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.

 

The King James Curse...?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
As I look through the recent Bibles, I notice two of my favorite books missing from them from the Bible I grew up with. So here's my question for ATS Bible experts...

With the removal of Books like Tobit and Malachi, did the Bible loose some of it's meaning? I mean you wouldn't know about John 3:16 if it was removed from your Bible. WHy would you speculate were these Books removed? Could it be that they painted the "ever forgiving" God in an ill light?



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Jkd Up
 


Thanks for the Thread OP and I will be happy to give you my opinion but by no means is it a professional one, I am just a Bible Student and no more no less.

The King James Authorized Bible has the books is does because of the Textus Receptus (received texts). This is not a Catholic or Roman doing and the council of Nicaea has no bearing in he AKJV. While I own copies of all the other Bibles and other books and some of them appear to be in line with the Bible there are reasons they weren't included.

When the Christians were dispersed under Roman rule and subsequent happenings they took with them copies of their books. When King James put together the Bible he used only the Textus Receptus and discounted the Catholic/Roman Bibles from Alexandrian ONLY texts.

What they essentially did was take copies of the Bible from many parts of the world, and compared them to each other. You may be astonished to learn that no matter the language or culture that they came from and no matter how long they had been separated from the original copies none of them had changed one iota, or they weren't included. When one thinks about this it is really amazing to understand. How did thousands of copies of these books in many different languages from all over the globe show up Identical? One only has to recall the game we played as children of telephone to see how startling and amazing this is. You recall that game? One person says something and they pass it to the next and so on and so on and when it gets to the end of the line it is never like the original. Yet through many many centuries and through translations and transliterations from many many cultures these books didn't differ in any respect. Quite a feat once you think about it really. So this is why the AKJV Bible contains the Books it does and doesn't contain others that may seem appropriate to be included.

I would not discourage anyone from reading anything available and deciding for oneself whether it is valid or not as I read the Apocryphal and Gnostic texts myself.

I hope this help answer your question about why books were or were not included and I hope you see that I am only talking about the Authorized King James Version and no other translation or version. I also hope that everyone would at least read them all and decide for themselves what they think about them, instead of he oft happening that we see of people discrediting or trying to discredit the Bible but have not even read any of it or other texts like the ones you mentioned, Tobit.

A good example of a book that could possibly be included but there weren't enough exact copies would be the book of Macabees. I personally like this book and think it has much good information but again it was not in the received Texts and therefore was left out.

Thumbs up for the topic though and I hope I helped out even a little with your question.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Essentially, when Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic Church, scholars began to question the books of the bible, and decided that some of the books of the old testament didn't belong, although they had been thre for centuries.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Thank you you two! But that is my point...


Man decided that Books of the Bible were not needed. Tobit has to be one of my favorite Books, though I can't eactly tell why. It just seems an attrocity that those original Books have been lost (unless you have one of the older versions).



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jkd Up
Thank you you two! But that is my point...


Man decided that Books of the Bible were not needed. Tobit has to be one of my favorite Books, though I can't eactly tell why. It just seems an attrocity that those original Books have been lost (unless you have one of the older versions).


Man actually decided what books would be in the Bible.

There was no "bible" until about 300 AD. Churches taught from many different sources (or made things up), according to the area's tradition. When the faith formally came together (in the form of the Catholic church), they had a problem deciding which texts should be official, which were official and true practices, what was meaningful, and so forth.

Books that were widely accepted but were felt not to be as good as some of the others were in the Catholic Bible as "non canonical" scriptures. Book of Tobit was one.

