It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

$40,000 Bible for sale on e-bay... Interesting.

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
www.google.com...

(should be the first link)

or just google 1611 She Bible ebay... (I couldn't post the actual link)

My friend said he was able to look at this at the public library... but it ws locked up in a vault, and he had to where gloves to read it, while being video taped or monitored.

it is the 1611 ORIGINAL AUTHENTIC KING JAMES PULPIT HOLY BIBLE


*Originally, the King James Bible was printed with All 80 Books (including the Apocrypha which was Officially Removed in 1885) Leaving Only 66 Books.


So my question is this... where are the remaning 14 books?

And what is in the 14 books that were left out?



If there are rules about posting items on e-bay... I apologize.



[edit on 19-4-2009 by Doomsday 2029]

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Doomsday 2029]




posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Doomsday 2029
 


Wow, that is quite an expensive book! I was looking on Wikipedia though about John Speed and I don't see where he contributed to this book, you would think it would be mentioned given the importance of it. Great find OP!



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
My friend told me that the books that were left out had a lot to deal with Solomon and demonolgy type of stuff... basically the Occult.

I forget what he told me to google... but I'll ask him tomorrow.



Oh Wait...

I remember... he said google the The Lesser Key Of Solomon and he is trying to claim that some of the information here was taken out of the Bible.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
The missing books are called the Apocrypha, and you can still get Bibles that have it, or get it separately, just the average Bible leaves them out. I think the reason they were left out is that they weren't sure if they were divinely inspired, or that they couldn't find old enough manuscripts to be sure they weren't more modern creations than they claimed to be.

Some of the books were 1st/2nd Maccabees, Bel and the Dragon, the Gospel of Thomas, and a few others whose names I forget. I haven't actually read them, though I've been meaning to, but from what others who have read them tell me, they're really not all that different from the rest of the Bible, and are not connected to the occult.

There is a book called The Lesser Key of Solomon, but it's not part of the Apocrypha or any Bible I've ever seen.

Books of the Apocrypha (differs depending on Bible version)

Lesser Key of Solomon (demonology book)



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   
The auction itself contains a brief summary of the Apocraphyl books:


History of the Apocrypha: The Apocrypha included in this Bible is comprised of the following books: 1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras), 2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras), Tobit, Judith, Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24), Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach), Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy (all part of Vulgate Baruch), Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90), Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13), The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14), Prayer of Manasses, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees. Protestants rejected these books during the Reformation as lacking divine authority. They either excised them completely or placed them in a third section of the Bible. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent, on the other hand, declared in 1546 that the Apocrypha (or "Deuterocanonical" books were indeed divine). Of these books, Tobias, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and Maccabees, remain in the Catholic Bible. First Esdras, Second Esdras, Epistle of Jeremiah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, Prayer of Azariah, and Laodiceans are not today considered part of the Catholic Apocrypha.

Source = ebay auction (not linked here)

Which is a fairly decent summary. Although original sources of these books were not then extant most, those the Catholic Bible retains, has been included in the Septuagint (the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT by 70 Jewish scholars of Alexandria.) The Spetuagint was the edition of the OT most used by the New Testament's authors when those books themselves were written in Greek. St Jerome included these books in his Vulgate translation of the bible which was the generally, though not dogmatically proclaimed until Trent, accepted Canon of Scripture.

There's a good, if lengthy, article on the subject Here



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by DragonsDemesne
 


Strictly speaking, the Apocrypha refers only to Old Testament period books. There really is no New Testament Apocrypha because books written after the close of the first century were rejected because they tended to be written in the names of Apostles--who were all already dead.

reply topost by Doomsday 2029
 




*Originally, the King James Bible was printed with All 80 Books (including the Apocrypha which was Officially Removed in 1885) Leaving Only 66 Books.


At one point, I can't remember when though, the Roman Catholic Church added books to the Bible. These books being the Apocrypha. That is why Protestents don't have them in their Bibles today--Protestants viewed the canon as closed while the Roman Church's canon can change based on what the Pope says from St. Peter's Chair. [If he wanted to, the Pope could make the Koran a part of the Catholic Canon!] Also, the Roman Church, until the 1950s used only Latin Bibles. The translators of the KJV [who were Protestants] did include books like 1 and 2 Maccabees, but they didn't view them as canonical or inspired [which is how the Jews viewed them and many Christians do too, myself included]. They were viewed as important because they told a little of what happened during the Intertestamental Period. When the Roman Church added these books, their status was changed to being inspired and worthy of basing doctrine off of [even if these books contradict other parts of Scripture]. I guess what I'm getting at with all this is, though some books were included initially, that doesn't mean that they were viewed as inspired, and so it's not some big conspiracy when they would be later removed from subsequent publishings.

Also, 1885 is, in the scope of things, not that far gone. If you look through American Church history, which is mainly Protestant, you don't see any mention, from Pastors or Missionaries, about these extra fourteen books--as far as being Biblical. [In other words, you don't read Adoniram Judson preaching from Tobit or the additions to Esther.] Remember too that from 1611 until around 1901, there was only one English version of the Bible in use--the King James Version [1901 being the date that the American Standard Version was published]. So, there would be a skew somewhere if fourteen divinely inspired books were just removed from the Bible--people probably would be in an uproar!

Today, you can still purchase original 1611 editions of the Bible. In fact, there are some Christians who believe that it's the only version that should be used. These Bibles still have the Apocrypha in them as well, right between the Testaments.

I would submit, that the better way to phrase that quoted sentence [I know you're not the one auctioning the Bible, just throwing this out there] would be something like, "Originally, the 1611 edition of the King James Bible contained the Apocrypha, but was removed later during a printing in 1885."

[edit on 4/21/2009 by octotom]



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
At one point, I can't remember when though, the Roman Catholic Church added books to the Bible. These books being the Apocrypha. That is why Protestents don't have them in their Bibles today--Protestants viewed the canon as closed while the Roman Church's canon can change based on what the Pope says from St. Peter's Chair. [If he wanted to, the Pope could make the Koran a part of the Catholic Canon!] Also, the Roman Church, until the 1950s used only Latin Bibles.


I'm afraid you've been misinformed by this source you cannot currently remember.

As referred to above the Apocrypha are those books which were included in the Septuagint but not in the existing Hebrew edition of the "OT". This Septuagint appeared in the 3rd Century BC as the Greek translation of the Hebrew Canon including as well works written after Malachi. The Catholic Church has not added any books to the bible - it is the protestors who excluded them on the theological ground that they were not part of the Hebrew Canon as set by the Jews of Palestine and also for other reasons. Tobit wasn't too popular with an Anglican church founded on infidelity and Maccabees includes prayers for the dead.

The Pope could not declare the Koran as part of the Canon of Scripture. The Dogma of Papal infallibility is not an excuse for innovation or novelty, as stated in its declaration:

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
1st Vatican Council, IV.iv.6

The Canon of Scripture was declared at the Council of Trent on the following grounds:

as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.

Council Of Trent, 4th Session
Again, please note, it's not ever about novelty but about that which is handed on from the Apostles and protected as such since the Apostolic times by the Church under the guidance and protection of the Spirit.

[edit on 21/4/09/ by Supercertari]



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join