The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible

Handsonapologetics ^ | Gary Michuta

[boatbums]

How then do you rationalize using "History and Science" to reject of the Book of Tobit?

This is another site that specifically disputes Tobit and says why http://www.jashow.org/Articles/apologetics/AP0704W2.htm:

Tobit… contains certain historical and geographical errors such as the assumption that Sennacherib was the son of Shalmaneser (1:15) instead of Sargon II, and that Nineveh was captured by Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus (14:5) instead of by Nabopolassar and Cyaxares…. Judith…. fits readily into the time of the Maccabean uprising (2nd century B.C.), but cannot possibly be historical because of the glaring errors it contains. Thus Nebuchadnezzar was given an impossibly long reign, as was the ruler of Media, while the Assyrians and Babylonians were hopelessly confused and the armies were made to perform impossible feats of mobility…. [In 2 Maccabees] There are also numerous disarrangements and discrepancies in chronological, historical, and numerical matters in the book, reflecting ignorance or confusion on the part of the epitomist, his sources or both.3

[smvoice]

Malachi is the last Book of the Old Testament. God clearly says what He is going to do. "Behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: And the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in, he shall come saith the Lord of hosts." Malachi 3:1.

The New Testament begins with the book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. THE MESSENGER OF THE COVENANT. Chapter 1. Chapter 3 speaks of God sending the MESSENGER TO PREPARE THE WAY BEFORE CHRIST. John the Baptist.

The LAST thing God reveals in the OT is the FIRST thing God reveals in the NT.

So tell me please, what is the point of the Apocrypha? It is NOT a continuation of God's Word. Matthew is a continuation of God's Word from Malachi.

In what sense is the Apocrypha useful to God's Word? It is not about any transition, or any things God is doing while Israel is awaiting their Messiah. He simply states in Malachi that He is coming to fulfill the covenant, that He is sending a messenger to prepare the way, and then silence from Him. Until Christ and His messenger, John, appear. Case closed.

[Natural Law]

"This is another site that specifically disputes Tobit..."

Look, I am making sport of hypocrisy because of the seemingly arbitrary nature of your arguments. I know that the essence of Scripture is more important than the punctuation. Since I recognize Tobit to be Scripture AND accept the argument that Scripture cannot be errant. Therefore, either science and history are as wrong with respect to Tobit as they are to Judith, Chronicles, Kings and other books, or we have to disregard significant portions of Scripture.

[D-fendr]

I think your problem is trying to maintain a logical train of thought on these threads.

:)

[CynicalBear]

>> Why on earth would I look first to the Far Eastern Bible College to "begin" my education?<<

I actually didn’t think you would. You see, your previous statement of “nearly identical inconsistencies in other books” would have been totally debunked by what you would have read and learned. I totally expected you not to go and learn that your contention that there are “inconsistencies” in other books of scripture is wrong.

BTW Your belief that the Catholic Church preserved the scriptures and then tell us that there are “inconsistencies” is rather contradictory to your belief in the inerrancy of the CC isn’t it? What’s the good of an “authority” if by your own admission it brings us “inconsistencies”? It’s apparent to me that the CC perpetuates error by your own admission.

[smvoice]

Regarding the Apocrypha:

I found this interesting information in Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, page 511, column 1, point 9.

There are 12 reasons listed why the Apocryphal books are considered uninspired. Number 9 is where I'll start, because it seems the most interesting part of this discussion.

9. The Apocryphal books were NOT a part of the ancient versions of Scripture. They were FIRST ADDED AFTER 300 AD. The Laodicean Council in 363 AD rejected them as being UNINSPIRED, thus PROVING that by that time some were claiming INSPIRATION for them. (They FIRST APPEARED in the VATICAN VERSION of the 4th century. At the Council of Trent in 1546 AD, Catholics accepted 6 of these books as inspired and added them to their MODERN VERSIONS of Scripture. They are: Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees).

1546 AD. REALLY?

Now who on the RCC "Logic Train" will tell us if this correct?

[CynicalBear]

One wonders what other beliefs the CC adapted that needed the support of the books previously declared uninspired doesn’t it?

