This
has turned out to be a blogpost that I never intended to write. My intent was to dispel the misconception
propagated by Catholics that no Protestant canons ever included the disputed
apocrypha by presenting a source link to a King James Bible as it was
originally published as the King James Bible is a translation produced by
Protestants and which originally, like the Catholic and Orthodox canons,
contained the apocrypha but I wanted to find an edition that would be easy for
those who wanted to see for themselves to read and in my search I came across a
reprint of the King James Bible by Oxford Classics, just as it was originally
translated and compiled upon its publication with the apocrypha contained, but
it turned out to be a trojan horse and what I mean by it being a trojan horse
was that its compilers and reproducers, Robert Carroll and Stephen Prickett, in
their preface, introduction, and explanatory notes, intended to sow doubt into
the minds of their readers concerning the divine inspiration of the Bible.
Far
too often readers of scripture will render the text in accordance to
commentaries or commentator notes rather than allowing the text to speak for
itself and when commentaries and commentator notes err in matters of doctrine,
so will undiscerning readers also be made to err in their rendering of
scripture.
It
must be remembered that commentaries and commentator notes themselves do not
possess divine inspiration, but only the text of scripture itself is a product
of divine inspiration. Commentaries and
commentator notes simply reflect the manner in which the writers thereof render
the scriptures on which they are commenting and no matter what credentials the
commentators may hold or what level of expertise they may possess, they are
just as susceptible to rendering scripture with their own errant presuppositions
just as anyone else.
That
is not to say that commentaries and commentator notes may not be useful in
assisting readers in understanding the intent of scripture when it comes those
sections and passages of scripture that may be hard to understand as there are
times that they are, but like with anything else, before giving any credence to
commentaries or commentator notes, we do well to compare the commentaries and
commentator notes with the text of the scriptures themselves to determine if
the manner of rendering the commentary or commentator note offers is supported
by the text itself and if it is in agreement with and borne witness to by the
text, then there should be no problem with accepting its rendering, but if the
rendering offered is not in agreement with or borne witness to by the text of
scripture, then the rendering is to be rejected lest we find ourselves
following an errant doctrine.
The
preface, introduction, and commentaries of Carroll and Prickett are such to be
rejected as they are clearly designed to keep in unbelief their readers and
render the actual words of scripture to be of no effect on their hearts and
minds and in the process of writing this post, I had debated within myself as
to what extent I should address their preface, introduction, and commentary
notes and in the end, decided that they should be addressed and do warrant a
response because the arguments that they make against the claim of scripture to
divine authority are quite common and are still used by secular humanists to
this day to challenge and undermine the authority of scripture.
Beginning
with their preface, Carroll and Pricket claim, without evidence, that the King
James “version itself represents not merely a particular historical compromise,
but has a quite specific and polemical bias of its own.” [1]
They
do admit, however, that they did not conduct this undertaking with an unbiased
or unprejudiced approach but admit that there was a “historical” bias to their
approach.
They
also admit that they took “into account post-Enlightenment, modern, naturalistic
(as opposed to supernaturalistic) knowledge and thinking about the Bible” [2] which seems to be
the case with the way many within the Church approach, treat, and render the
scriptures and not just laypersons, but clergymen, seminarians, teachers,
professors, and other persons of influence as well rather than just simply
accept, without any presuppositions, what the text has to say and present for
itself.
But
the compilers then precede to challenge those followers of Christ who simply
accept the scripture for what they say with the claim that the Bible is not the
rock of ages as has been maintained by those who stand upon the authority of
scripture. [3]
They
claim that “the history of biblical interpretation is one of continuous and, at
times,
quite
startling change” [4] and I must grant
that this, in and of itself, cannot be denied but the reasons for this being
the case have nothing to do with the original intent of the text, but with the
manner in which readers have been led to render the scriptures which are not
always in agreement with intent of the text.
