• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Changes to the Word of God seen in other Bible Versions

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
16,152
8,568
51
The Wild West
✟823,339.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
There was a time I thought the KJV was the one to go by, but as time went by, and doing more research, I found myself questioning the KJV, and many other translations.

Thing is when doing research concerning the bible, especially the KJV and other versions, if something is missing from other translations after the KJV, then it is most likely because earlier manuscripts were used (compared to the manuscripts used for the KJV), so the question is, if later manuscripts had writings that were not present in earlier manuscripts, where did the extra writings come from?

But over the years I found myself asking more questions concerning the bible and the many translations. I have come across some verses when comparing the KJV, Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch, and I have come across instances where each translation says something totally different.

Well, we can rule out the Samaritan reading straight away because our Lord basically states (at least strongly implies) that they are in error.
 
Upvote 0

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,082
8,298
Frankston
Visit site
✟773,725.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Lutherans accept the deuterocanon, as @MarkRohfrietsch can confirm. Indeed, they have an open canon. And you can’t get any more Protestant than Lutheran.
Fair enough. I don't know that I've read a Lutheran author, only Luther's biography. A remarkable man.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Site Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
31,102
5,922
✟1,033,257.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
OK. I have enough on my plate to study the Protestant canon. I've done a lot of reading. I've not found an author who thought the apocrypha worth a mention. But I read protestant writers, not anglican/catholic/orthodox.
Then you should give Luther a try. If it was not for a paper tax imposed by the British Government, all would still have the Apocrypha. True story. We lost it for a time when the North American Churches transitioned from German to English, and the only translation was the stripped down KJV. Europe retained it.
 
Upvote 0

biblelesson

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2021
1,135
421
67
College Park
✟87,335.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The KJV was released in 1611. King James was not around at that time, ie 2000 years ago.

Thanks for the correction. I corrected this post in an earlier discussion. As I pointed out my mistake then, I meant to say over 400 years.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,780
✟498,964.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Thanks for the correction. I corrected this post in an earlier discussion. As I pointed out my mistake then, I meant to say over 400 years.

I'm confused. Are you saying that King James wasn't around in 1611? If so, that's wrong.
 
Upvote 0

biblelesson

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2021
1,135
421
67
College Park
✟87,335.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm confused. Are you saying that King James wasn't around in 1611? If so, that's wrong.

No, I"m saying in an earlier post I mistakenly said the King James Bible was translated over 2000 years ago, which was a mistake on my part. That was the time-frame Christ was crucified. However, I meant to say the King James bible was translated over 400 years ago. From this year 2021 to year 1611 is 410 years ago. That's what I was trying to correct; it was done over 400 years ago.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,780
✟498,964.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
No, I"m saying in an earlier post I mistakenly said the King James Bible was translated over 2000 years ago, which was a mistake on my part. That was the time-frame Christ was crucified. However, I meant to say the King James bible was translated over 400 years ago. From this year 2021 to year 1611 is 410 years ago. That's what I was trying to correct; it was done over 400 years ago.

Okay, but you wrote that King James was not around at that time, i.e. 2000 years ago. Perhaps you meant to say the King James Bible was translated over 400 years ago but that's not what you wrote earlier.
 
Upvote 0

biblelesson

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2021
1,135
421
67
College Park
✟87,335.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Okay, but you wrote that King James was not around at that time, i.e. 2000 years ago. Perhaps you meant to say the King James Bible was translated over 400 years ago but that's not what you wrote earlier.

This is what I wrote in an earlier post.

I'm not sure of your point, but if I think I understand you are pointing to the changes that were, which contradicts my concern. If that's your point, I have to consider that the KJV was done over 2000 years ago. I definitely was not born then, and I was not in those discussions when King James made the decision to put a committee together. I also believe the word was God inspired by the Holy Spirit. So, who am I, who was born 2000 years after such an important work was accomplished, to question it? I don't know why the apocrypha was not included, and I don't think I have the right to question it.

Thanks for catching it again. I think I need to put a correction in the original post because now I feel silly I made that mistake!
 
Upvote 0

biblelesson

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2021
1,135
421
67
College Park
✟87,335.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The thing is, it wasn't removed until the 1828. The original translators would have been dead at this point. In terms of authority to determine, "it is okay to tear these books out of the bible" would relate to your original question.

Who did they think they were ripping pages out of the bible based on their opinions?

Yet they did, and this translation that's been mangled and changed a bunch, and somehow became the object of an onlyism movement. It's absurd.

I have read where the apocrypha was removed later, and it does address my original question. And you make a good point based on the decision to take it out of the original translations, what gives them the right if all the original translators were dead? But, I don't think that's a justification, or good enough reason to be so accepting of those who have decided, more recently, to translate the KJV into other versions; or to make other translations in addition to.

And as for the apocrypha, I surely don't know much about why it was taken out, but I can say that the few verses I have read, I feel something different about the articulation of the message. It feels foreign, strange, like it does't fit, or it doesn't belong with the rest of the bible. But I don't know.
 
Upvote 0

Athanasius377

Is playing with his Tonka truck.
Site Supporter
Apr 22, 2017
1,385
1,529
Cincinnati
✟802,245.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I am looking forward to when they have to sell their Mother Church in Boston, which is a beautiful building in a Neo Byzantine style; with repainting, would make a splendid Orthodox or Anglican church, as @GreekOrthodox and @Athanasius377 might agree.
I am a sucker for older churches of fine architecture even though I am pretty low in churchmanship.
 