[smvoice]

It certainly does..some of it comes out in dribs and drabs, but it would be so refreshing if the truth were spoken AT THE FIRST, instead of being forced to cough it up..If you believe it, be proud of it, shout it from the rooftops, post it so everyone can know and not have to guess..or go on a search for the real truth of what they believe and teach.

[Natural Law]

"It’s apparent to me that the CC perpetuates error by your own admission."

The only thing I am admitting is bewilderment at a line of reasoning that begs others to accept as authoritative an obscure Singapore based source selected only because it corroborates your premise. As I have often said; the genius of the internet is that if one searches long enough one can always find and expert that agrees.

[D-fendr]

I found this interesting information in Dake's Annotated Reference Bible..

Is there some kind of standard for acceptance as authoritative? I'm seriously curious. I have no idea about this source; I'm wondering if you do or how you determine authority. Is it up to everyone to be their own authority on what is an authoritative source?

[D-fendr]

The reason for asking, the example here, is your question: "Now who on the RCC "Logic Train" will tell us if this correct?"

Wouldn't it be incumbent on you to check yourself first? Perhaps before posting?

[Natural Law]

"Is there some kind of standard for acceptance as authoritative?"

The Holy Spirit gave us the teaching authority of the Church and with it the Magisterium. Absent that you have the Googlesterium which I suppose has a certain appeal. If you look long enough you can always find an expert that agrees with your premise.

[boatbums]

It all comes down to authority again, doesn't it. I have 2,000 years of continuity directly from the human authors. You don't.

It certainly DOES come down to authority, but this "2000 years of continuity directly from the human authors" is as bogus as a football bat. Only the Holy Scriptures, the BIBLE, is the reliable and unchanged authority given to us by God himself. Anything presumed to be handed down verbally, or even in written form, that is not from the Bible is open to question as well as fallible human interference. We can trust in the Holy Scriptures because they ARE the divinely inspired words of God and, as such, are reliable and authoritative because the Word of God will never fail.

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. Matthew 24:35

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Luke 16:17

The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever. Isaiah 40:8

[boatbums]

So tell me please, what is the point of the Apocrypha?

I think I know the answer to that. Again, from http://www.jashow.org/Articles/apologetics/AP0704W2.htm:

How did the Council of Trent ever declare the Apocrypha was Scripture in the first place? Much in the same way Vatican I decreed papal infallibility: expediency.

Theologian Dr. Bernard Ramm observes that, "The story as to how the Apocrypha achieved [the] status of inspired Scripture at the Council of Trent is one of the saddest commentaries on improper scholarship in the history of Western culture."5

Biblical scholar R. Laird Harris observes that for 1,500 years no Roman Catholic was called upon to believe the Apocrypha was scriptural—until the Council of Trent made its fateful decree. He agrees the Council adopted its position "for reasons of expediency rather than evidence."6 Thus, the Council was "unmindful of evidence, of former popes and scholars, of the Fathers of the church and the witness of Christ and the apostles" in making its pronouncement.7

Dr. Rene Pache points out that a key reason for Trent’s decision was to respond to the arguments of the Protestant Reformers who were attempting to defend the principle of sola scriptura—that the Bible alone was the final authority for matters of faith and practice, not church tradition. Thus, Trent found in the Apocrypha a justification for unbiblical Catholic traditions that were rejected by the Reformers.

Why, then, did Rome take so new and daring a position? Because, confronted by the Reformers, she lacked arguments to justify her unscriptural deviations. She declared that the Apocryphal books supported such doctrines as prayers for the dead (II Macc. 12:44); the expiatory sacrifice (eventually to become the Mass, II Macc. 12:39-46); alms giving with expiatory value, also leading to deliverance from death (Tobit 12:9; 4:10); invocation and intercession of the saints (II Macc. 15:14; Bar. 3:4); the worship of angels (Tobit 12:12); purgatory; and the redemption of souls after death (II Macc. 12:42, 46).8