And
towards the end of their preface, they accuse the translation of the King James
Bible of being “a loose and, to some extent, accidental collection of ancient
writings translated from Near Eastern texts” [5] but as should be made plain by the
introduction of the translators themselves, the production of the King James
Bible was anything but accidental and the choice of what manuscripts to rely on
for accuracy was anything but loose.
And
finally, they claim that the Bible is not only transforming the world, but
being transformed by the world, [6] but both cannot be true. Either the Bible is transforming the world,
or the world is transforming the Bible and if the Bible is being transformed by
the world, then it is no longer transforming the world as it was initially
intended to do.
Going
into the introduction of the compilers, they make a historically inaccurate
claim about when the compilation of the Hebrew Canon was produced claiming that
it was not compiled until after the destruction of the Jewish temple by the
Romans in 70 A.D. [7] but according to
the New Testament, the Hebrew Canon had existed long before the destruction of
the temple as the Hebrew Canon is frequently cited by the New Testament and to
which it appeals to make its case for the Gospel message of salvation.
They
also even go so far as to dispute history itself claiming that it is the
victors who write the history books, [8] but a study of Jewish history, including
the very scriptures themselves that this is not always the case, as the Jewish
people have been known to write about their defeats and hardships as well as
their victories and accomplishments.
Furthermore,
the compilers falsely assert that the Roman emperor Constantine had summoned
the council of Nicaea to determine his role in the new Christian state, [9] but this was not
why Constantine had summoned the council of Nicaea. The reason why Constantine had summoned the
council was for fear that the present division within the Church over the deity
of Christ would tear apart the Roman empire and therefore demanded that the
Church reach a conclusion over the matter [10-12]
They
also adhere to the common misconception that the official canon of scripture
was decided at the council of Nicaea when again, as Athanasius wrote, it had
only to do with the deity of Christ. The
canonization of scripture had been a process independent of any particular
council and the recognition of canon was based on what the consensus of
existing congregations had deemed divinely inspired and even then, the matter
was not entirely settled and it still is not as Catholics, Protestants,
Orthodox, and Coptics still retain their own respective canons to this day.
The
compilers then go on to wage another attack upon the integrity and accuracy of
the KJV translation by stating:
even
as the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek of the Christian Bible were being translated
into
Latin,
the actual terms of the translation were also being themselves
transformed—sometimes with radically new meanings. For example, the existing
cultic language of Judaism could be given a new life by making it refer
figuratively to events in the New Testament. [13]
All
that can be said to this is that if there is any doubt as to the reliability or
accuracy of any given version or translation of scripture, there is a useful
tool out there called a Strong’s Concordance which lists every possible meaning
and application of each Hebrew and Greek word listed.
They
then attack Messianic prophecy by calling the foretellings and their
fulfillments as reapplications:
Thus,
the Old Testament idea of sacrifice was reapplied in relation to the
crucifixion.
By identifying Jesus with the sacrificial Passover lamb of
Jewish
ritual not merely was the idea of sacrifice being given a new
focal
point and meaning, but in addition a rich vein of figurative pas
toral
typology was simultaneously being opened up and appropriated
from
the Hebrew scriptures to link with similar imagery in the New
Testament.
[14]
And
instead of calling Christianity the fulfillment of the Jewish religion, they
accuse the faith of appropriating Judaism into itself:
The
degree to which one sees Christianity as an appropriation of
Judaism
depends on the model one uses to describe the parting of the
ways
between the two religions. [15]
But
after accusing Christianity of appropriating Judaism, they then confess that
Christianity was once historically viewed as a Jewish sect before being
regarded as an entirely new and different religion altogether:
Recent
scholarship has tended to see early Christianity more in terms of a 'party' or,
perhaps more formally, even a sect within Judaism, rather than being an
initially new
religion. Some have even argued that Christianity was,
and indeed
still
is, a particular form of Judaism. [16]
But
yet go on to spout more inaccuracies:
There
eventually emerged from a highly pluralistic phase in the first century
two
dominant 'Judaisms': Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity. How ever much they
might vary in the way they interpreted their tenets, we can find in both groups
four so-called 'pillars' of belief which constituted in effect a sufficient
common core for us to speak of them as belonging essentially to the same
religion. These have been identified as the ideas of
monotheism, election, the Torah, and the Temple.
