How can King James Bible users be literalist when.............?

Question

Alot of KJB users claim Catholics added the Apocrypha to the bible. This is incorrect according to history, even secular history.

382 the first bible was compiled from translations by the early Catholic Church. Jerome who translated the New Testament put a note next to the Apocrypha Books, stating that he did not know if they were inspired scripture, or just Jewish historical writings which accompanied the Old Testament. These books were accepted as part of the Canon of the Bible & were always there.

Contrary to popular belief the bible was available to the public. It was chained to churches as the bible took 3 years to handwrite, there were no printing presses.

With the printing press the Protestant Reformers decided to publish the bible at which time they removed the Apocrypha books. The first bible w/o the Apocrypha came out in 1611.

How can KJB users be literalist when the bible says this is my book do not add or remove from it & it had books were removed?

I posted this because someone stated Catholics caused confusion by adding the apocrypha and changing God's bible. Who caused the confusion and who changes God's bible in the reality of historical fact. Which is what this is historical fact.

But being literalist nothing can be added or taken away that is argument they use about the Catholic bible not being "real" because they claim the Apocrypha was added and negated the entire Catholic bible as a work of God.

This is set by their own standards.

You are not answering the question, Trust me I know theological history. The question is according to their own standards of literalism How can they take the KJB literally.

ben he did not say they we "non-canonical" as Canon literally means what is included in works.....they are Canonical just by being included he said he was not sure if they were inspired there is a difference.

Midnight none of the Old Testament which is what the Apocryoha is apart of is considered Gospel as none of it was proclaimed by Jesus. And this is not what you said in another question.

I am not picking on KJB users, it is perfectly fine to be a KJB user. What I am talking about literalists who dismiss the Catholic bible because of this particular one line and it includes the Apocrypha.

LALA where in here would claim the Catholics changed the bible.........it makes the claim the KJB changed the bible.

ManoGod Christianity did not become the state religion of the Roman EMpire until over 50 years after Constintines death.......it happened under the Emporer Thaddeus......................Does anyone here even know history

Answer 1

I posted a simular question a couple of hours ago, I agree there have been too many hands in the pot you cant say for sure its true on the other hand you cant honestly dispute it either but isnt that the point the bible is so contradictory that you would have to have faith to believe everything it says just to be clear Im not saying it is false but maybe some of these men who wrote or revised it might of had thereown agenda

Answer 2

What you have stated here is historical fact, I will vouch for that. Jerome stated that the Apocryphal books were non-canonical (at least, in his written comments, he stated that he was not clear that they were). To my understanding that is the reason why the Apocryphal books were again removed in 1611. Because it is doubtful that everything they contain is harmonious with the canon of scripture.

However. I believe that it is also true, that when the word of God could have been translated into other languages - printing press or no printing press - the Catholic Church insisted that it remain in Latin, and frankly, the lay people were not well educated and able to read the Bible in Latin. So even though it may have been "made available" by chaining it to the lecturn in the church, it was highly unlikely that the general public could take advantage of it that way. I cannot/will not judge whether the Catholic Church did or did not do well in this, but I will say that there are many other worse crimes that the Catholic Church has committed that it will doubtless be remembered for.

But now that I feel like I understand the question you are trying to ask, I would say that the Bible can be taken literally because it is God's word. I fully recognize that there are errors in translations - including the KJV. That's where one has to roll up their sleeves and do some "sub-surface exploration" in the original texts. By and large, the KJV is not all bad. And although the Apocryphal books are not included in the KJV, I think that it was the correct decision to remove them.

If there is a problem that I personally have with Catholics, and I'm just being honest - not wanting to bash here - my problem with them is that there is so much vain tradition that drapes like a funeral pall over everything that they do, and there is so much in the scriptures - widely accepted as canon in both Catholic and Protestant branches - that are not taught or is barely recognized by the clergy. Sound Biblical doctrine is left out completely it seems, to make room for glaring errors such as praying to Mary, and pergatory, and rosaries, and confessions to an earthly priesthood, wearing of costumes - all of which are nowhere to be found in the Bible or the practices of the first century Apostles, and in many cases, are in direct conflict with scripture. Oh yeah, and the veneration of "saints." According to the Bible, every believer in Christ Jesus is a saint. This is not a status to be awarded by the religious church, post-mortem.

I will give them credit for this however, that they rarely change course at all. They REALLY stick to their guns, so to speak.

