Which Bible version should I read?

aleshanee said:
that is beautiful........ also huge....... certainly not intended for daily carry to and from class.......  :)

lol  :) :) :)

No, oh course not. It was made especially for the pulpits of all the churches of England.

This is the standard Bible of all the KJV editions ever produced and is the one to use for comparison of all the others ever produced.
 
bgwilkinson said:
Bo said:
I prefer KJV 1611

So, this is what you read?

This is my favorite edition and the standard of the version.

image_jpeg.pl


image_jpeg.pl


image_jpeg.pl


image_jpeg.pl


http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1
yes.....and I love it....ill read the KJV also where you find the "whosoever" instead of "whosoeuer"   

I don't read the apocrypha.........it was questioned at the time for not being inspired scripture....

*bracing myself for the certain beating im about to receive for not supporting the apocrypha....*
 
Bo said:
I don't read the apocrypha.........it was questioned at the time for not being inspired scripture....

*bracing myself for the certain beating im about to receive for not supporting the apocrypha....*

I won't beat you for it, but I do prefer bibles that include it.                                                                                                                                                                                             
 
Bo said:
bgwilkinson said:
Bo said:
I prefer KJV 1611

So, this is what you read?

This is my favorite edition and the standard of the version.

image_jpeg.pl


image_jpeg.pl


image_jpeg.pl


image_jpeg.pl


http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1
yes.....and I love it....ill read the KJV also where you find the "whosoever" instead of "whosoeuer"   

I don't read the apocrypha.........it was questioned at the time for not being inspired scripture....

*bracing myself for the certain beating im about to receive for not supporting the apocrypha....*

Ah, Apocrypha, it was included in nearly all Christian Bibles up until the 1800s when the British and American Bible Societies begin distributing Bibles world wide. They wanted to save the most money on making and distributing Bibles so they came up with a plan.

They would strip out all that was deemed unnecessarily which included all prefatory materials, all translators notes, which the translators said were a part of the translation, as well as the books deemed non-canonical. This gave them a much smaller size and great monitory savings.

As they gave the Bibles away free of charge who was going to complain? The people that normally would get them would be new Christians that would not be the wiser, however the Church of England was wiser and still required complete KJV Bibles with Apocrypha as the original.

For thousands of years the Bible included the Apocrypha and has only been missing since about 1800 in some Bibles.

The Greek Orthodox as well as the Roman Catholics still include it as part of their Bibles.



 
I know it....but nowhere else in the Bible does it reference the Apocrypha and even more so Jesus never spoke of it....(unless of course you count what He said of false doctrines as I do)

it also was not even ever really made PART of the bible being that it wasn't.....I reckon u could say "sewn" into it...?  there was never a book of it here....and then book of it there...it was just dropped in between the old and new testament

and even the ones who put it in said it wasn't inspired......so I really don't even understand why it was put in there to begin with....but it was

but that's just my reasons for not accepting it as scripture.......I reckon it could be left to a matte of personal opinion
 
aleshanee said:
bgwilkinson said:
Ah, Apocrypha, it was included in nearly all Christian Bibles up until the 1800s when the British and American Bible Societies begin distributing Bibles world wide. They wanted to save the most money on making and distributing Bibles so they came up with a plan.

They would strip out all that was deemed unnecessarily which included all prefatory materials, all translators notes, which the translators said were a part of the translation, as well as the books deemed non-canonical. This gave them a much smaller size and great monitory savings.

As they gave the Bibles away free of charge who was going to complain? The people that normally would get them would be new Christians that would not be the wiser, however the Church of England was wiser and still required complete KJV Bibles with Apocrypha as the original.

For thousands of years the Bible included the Apocrypha and has only been missing since about 1800 in some Bibles.

The Greek Orthodox as well as the Roman Catholics still include it as part of their Bibles.

ahh... the apocrypha.... aaaahhhhhhhhhh!

[youtube]ZNLNeHySon0[/youtube]

sorry........ couldn;t resist.... :P ..... your post reminded me of it....  8)

btw... wasn;t the book of enoch quoted by both Jesus and jude in the new testament?..... and didn;t a few of the apostles refer to it as well?......... yet...not only was it never canonized but it also was not included in the 1611 king james.....  :-\

Well you got Jude 9


Yet Michael the archangel,.... By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ; as appears from his name Michael, which signifies, "who is as God": and who is as God, or like unto him, but the Son of God, who is equal with God? and from his character as the archangel, or Prince of angels, for Christ is the head of all principality and power; and from what is elsewhere said of Michael, as that he is the great Prince, and on the side of the people of God, and to have angels under him, and at his command, Dan 10:21. So Philo the Jew (o) calls the most ancient Word, firstborn of God, the archangel; Uriel is called the archangel in this passage from the Apocrypha:

"And unto these things Uriel the archangel gave them answer, and said, Even when the number of seeds is filled in you: for he hath weighed the world in the balance.'' (2 Esdras 4:36)

Then there is this Jude 14

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam,.... This was Enoch the son of Jared; his name signifies one "instructed", or "trained up"; as he doubtless was by his father, in the true religion, in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and was one that had much communion with God; he walked with him, and was translated by him, body and soul, to heaven, and did not see death; Gen 5:18; he is said to be "the seventh from Adam"; not the seventh man from him that was born into the world, for there were no doubt thousands born before him; but he was, as the Jews express it (f), ??? ?????, "the seventh generation" from him; and they have an observation (g), that all sevenths are always beloved by God; the seventh in lands, and the seventh in generations; Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, as it is written, Gen 5:24; and this is said partly to distinguish him from others of the same name, and particularly from Enoch the son of Cain, the third: from Adam in his line, as this was the seventh from Adam in the line of Seth; and partly to observe the antiquity of the following prophecy of his: for it is said, he

prophesied of these; of these false teachers, and such as they; what would be their sad state and condition at the second coming of Christ to judgment: that he had a spirit of prophecy is evident from the name he gave to his son Methuselah, which signifies, "when he dies is the emission", or the sending out of the waters of the flood, which came to pass the very year he did die. The Arabic writers (h) call him Edris the prophet; and the Jews say (i), that he was in a higher degree than Moses or Elias; they also call (k) him Metatron, the great scribe, a name which they sometimes give to the angel that went before the children of Israel in the wilderness, and which seems to belong to the Messiah: that Enoch wrote a prophecy, and left it behind him in writing, does not appear from hence, or elsewhere; the Jews, in some of their writings, do cite and make mention of the book of Enoch; and there is a fragment now which bears his name, but is a spurious piece, and has nothing like this prophecy in it; wherefore Jude took this not from a book called the "Apocalypse of Enoch", but from tradition; this prophecy being handed down from age to age; and was in full credit with the Jews, and therefore the apostle very appropriately produces it; or rather he had it by divine inspiration, and is as follows:

saying, behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints; by the "Lord" is meant the Lord Jesus Christ, who is ordained the Judge of quick and dead, and for which he is richly qualified, being omniscient and omnipotent, and faithful and righteous, and who will certainly come again to judge the world in righteousness; for not of his first coming, which was not to judge and condemn, but to seek and save, but of his second coming at the last day is this to be understood; and this is expressed in the present tense, "cometh", in the manner of the prophets, who speak of things future as if they already were, as Isaiah does of the incarnation, sufferings, and death of Christ, and to awaken the attention of persons to it, as if it was near at hand, as also to signify the certainty of it: and when he comes, he will be attended "with ten thousand of his saints": meaning either the souls of glorified saints, even all of them, 1Th 3:13, which will come with Christ, and meet the living ones, and be reunited to their own bodies, which will then be raised; or else the holy angels, as in Deu 33:2; and so some copies and the Arabic version read; which will be both for the showing forth of his glory and majesty, and for service in gathering his elect together, as well as for terror to the wicked; and a "behold" is prefixed to all this, to denote the certainty of Christ's coming, and the importance and wonderfulness of it: the ends of his coming follow,

(f) Juchasin, fol. 5. 2. Ganz. Tzemach David, par. 1. fol. 5. 1. (g) Vajikra Rabba, sect. 29. fol. 170. 1. (h) Elmacinus, p. 10. apud Hottinger. Smegma Orient. p. 240. (i) Shalshelet Hakabala, fol. 1, 2. (k) Targum Jon. in Gen. v. 24. Tosephot in T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 16. 2. Juchasin, fol. 5. 2.


These are two possible references to Apocryphal books but are not as clear as others like Isa 7:14.
 
ive never seen any "for it is written : SOMETHING OR ANOTHER" from the Apocrypha.......and the fact that it was never chronologically incorporated into the bible and just stuck in between undisputed inspired doctrine just throws up red flags for me
 
aleshanee said:
btw... wasn;t the book of enoch quoted by both Jesus and jude in the new testament?..... and didn;t a few of the apostles refer to it as well?......... yet...not only was it never canonized but it also was not included in the 1611 king james.....  :-\

The book of Enoch is part of the Pseudepigrapha, not the Apocrypha. That's a different class of nojn-canonical books, written under pseudonyms of prominent figures. Unlike the Apocrypha, they have never been accepted as canonical or even of secondary significance.
 
Back
Top