Whereas
Rabbinic Judaism generally inclined towards a more literalistic view of them,
Christianity was to develop an elaborate metaphorical interpretation of all
four. [17]
While
it is true that Christianity does employ some analogies and illustrations, it
still retains the literalistic view of monotheism, election, Torah, and the
Temple as Rabbinic Judaism does but the compilers don’t stop there:
Thus
Hebrew monotheism was eventually to be expanded into the doctrine of the
Trinity; the idea of the election of a 'chosen people' was made to include the
whole human race 'called' to the Church; and the body of law and ritual contained
in the Torah was reread in terms of the 'spirit' as pointing to Jesus as the
promised Messiah [18]
1. A careful study of the Old Testament will
show that a pluralistic deity is not unique to the New Testament. Beginning in the book of Genesis we are
introduced to the pluralistic nature of God when He says: “Let us make man in
our image (Gen. 1:26)
“Now
man has become as we are, knowing good from evil (Gen. 3:22)
“therefore
God, thy God hath anointed thee” (Ps. 45:7)
“The
Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou down by my side until I have crushed your
enemies beneath my feet (Ps. 110:1)
“he
shall be called wonderful, counselor, prince of peace, mighty God, everlasting
father (Is. 9:6)
It
is just that the New Testament defines this nature more clearly.
2. It was always in the mind of God to call
Gentiles to repentance and to reconcile them to Himself.
We
first read that declaration in the book of Genesis where God tells Abraham that
through him, all nations would be blessed (Gen. 12:2-3)
That
the coming Messiah would be a light to the Gentiles (Is. 49:6)
In
Hosea, He says to them who were not His people that they would be sons of the
living God
(Hos.
1:10)
It
is just that in the New Testament, that mission was carried out in full force.
3. There was no rereading of the law and rituals
of the Torah. It is just that the
Apostles had counted the rituals and observances of the Torah as being shadows
of things to come. (Col. 2:17, Heb. 10:1); doesn’t necessarily mean that
everything in the Torah was made obsolete by the New Covenant as it is very
clear that there are standards of morality and righteousness that are carried
over and applied in the New Testament, but it is made clear that salvation does
not come by the law but through grace by faith in Christ Jesus alone.
What
the law still remains profitable for is for governance and the maintaining of
moral and godly order.
The
compilers then make the absurd claim that the ethical teachings of the Mosaic
law “actually seemed to contradict those of the New Testament” [19] but without any
evidence that this is actually so. I
have read the Bible countless times from beginning to end and have not
discovered any such contradiction.
They
then go on to claim that the early Church had trouble reconciling the OT
scriptures with those of the New Testament [20] despite the fact that the Apostles
certainly had no trouble as they the New Covenant as a fulfillment of the Old
and go to great lengths to explain how.
If there were those who found trouble finding harmony between the OT and
the NT scriptures, it was due to their understanding being muddied by false
teaching and heresy which had entered into the Church after the passing of the
Apostolic generation. Otherwise, why
would they have difficulty with a harmonization between the OT and NT
scriptures that the Apostles didn’t? The
compilers then go on to state:
Jewish
interpreters had already shown, with their allegorizing of the Song of Songs,
how texts could be given other meanings apart from their obvious literal one,
and this existing
tradition
was now reinforced and made more easily acceptable by the adoption of similar
Greek methods of exegesis. [21]
But
what they are describing here is not exegesis, which is taking a text for what
it presents, but eisegesis, which is to assign other meanings to a text than
what is already presented by a text, and it is eisegesis which has been
responsible for most of the false teachings and heresies that have abounded
within the Church throughout its history.
At the heart of every false teaching and heresy that there is, is a
degree of eisegesis.
Furthermore,
the exegetical method is not unique to the Greeks but is a method applied
universally, even if it was the Greeks who happened to assign a definition to
the method.
