Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

923

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/

The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D. A portion of these books were called deuterocanonical books by some entities, such as the Catholic church.

Many claim the apocrypha should never have been included in the first place, raising doubt about its validity and believing it was not God-inspired (for instance, a reference about magic seems inconsistent with the rest of the Bible: Tobit chapter 6, verses 5-8). Others believe it is valid and that it should never have been removed- that it was considered part of the Bible for nearly 2,000 years before it was recently removed a little more than 100 years ago. Some say it was removed because of not finding the books in the original Hebrew manuscripts. Others claim it wasn't removed by the church, but by printers to cut costs in distributing Bibles in the United States. Both sides tend to cite the same verses that warn against adding or subtracting from the Bible: Revelation 22:18. The word 'apocrypha' means 'hidden.' Fragments of Dead Sea Scrolls dating back to before 70 A.D. contained parts of the apocrypha books in Hebrew, including Sirach and Tobit [source].

Keep this in mind when reading the following apocryphal books. Martin Luther said, "Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read." (King James Version Defended page 98.)

So in theological terms how does the King James Only movement see the Apocrypha? And how do the people here see the Apocrypha?

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ >The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D. A portion of these books were called deuterocanonical books by some entities, such as the Catholic church. >Many claim the apocrypha should never have been included in the first place, raising doubt about its validity and believing it was not God-inspired (for instance, a reference about magic seems inconsistent with the rest of the Bible: Tobit chapter 6, verses 5-8). Others believe it is valid and that it should never have been removed- that it was considered part of the Bible for nearly 2,000 years before it was recently removed a little more than 100 years ago. Some say it was removed because of not finding the books in the original Hebrew manuscripts. Others claim it wasn't removed by the church, but by printers to cut costs in distributing Bibles in the United States. Both sides tend to cite the same verses that warn against adding or subtracting from the Bible: Revelation 22:18. The word 'apocrypha' means 'hidden.' Fragments of Dead Sea Scrolls dating back to before 70 A.D. contained parts of the apocrypha books in Hebrew, including Sirach and Tobit [source]. >Keep this in mind when reading the following apocryphal books. Martin Luther said, "Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read." (King James Version Defended page 98.) So in theological terms how does the King James Only movement see the Apocrypha? And how do the people here see the Apocrypha?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (2).
[–] • 1 pt

The translation of the Apocrapha by the King James appointed translaters was divinely inspired. The books themselves are considered less important than the primary books of the Bible by most Christian scholars -- but not by me. I believe more books should be in the Bible. The Book of Enoch, for example. I've never understood how so important a book could have been excluded by the Jews from their holy books, and also excluded by Christian bishops. I suppose it's because some of the teachings in Enoch are contrary to the dogma that developed among Jewish and Christian biblical scholars. But it's not as if the other books that were included agree with each other on all points (although this assertion is made by Baptists).

Keep in mind that when a book is "inspired by God" that doesn't mean it is perfect, or without error. God may be perfect, but man certainly is not, and there are various degrees of inspiration, and inspiration affects different men in different ways, and the inspired material is colored by human experience of those who are God's prophets.

To me, the King James 1611 is the best choice among English translations for a variety of reasons. But I would not say the translators were infallible, as some assert them to have been. The translation is beautiful, it is astonishingly accurate, and it has been used for four centuries all around the world. It is the standard Christian English text of the Bible against which all others must be measured, and must (in my opinion) fall short. It's about as perfect as a translation can ever be -- but no translation can ever be perfect. For that matter, no original text can ever be perfect, because the prophet who wrote it was a flawed human being.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Thanks for the detailed writeup I'll bear that in mind. Why do you think these books were actually removed in 1885?