Thus, a strong case can be made that the reason the Council of Trent declared the Apocrypha canonical was simply as a polemical maneuver to support Roman Catholic belief against the Protestant Reformation. To illustrate, two main doctrines in dispute during the Reformation, both supported by the Apocrypha, include salvation by faith/works (Tobit 12:9) and prayers for the dead (2 Macc. 12:45-46). Concerning these doctrines, the Catholic Church claims that they are scriptural because they are canonical (i.e., apocryphal). For example, concerning prayers for the dead in 2 Maccabees 12:39-36, we find the practice of postmortem intercession where the living are able to make "propitiation for the dead,"9 allegedly loosing them from the consequences of their sins and thus undergirding the Catholic doctrine of indulgences and prayers for the dead in purgatory:

…the troops of Judas went… to pick up the corpses of the slain… they discovered under the shirts of every one of the dead men amulets of the idols of Jamnia—a practice forbidden the Jews by law. All saw at once that this was why they had perished [by the Lord’s judgment] and… all betook themselves to supplication, beseeching that the sin committed might be wholly blotted out… [Judah] collected from them, man by man, the sum of two thousand drachmas of silver, which he forwarded to Jerusalem for a sin-offering. In this he acted quite rightly and properly…. Hence he made propitiation for the dead that they might be released from their sin.10

Notice however that these verses 1) do not even mention purgatory and 2) actually reject the Catholic doctrine of purgatory by teaching that deliverance of soldiers who had died in the mortal, and hence unforgivable, sin of idolatry. Regardless,

The acceptance of the Apocrypha at the Council of Trent is suspect because: ...it was used against Luther in support of the Roman Catholic position…. [Further] Not all of the Apocrypha was accepted. Only 11 of the 14 books were and one of those admitted books (2 Esdras) is against prayers for the dead….11

We emphasize once again! Material that is either contradictory, legendary or heretical can hardly be accorded canonical status. The canonical books clearly oppose salvation by works (Galatians chs. 2 & 3) and praying for the dead (Hebrews 9:27; 2 Samuel 12:19; Luke 16:25-26). Stories such as those found in "Bel and the Dragon" are clearly legendary and therefore unauthentic as are the "Additions to Esther," "Prayer of Azriah," "Tobit," "Susanna and Judith." At other places the teaching of the Apocrypha is even immoral, e.g., where Judith was allegedly assisted by God in an immoral action (Judith 9:10-13). Both "Wisdom" and "Ecclesiasticus" teach morality based on expedience. Again, there are numerous errors in the Apocrypha. William H. Green concisely observes: "The books of ‘Tobit’ and ‘Judith’ abound in geographical, chronological, and historical mistakes, so as not only to vitiate the truth of the narratives they contain, but to make it doubtful whether they even rest upon a basis of fact."12 This probably explains why "Many of the great Fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha, for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius."13

[Natural Law]

"We can trust in the Holy Scriptures because they ARE the divinely inspired words of God and, as such, are reliable and authoritative because the Word of God will never fail."

Quid est veritas? The Church teaches and Catholics believe that Scripture is a significant part of the Revealed Word but is not 100% of the Revealed Word. No amount of arguing in this forum is going to change Catholic teaching or any educated Catholic's beliefs. I do not hope to change your views either.

Jesus spent three years preparing the 12 Apostles for their ministry. During that time he gave no written assignments or notes. Jesus wrote nothing down. The only reference to him writing anything was in the sand. Jesus then commanded the Apostles to go and preach the Word. He did not give them a book, training materials or written instructions. They took with them the Tradition. It was entirely oral and remained so for the hundreds of years it took to produce the Bible.

Even after the Bible was created there were hundreds of years in which there were very few capable of actually reading it so Christianity remained a Traditional faith.

There are hundreds of versions of the bible and many thousands of interpretations of the so-called simple, plain, clear, self-explanitory and self-interpreting writings. In this context you would have me accept that the millions of interpreters. You can keep the all of that with the added complexity of the many millions of farm hands and milk maids all clammering about what it the Truth. I am content with my Bible, my Church and the Magisterium.

[boatbums]

either science and history are as wrong with respect to Tobit as they are to Judith, Chronicles, Kings and other books, or we have to disregard significant portions of Scripture.