The
compilers continue on with even more inaccuracies:
Three-quarters
of the Christian Bible…is acknowledged, even by its most fundamentalist
adherents, to be originally the scriptures of another religion and written in a
language never spoken by any Christian community. Moreover, even that section, originally the
Hebrew Bible, was not at any stage a linguistically homogenous whole. [22]
Hebrew
was the language of the first Christian communities as the Church, at first,
was predominantly Jewish and the Apostolic generation never considered the
faith to be of a different religion from that of Mosaic Judaism, but a
fulfillment thereof.
They
then go on to erroneously claim that “Christianity, by the very appropriative
eclecticism
of
its origins, has always been at least dimly conscious of its own distance from
its sacred writings” [23] but Christianity
has never been distant from its sacred writing, for it that were ever the case,
then Christianity would cease to exist but that doesn’t mean that there have
not been those who have attempted to severe the faith from its sacred writings as
there have been numerous attempts to do so.
They
then claim that Hebrew tongue almost became an extinct language and was not
regularly spoken by the Jewish people for a season in their history, [24] but the book of
Nehemiah and the Gospel of John both show this to be this to be a misconception:
Nehemiah
concerning the Jews in his day who had children by the foreign wives they had
married: “And their children…could not speak in the Jews’ language” (Neh.
13:24)
What
language would the Jews have been expected to speak and preserve if not Hebrew?
John
the Apostle concerning the languages of the sign placed above the head of Jesus
when He was crucified: “it was written Hebrew and Greek, and Latin.” (Jn.
19:20)
If
Hebrew had not been widely spoken or read, what point would there have
including the language in the inscription that was placed above the head of
Jesus?
The
compilers then continue in their persistence to cast doubt upon the accuracy
and reliability of the translations of scripture by accusing the translators of
altering the scriptures but without any evidence that this was ever the case [25] and, as mentioned
earlier, if there is any doubt as to the integrity of any given professed
translation of scripture, a Strong’s Concordance is a very useful instrument
for cross-checking any given translation of scripture with the original tongues
in which they were first written and compiled.
The
compilers then reveal their contempt for taking a wholly literal approach to
the scriptures, not that this was ever any secret on their part:
the
idea of a wholly literal reading itself raises peculiar problems with some bib
lical
books—Jonah or Daniel in the Old Testament, or Revelation, for
instance,
in the New Testament. [26]
All
due to the influence and sway of worldly and naturalistic philosophy which, in
and of itself, is far too depth of a subject to delve into here in this
post. They then go on to say of the
Bible:
the
Bible…seems to flaunt itself as somehow intrinsic to the way we are expected to
read it, so too does a continued sense of it as meaning something more and
other than what it appears to say. [27]
The
Bible does not expect to be read in any other manner than the one in which it
presents itself to its audience, but the notion that it must mean more than
what it appears to say is what is responsible for corrupting the manner in
which even many professing Christians approach it and are even taught to
approach it.
The
compilers then deny that the origins of the Bible lie in divine revelation:
it
is possible that the origins of the Hebrew scriptures themselves lie not so
much
in a particular revelation as in a critical commentary on yet earlier texts or
even unwritten traditions of neighbouring societies. A text that, in this
sense, gives evidence within itself of the existence of other, prior, texts
already also implicitly suggests multi-layered ways of reading. [28]
And
what were these earlier texts and unwritten traditions that the scriptures were
written as a critical commentary of if that is the point of origin for the
scriptures? Show us what they were if you can.
They
even dishonestly take credit for adding the Apocryphal books to this King James
Bible version [29] when the
translators themselves had included them in the King James Bible produced
originally. In my end notes section, I
have provided a link to another version of the earliest King James Bible
publication and one that presents the earliest edition as it would have first
appeared and it shows that the apocrypha was originally included by the KJV
translators before being removed from later editions albeit I must warn that it
may be difficult reading as it is written in a Old English font instead of the
standard Roman font.