The Protestants rewrote the original Latin version of the Bible. It was further changed with various translations (the KJV is not quite the same as the Latin.) Some of the newer translations are more accurate although traditionalist Christians denounce them.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
The history of the canon is quite fascinating. Despite the claims made frequently on these pages about the Council of Nicea and Constantine enjoying a good old book burning as they imposed the canon of Scripture there was no set canon until the Council of Trent. The Church Father's commented on scriptural books and the Church employed them but up until the reformation books came and went (not all of them of course.) The Vulgate, of St Jerome, was accepted as the "canon" de facto if not de jure, but some books were added, like Tobit and Wisdom by Pope Gregory the Great. Jerome used the Septuagent, the 3rd Century BC Alexandrian Greek translation of the hebrew holy books used by the authors of the NT. When one says "added" it's hard to understand that they weren't being added to an as yet declared Canon.

The Reformation required that the Council of Trent set the Canon and was guided in doing so by the tradition of the Church (in which one has to remember they believe/d that the Spirit was constantly present).

The Geneva Bible included the Apocryphal books up until 1599 and the first (1611) print of the KJV also included them. Like Jerome, they were treated seperately from the other books.

Perhaps playing the devil's advocate, but not entirely, one might look at what was ommitted from the Bible by later King James Versions:

Malachi - abuse of divorce

And here is something else you do: you cover the altar of Yahweh with tears, with weeping and wailing, because he now refuses to consider the offering or to accept it from you.
And you ask, "Why?" Because Yahweh stands as witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have broken faith, even though she was your partner and your wife by covenant.
Did he not create a single being, having flesh and the breath of life? And what does this single being seek? God -- given offspring! Have respect for your own life then, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.

Might have been a bit awkward given the recent memory of the Church of England's founder.

Maccabbees - prayers, and offerings, for the dead

Next day, they came to find Judas (since the necessity was by now urgent) to have the bodies of the fallen taken up and laid to rest among their relatives in their ancestral tombs.
But when they found on each of the dead men, under their tunics, objects dedicated to the idols of Jamnia, which the Law prohibits to Jews, it became clear to everyone that this was why these men had lost their lives.
All then blessed the ways of the Lord, the upright judge who brings hidden things to light, and gave themselves to prayer, begging that the sin committed might be completely forgiven. Next, the valiant Judas urged the soldiers to keep themselves free from all sin, having seen with their own eyes the effects of the sin of those who had fallen; after this he took a collection from them individually, amounting to nearly two thousand drachmas, and sent it to Jerusalem to have a sacrifice for sin offered, an action altogether fine and noble, prompted by his belief in the resurrection.
For had he not expected the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead, whereas if he had in view the splendid recompense reserved for those who make a pious end, the thought was holy and devout. Hence, he had this expiatory sacrifice offered for the dead, so that they might be released from their sin.

Obviously with purgatory removed from reformation faiths (in response to the abuse of indulgences) this passage would be unacceptable. The national Church was to be paid for by the State, not to have independent means of financing.

Tobit - Faith and works (almsgiving)

'Prayer with fasting and alms with uprightness are better than riches with iniquity. Better to practise almsgiving than to hoard up gold.
Almsgiving saves from death and purges every kind of sin. Those who give alms have their fill of days

Again, not in line with sola fides.

If you lament their absence know that they are still included in Catholic Bibles - the Jerusalem Bible is a particular favourite of mine and can be found online at www.catholic.org... There is also the New American Bible, which is the English version used on the Vatican website at: www.vatican.va...

Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) is one of my personal favourites. It may interest some as Wisdom is persistently referred to in the feminine form.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
These two books are still used and printed in Catholic Bibles. So with one billion catholics on the face of the earth, you do not need to worry these are lost books, they are still alive and well. And of course they are still part of the Jewish texts-couldn't have Hannukah without it!

Merry Christmas and Shalom!

Whoops I meant Tobit and Macabes. Not sure about Malachi. sorry

[edit on 12/5/2008 by Missing Blue Sky]



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Missing Blue Sky
These two books are still used and printed in Catholic Bibles. So with one billion catholics on the face of the earth, you do not need to worry these are lost books, they are still alive and well. And of course they are still part of the Jewish texts-couldn't have Hannukah without it!

Merry Christmas and Shalom!


They are?!? Wow! I did not know that... But then again... I haven't read the Jewish texts yet
Thank you!



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join