I get the point you are trying to express but there is no "seemingly arbitrary" nature to our arguments. Plain and simple, the books added to the Old Testament that were NEVER considered canonical by either the Jews NOR the early Christians have quite understandable reasons for being excluded from that Holy consideration. I think to be consistent with what has ALWAYS been regarded as divinely-inspired Holy Scripture, certain "IN-significant portions" of wrongly accounted Scripture SHOULD be disregarded as such. No one's saying you cannot READ them and glean whatever edification you can from them, just accept that they are NOT in the same league as the other canonical books and, because of that, they are not reliable for instructions on doctrine. Now, wasn't that easy? ;o)

[D-fendr]

Googlesterium

Rudderless. Each individual on their own. I think you have to ignore the Church in Holy Scripture to get to this.

[boatbums]

BTW Your belief that the Catholic Church preserved the scriptures and then tell us that there are “inconsistencies” is rather contradictory to your belief in the inerrancy of the CC isn’t it? What’s the good of an “authority” if by your own admission it brings us “inconsistencies”? It’s apparent to me that the CC perpetuates error by your own admission.

That is a VERY salient point! If the intent of Biblical scribes, translators and copiers was to have presented as "clean" and "error-free" product as they could, then why DID they leave in these presumed errors? Your link explains that quite well:

The two passages in question are accurate English translations of the Masoretic Hebrew text—all the extant Hebrew manuscripts say the same thing! This is not some supposed “poor translation” by the translators of the Authorised, King James Version. Why, those men would run rings around 20th century scholarship—and do you not think they would have had enough sense to “patch up” such a glaring inconsistency if they really believed it was an error? (This perplexing question is actually a wonderful demonstration of the honesty of the translators of the Authorised, King James Version.)

It is to the credit of those who have passed down the Bible to us in our own langauges - those that actually DID - that they preserved the word of God as it was written and trusted the author to mean what he said and say what he meant. I trust the Bible because it is trustworthy.

[boatbums]

Is there some kind of standard for acceptance as authoritative? I'm seriously curious. I have no idea about this source; I'm wondering if you do or how you determine authority. Is it up to everyone to be their own authority on what is an authoritative source?

If you noticed, the words from the source spoke of historical AND verifiable facts concerning these books. Rather than throw up the smokescreen of "who is your source" and "how do I know they are authoritative", why not simply verify if what they said actually happened? I realize that this is the "go to" argument when the facts cannot be refuted, but don't you think we are all wise to that by now? Obviously, whatever source "we" quote will be unacceptable to "you" and, though it is a convenient subterfuge tactic, it can only work for so long. Y'all have started a dialog, a conversation, where you have criticized others who do not hold to the same viewpoint as you about the contents of the Bible. Why not refute the facts as they are presented? Reverting to the "Is it up to everyone to be their own authority on what is an authoritative source?" canard is more than a little insulting at this stage. Don't you think?

[boatbums]

Jesus spent three years preparing the 12 Apostles for their ministry. During that time he gave no written assignments or notes. Jesus wrote nothing down. The only reference to him writing anything was in the sand. Jesus then commanded the Apostles to go and preach the Word. He did not give them a book, training materials or written instructions. They took with them the Tradition. It was entirely oral and remained so for the hundreds of years it took to produce the Bible.

I was born, but not yesterday! Have you forgotten that Jesus DID tell the disciples that the Holy Spirit would come to them and would "bring back to your remembrance all the things I have taught you"? Do you think that the Apostles just might have realized that Jesus was not coming back in their shortening lifetimes and that they need to write down what he taught? Have you forgotten that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James and Jude wrote down the additional revelation given to them by the Holy Spirit so that these truths could be disseminated throughout the Christian world? Now who do you think gave them the idea to do that?

Your contention that "It was entirely oral and remained so for the hundreds of years it took to produce the Bible" is patently FALSE and I am kinda surprised you said that. An "educated" Catholic would certainly, or SHOULD certainly, know that as the epistles were written they were copied and sent out. Just because there was not a "formal" collection of these books called THE BIBLE, doesn't mean they were not accorded the same exact respect and obedience afforded to "oral" teachings from these same leaders of the early church.

I have no illusions of "changing" your mind, but I will stand up for the truth of the Gospel and the authority of the Holy Scriptures regardless. There are souls you nor I may never know about who are won to the Lord through these exchanges and I hold this possibility in mind with everything I say.

For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (Hebrews 4:12-13)