It
was my initial intent to dispel a Catholic lie or misconception that the
Protestants had initially removed the apocrypha from their respective canon by
proving the existence of an early Protestant Bible translation that contained
the same content as any Catholic canon of scripture; in other words, both
Catholic and Protestant canons of scripture had once been the same.
I
had initially chosen this reproduction as its font would be easier to read than
in the old English style text, but I never thought that I would have to address
secular bias and falsehoods in the process of doing so, but felt need to do so
as the attacks upon the integrity of the translators of the King James Bible
and upon the authority of scripture itself contained in the compilers’ preface
and introduction to this edition are very common attacks and challenges levied
against the authority of scripture and which I felt needed to be addressed and
there is still yet more as these compilers then attack the integrity of the
translators by claiming that they allowed ambiguity into their work [30] but there is no
evidence that they ever intended to allow any ambiguity into their translation,
but took great pains to produce a translation with as much clarity as possible
as is made plain from the translators’ own words to the reader.
The
compilers then accuse the translators of attempting to “control the language of
salvation” [31] when in reality,
the translators were correcting the corruptions and inaccuracies of previous
Bible translations; that is not to say that the translators of previous
versions were intentionally misleading their readers as their translations were
from manuscripts that were available to them at that particular time; it just
so happens that the translators of the KJV had manuscripts available to them
that had not been previously known or available.
The
compilers then lament that the greatest problem of the translators “is the
inevitable distance of the intended reader from such an ancient text” [32] but the scripture
itself says that the Word of God is very near to each and every one of us and
not distant (Deut. 30:11-14) for if it were such a distant thing, then how
could it possibly have the impact upon the world and especially western
civilization that it has? How then has it been capable of changing countless
lives around for the better?
If
it is distant from anyone, then it is only distant from those who choose not
believe in the Author thereof.
The
compilers then proceed to say:
any
reader who really begins to engage with the biblical text is,
in
spite of occasional moments of familiarity, inevitably reminded of
how
essentially alien are the worlds of both the Old and New Testaments. [33]
But
for those who have read the scriptures for themselves and understand how the
two compliment each other in various ways, the Old and New Testaments are not
as foreign to the reader as the compilers suppose.
The
compilers continue on to state:
The
immense weight of traditional moralistic and devotional rhetoric urging us to
see it as pointing directly to ourselves merely serves to illustrate the almost
intractable scale of the original problem. [34]
The
original problem being the nature of man.
The
compilers then suggest that:
it
is arguable that every grand narrative detected in the Bible breaks down under
critical scrutiny, and that the Bible is, in fact, much more a collection of
open-ended stories and narratives,
as
in the Jewish tradition, than the one grand narrative from creation to
consummation imposed upon it by Christianity. [36]
But
a study of the text itself and the full counsel of the scriptures does not
suggest merely a collection of open-ended stories and narratives, but for the
most part, it is a chronology from creation to consummation and it is not just
the New Testament that gives this impression, but we also find this, to a
certain extent, to be the case in the Old Testament.
To
make more obvious their denial of divine revelation, the compilers then give
much credence to a figure of the French Revolution named Constantin-François de
Volney who suggested that monotheism had evolved from polytheism which arose
from the worship of natural forces [37] and theorized all theistic religion had
its origins in Egypt and while it is not my intent to delve too deeply into the
falsehoods propagated by this man, except that his claims are not historically
accurate as all of what he credits to the Egyptians were in practice by various
different peoples, nations, and kingdoms with whom the Egyptians had never had
any known interactions and before they had even become a world empire. The compilers also falsely credit Volney’s
theories to the exaggerated decline of Christianity [38] but Volney’s
theories were not what brought about the decline of Christianity as they were
heavily resisted especially in America.
But
for those who happen to have an interest in seeing a more in-depth critique and
even a refutation of Volney’s falsehoods, I will gladly do so in another post.
There
is more that could be addressed in the compiler’s introduction to this
reproduced work but to do so now I fear would cause me to stray from the
subject matter of this post into other realms but will gladly do so in future
posts if God wills that I should do so.
