALWAYS seek the original Greek and Hebrew texts for what the writer was trying to convey. Only then can you be certain that you fully understand.
LikeLike
[HOWEVER, if one chooses to be a purist with the Bible, he must read only the Greek and Hebrew texts for it to be revealed to him in his own understanding of the language.]
CW, I believe this is a popular thought espoused by many in the church today and I respectfully disagree with it. God is ultimately the one responsible for preserving his word and that includes preserving its meaning in whatever language it is translated to from Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Then after it is translated, it can only be understood with the help of the Holy Ghost even if it’s in a person’s native language–“even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. …Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” [1 Corinthians 2:11, 13-14]
[Simply put they are ALL translations to the best of the translator’s ability.]
This isn’t really true. I have a series of posts entitled “war of words” that goes into detail about how translators behind the modern versions go out of their way to mislead so they can inject New Age beliefs into the Bible to make it more palatable to pagan thought with the ultimate goal of moving all religions, including Christianity, to a one-world religion. The KJV translators were among the top scholars of their day, educated in several languages including Greek and Hebrew, and more importantly they were devout God-fearing men who took extreme care with how they translated. The men behind the modern translators were dishonest, crafty, and handled the word of God deceitfully.
[Sometimes verses in the KJV can be EASILY misinterpreted if you don’t look at the root Greek or Hebrew from whence it came. Regardless the version, ALWAYS seek the original Greek and Hebrew texts for what the writer was trying to convey. Only then can you be certain that you fully understand.]
This is another popular opinion in Christendom that may not necessarily be true. It all depends on which Greek and Hebrew texts you’re talking about. And the ones surviving today aren’t the originals and it’s perfectly okay that they’re not the originals since God has preserved his word even in the copies of the originals in the family of manuscripts known as the Textus Receptus (TR), but I explain all of this in my “war of words” posts.
If you study the KJV closely, the only Bible based on the TR, you will find that most of the time it defines within the context the meaning of words that are hard to understand. And it also allows for easy cross-referencing if you have a good concordance or Bible word search software.
LikeLike
Would have never imagined it would all be so complicated!
thank you for your prayers, and I will look forward to hearing more from you on the subject.
LikeLike
No, the Book of Tobit is not accursed. Raphael gave these instructions to Tobias to drive the wicked demon Asmodeus. Raphael is truly an angel from God, he never lied to anyone. I believe that Raphael told the truth. Raphael is also one the 7 angels who stand before God in His presence (Tob. 12:15, Rev. 8:2).
LikeLike
Amanda, you’re mistaken. I pointed out the falsehoods that the book of Tobit teaches above. The word of God, the Bible, is what true godly faith is based on, not the lies & man-made traditions taught in apocryphal books like Tobit. Revelation 8:2 has nothing to do with Tobit 12:15. I would suggest you get over your love for the accursed apocryphal books & the false gospel they teach. God’s word, the Bible, will never pass away. The same cannot be said of the accursed books like Tobit.
LikeLike