Upvote 0

Athanasius377

Is playing with his Tonka truck.
Site Supporter
Apr 22, 2017
1,385
1,529
Cincinnati
✟802,245.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
That article is just nonsense. Most people who reject the deuterocanonical books have never read them. Wisdom 2 is the most moving prophecy of the humiliation of Christ prior to His crucifixion in the Old Testament. Tobit is basically a typological prototype of the four Gospels.
This and a previous post give one of the more convincing arguments for the inclusion of the OT Apocrypha into the canon. While I don’t believe the apocrypha is canonical I do think it’s a tragedy that it is not included as an option in modern bibles even if it is added as an appendix. Christians of all stripes should read these books because they are useful in understanding in part of intertestmental Judaism. There is a fine edition of the apocrypha with notes put out by LCMS’s Concordia Publishing House in the ESV translation. When I teach catechism we do refer to these books to help explain the subject mentioned prior.

Also for those interested there is a new edition of the Revised Standard Version just released by Schuyler Bible publishers with the Apocrypha. The RSV is the daddy to the ESV and the NRSV.
 
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,120
4,198
Yorktown VA
✟191,432.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
In the orthodox church they definitely sit at a lower level. They're not really used much in church services except for the prayer of Manasseh which is used in the small compline service.
 
Upvote 0

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,082
8,298
Frankston
Visit site
✟773,725.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
I have read where the apocrypha was removed later, and it does address my original question. And you make a good point based on the decision to take it out of the original translations, what gives them the right if all the original translators were dead? But, I don't think that's a justification, or good enough reason to be so accepting of those who have decided, more recently, to translate the KJV into other versions; or to make other translations in addition to.

And as for the apocrypha, I surely don't know much about why it was taken out, but I can say that the few verses I have read, I feel something different about the articulation of the message. It feels foreign, strange, like it does't fit, or it doesn't belong with the rest of the bible. But I don't know.
I agree with you. I've not read the apocrypha and I have no desire to do so. If they were inspired, I'd have the same desire to read them as I do the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,818
29,485
Pacific Northwest
✟826,215.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
You can take almost any book in the Bible, take what it says and it's going to be different from everything else in the Bible. Because each book is markedly distinct, with each author (or authors) providing their own style, their own agenda; each book has its own themes and feel.

The most obvious example I can think of here would be the Revelation of St. John.

Pretend for a moment that someone took the Revelation out of the Bible several centuries ago, and so you've never read it, no one you know has really read it, you haven't been raised or experienced and heard its various themes and style--and then read it. It's weird. It's very much unlike anything else in the New Testament, and one could just as easily argue that its message is not in keeping with the rest of the Bible.

An individual's subjective familiarity and feeling are not the basis for what is or isn't divinely inspired Sacred Scripture.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Shane R
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
16,152
8,568
51
The Wild West
✟823,339.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I agree with you. I've not read the apocrypha and I have no desire to do so. If they were inspired, I'd have the same desire to read them as I do the Bible.

With all due respect, they are inspired. If you would read Wisdom or Sirach or Tobit or Baruch or Esdras, you would see were not talking about wacky Gnostic psuedepigrapha, but real inspired texts. And Psalm 151 is as beautiful as any of the other 150s. Also, the longer versions of Daniel and especially Esther are superior than those in the MT; Esther in the MT and Vulgate is notably lacking in prayer, whereas prayer is central in the Septuagint version. And the Prayer of Manasseh is beautiful.

Finally, St. Jude in his epistle does quote 1 Enoch, which logically means that 1 Enoch is either inspired, or was inspired but the version we have might be corrupt, but in the absence of clarity, it can be read deuterocanonically, which is to say, using Boolean logic to negate any potentially contradictory doctrinal interpretations from it that are contrary to Protocanonical scripture.
 
Upvote 0

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Site Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
31,102
5,922
✟1,033,257.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I agree with you. I've not read the apocrypha and I have no desire to do so. If they were inspired, I'd have the same desire to read them as I do the Bible.
I am very glad that you know better than the Early Church Fathers; I am humbled not only by your presence here, but also to be allowed to post in the same thread considering my heterodoxy and profound ignorance regarding our Historic Scriptures!!.

i-am-not-worthy-not-worthy.gif
 
Upvote 0

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,082
8,298
Frankston
Visit site
✟773,725.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
I am very glad that you know better than the Early Church Fathers; I am humbled not only by your presence here, but also to be allowed to post in the same thread considering my heterodoxy and profound ignorance regarding our Historic Scriptures!!.

i-am-not-worthy-not-worthy.gif
Mock all you like, I'll laugh with you. However, I have the indwelling Holy Spirit to lead and to guide me. If I needed to read the apocrypha, He would tell me.
 
Upvote 0

biblelesson

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2021
1,135
421
67
College Park
✟87,335.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am very glad that you know better than the Early Church Fathers; I am humbled not only by your presence here, but also to be allowed to post in the same thread considering my heterodoxy and profound ignorance regarding our Historic Scriptures!!.

I believe the Apocrypha was taken out of the King James version somewhere in the 1800. So that's about 221 years ago or so, and you and I were not born then, we were not there to give an opinion, we were not privy to the discussions, and we did not participate in the great work of the protestant church that was lead by the Holy Ghost.

Now, the work to remove the Apocrypha was done by the Protestant church. It was the Protestants that also started the reformation in 1517, which was a period of harsh persecution of Godly men who opposed falsehoods, and who opposed the bible not being made available to the people. They are also responsible for the beginnings work of the King James Bible because many bible manuscripts of the reformers were used and incorporated into the work of King James in 1611. So fast forward to the 1800, men from this same protestant belief and movement held true to the beliefs of the early reformers and I can't imagine they did not consider what was appropriate bible material according to what the early reformers believed and died for.

I read a few scriptures of the Apocrypha and was led by the Holy Spirit that there was something wrong. The bible says the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, John 16:13, . Truth is the work of the Holy Spirit.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Aussie Pete
Upvote 0