Needless
to say, their entire preface and introduction is clearly biased against the
Bible being a product of divine inspiration and treats it like being, in
essence, no different from any other writings or documents.
Now
on to their notes and commentary section of their reproduction:
The
compilers’ notes on the book of Genesis:
The
compilers, as many others of like-mind have claimed, assert that Genesis
contains two creation stories instead of one due to the second chapter of
Genesis going into more detail than the first chapter [38] but there are not
two stories. They are both part of the
same creation story.
They
then claim the story of the tower of Babel as a product of the Babylonian
captivity, [39] which is not
historically accurate as the Jewish religion, along with its account of
origins, was in existence long before Babylon had become an empire.
They
then go on to denigrate the Patriarch Abraham by falsely claiming that he was a
practitioner of child sacrifice [40] and falsely accuse him of mistreating
Sarah and Hagar and preposterously claim that the founding ancestors of Israel
did not even exist [41]
Another
lie they tell is that Rachael’s firstborn was not to be numbered among the
twelve tribes of Israel. [42]
Which
child of hers? For all of her descendants are listed amongst the tribes of
Israel.
They
also falsely assert that Judah and Benjamin were the only tribes of Israel to
survive the Babylonian captivity [43]
The
compilers’ notes on the book of Exodus:
The
compilers inaccurately state that Sargon, king of Assyria, had lived before
Moses, and even lie about the Bible placing his existence before the birth of
Moses, [44] when Moses had
lived long before Assyria had become an empire and long before when the Bible
does places the reign of king Sargon which was during the lifetime of Isaiah
the prophet (Is. 20:1)
The
compilers’ notes on the book of Numbers:
Here
the compilers try to dismiss the Israelite’s exodus from Egypt by claiming that
the Israelites “largely made up of refugee peasants or slaves fleeing into the highland
areas of Palestine from oppressive conditions in the city-states” and these “may
have been joined by nomadic groups whose traditions, including an escape from
bondage in Egypt, contributed to the later belief that the people as a whole
were immigrants” [45] but this argument
against the Exodus lacks any factual basis and is suggested simply because the
compilers dispute the estimates of the Israelites initially numbering in the
millions [46] when they were
liberated from their bondage in Egypt despite the fact that the Bible does not
exactly say how many Israelites there were in the wilderness after leaving
Egypt.
They
also do not understand the reason why a woman accused of adultery without
evidence was subjected to undergo a ritualistic test as described in Numbers
(Num. 5:11-31) was to diminish the risk condemning an innocent woman to death. [47]
The
compilers’ notes on 1 and 2 Kings:
The
compilers inaccurately call Tyre a city of the philistines [48] when in fact, it
was a city of Lebanon. The border of the
Philistines was never known to have extended into Lebanon.
They
then falsely claim in the case of Naboth, who was murdered by King Ahab for his
vineyard, that “No blasphemy trial, no Jezebel, no Elijah appear...only an
obscure reference to the murder of Naboth” [49] but anyone who has read the account in
second Kings would know otherwise
The
compilers then ludicrously claim that the prophets who are not mentioned in 1
and 2 Kings must not have existed simply on that basis [50] but just because
they are not mentioned in these accounts that does not mean they didn’t
exist. The writings of the prophets
themselves alone should prove their existence.
What the compiler’s don’t seem to understand is that 1 and 2 Kings gives
us one perspective of events whereas the prophets give us their account of
events from their perspective and go into much greater detail of the spiritual
state of the Israelites in their days than the rest of the scriptural accounts
do.
They
then incorrectly claim that Jehoiachin was the last king of Judah before the
kingdom fell to the Babylonians. [51] It was Zedekiah who had been the last
king of Judah before its fall.
The
compiler’s notes on 1 and 2 Chronicles:
As
if the nonsense could not get any worse on the part of the compilers, they
would have their audience believe that Satan, the adversary of God, is one of
His most faithful and loyal servants [52]
It
is beyond comprehension as to how anyone could ever think the adversary of God
and of our very souls could ever be any servant of His.