Answer 3

They are not inspired therefore they are not Gospel. The Episcopal church has kept the Apocrypha books separate...as a sort of 3rd book of the Bible and this is the way it should be. The Episcopal church also acknowledges that they are were not inspired by God. The Catholic church on the other hand has mixed the Apocrypha books right in with the rest of the Bible which is wrong. I am Independent Fundamental Baptist and we dropped the Apocrypha books out of the KJV Bible because they were not inspired by God and only create confusion to the reader.

Answer 4

And for about a millennium and a half all the Christians were the same church in Western Europe. .. The came the Reformation. And modern Biblical scholars have found many problems with earlier translations of the Bible into English and the KJB is not one of the better translations ... for linguistic accuracy.

Answer 5

oh sweetie, it goes much further than this.. they actually believe the writers of the KJV 1611 were "inspired by God" to translate the Greek, and they made changes like you wouldn't believe. I'll post a few examples for you:

Isaiah 14:12 KJV says "Lucifer"
The Textus Receptus actually says "O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon)

Acts 12:4 KJV says "Easter"
TR -"Passover"(Easter very poor choice as it confuses the pagan origin Roman Catholic "Easter" holy day with what the TR clearly says is the Jewish Passover!)

Acts 2:38; 22:16 KJV says "Baptism" (this is throughout the NT)
TR- immersion, because sprinkling was the mode of baptism in 1611AD, they jelly-fished out and transliterated the reek "baptizo" but refused to translate it.

Lk 18:12 KVJ "Tithes of all I possess"
"all I acquire" (Not only variant with the TR, but quite wrong. Tithes were never paid on capital, only increase)

Gal 3:24 KJV "Schoolmaster"
"attendant" (the law was the one who brought people to Christ, not taught them about Christ)

1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25
KJV- "God save the King":
TR- "May the king live" ("God" not in TR, but reflects the British culture of the 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)

Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14
KJV- "God forbid"
TR-"may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word God where it is absent in the TR because it was a common expression in 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)

Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18
KJV- "sweet savour"
TR- "soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR)

1 Kings 20:38
KJV- "ashes upon his face"
TR- "bandage over his eyes"

Like I said, these are just SOME examples.
The fact that they actually changed an entire book's name to please King James (the book of James.. there is no Hebrew name that translates to James) should tell you that they were not inspired of God, but were doing all they could to placate the king.

They were also instructed to omit anything that went against the Church of England's doctrinal teachings when translating.

It's amazing that people do not research historical facts when choosing to cling to a belief in something.

Answer 6

Actually, a lot of the decisions made about the bible were made at the nicene meetings. Where constantine (Roamn emporer) adopted Christianity as a state religion and incorporated lots of pagan rituals into it (such as christmas). They then debated about the books of the bible. They also added, changed, and removed pieces from the bible.

They were the first 'Roman Catholics'. Sad but true.

Answer 7

As someone else has said, the "do not add or remove" phrase is from one book - the book of Revelation.

And to say that the bible was available to the public, only chained to the church pulpit is a bit ridiculous.

And why are you picking on King James Bible lovers? you think they are the only ones who take the Scripture seriously?

god bless

Answer 8

I grew up interpreting the King James version and that i've got the recent King James version (alongside with 20 different variations) in my library. My typical remark on lots of the recent Bible variations that attempt to revise the King James version -- the recent King James version, the recent Revised version, the recent American frequent version, the Revised English Bible, etc. -- is that their chief characteristic is removing God's very own call from his very own e book. i've got no longer truly got here across lots of magnitude interior the variations reported above, different than for that: the elimination of God's call. and then I could desire to ask, If God placed it there, by utilising what authority does guy get rid of it? thankfully, no longer all Bibles are turning out to be rid of the call. yet you are able to desire to go previous the favored ones, or a minimum of those pushed by utilising non secular bookstores, to locate a very solid Bible.

Answer 9

It is my understanding that the Apocrypha are not congruent with the other books of Holy Writ.... they are stories, etc., but not considered pointing directly to the coming of Christ (as are the Books of the OT) or balancing the New Testament.

I'm not quite sure about your final question....

Answer 10

OK. I'm a literalist.
The actual quote about adding or subtracting the words of the scriptures is found in Revelation 22:18,19.

And there it says, "...of the words of the book of this prophecy..."

The consequences of deleting and adding are confined (literally) to "the book of this prophecy", the Book of Revelation.