The
compilers’ notes on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther:
Not
much to say here except that they deny this to be actual history and treat it
as fiction [53] despite the fact
that there was a return of the Jews from captivity, a rebuilding of Jerusalem,
and the temple and that there is an observance which they call Purim which
originated in the days of Esther and is a celebration of deliverance from the
hand of Haman the Agagite.
The
compilers’ introductory notes to the poetic books of the Bible:
The
compilers claim that the book of Psalms to be a book of poems, [54] but this is,
however, an inaccuracy as the Psalms were not poems but were songs.
The
compilers’ notes on Job:
The
compilers once again preposterously assert Satan to be a loyal servant of God [55] when he is
clearly adversarial. They again assert
Job to be a book of poetry when it is simply the account of an upright man’s
terrible misfortunes without understanding why tragedy which he believed to be
reserved only for the wicked should also befall the upright and God-fearing.
The
compilers’ notes on the book of Psalms:
The
compilers question the attributing of the majority of Psalms to David [56] but provide no
basis for disputing the authorship. Just
assumptions.
The
compilers’ notes on the book of Proverbs:
Again,
without evidence, the compilers cast doubt upon the authorship of proverbs [57]
The
compilers’ introductory notes to the prophets:
The
compilers claim that the words of the prophets are but poetry containing
satire, [58] but they are
neither poetic nor satirical (the prophets themselves never intended for their
words to be taken as such) but are meant to be taken seriously.
The
compilers’ notes on the book of Zephaniah:
The
compilers describe the prophet Zephaniah as a black man, more specifically, an
Ethiopian due to the name of his father Cushi [59] and while granted it is commonly
believed that a man named Cush was credited with the founding of Ethiopia, the
Bible does not demonstrate any evidence that Cushi was an Ethiopian for if it
had been so, then it would have said so.
The claim made by the compilers of Zephaniah’s lineage is an
interpretation of theirs which they have imposed upon the text, just as they
have frequently imposed their interpretation upon the rest of scripture.
I
have decided not to address the compilers’ commentary on the apocrypha due to
the fact that there is much dispute as to whether or not they are divinely
inspired and it is due to this dispute that the Catholic and Orthodox canons
contain them while the Protestant canon presently does not. As for myself, the apocrypha may have some
historical value to them, but I would not go so far as to say that they are
divinely inspired.
The
compilers’ introductory notes on the New Testament:
The
compilers claim that “The formation of Christianity took very many centuries” [60] when in truth it
only took a few years. What they take
for developments of the religion are in fact perversions of the faith but they,
as many others outside of the faith, do not seem to distinguish between
Christianity in its purest form and the twisted and perverted forms of it that
came afterwards.
The
compilers then claim that “We normally read the New Testament in the light of
many Christian councils, creeds, and confessions produced over sixteen
centuries following the death
of
Jesus” [61] but that does not
mean that this is necessarily the correct way to render the New Testament
scriptures. That is not to say that all
creeds and confessions are necessarily contrary to the scriptures but there are
many which are.
The
compilers go further to claim that the triune godhead was a product of the
creeds and not of the Gospels, [62] but the Gospel of John says otherwise. It is just that triune Godhead is defined in
the creeds.
The
compilers then accuse Jesus of being the destroyer of the scriptures [63] which is a lie,
for He Himself said “think not that I have come to destroy the law and the
prophets but to fulfill them” (Mt. 5:17-18)
The
compilers then falsely accuse the New Testament of antisemitism [64] when in truth, it
teaches the opposite. (Lk. 23:34, Acts 7:60, Rom. 11, Rev. 7:1-8, 14:1-5)
The
compilers’ notes on the Gospel of Matthew:
The
compilers then erroneously deny that there is any evidence of Matthew being the
author of his own Gospel account [65] despite the Gospel being a presentation
of his account and that he is named among the twelve Apostles (Mt. 9:9,
10:3). What more would be needed to
count as evidence of his authorship?
The
compilers’ notes on the Gospel of Luke:
The
compilers claim that material from “apocryphal” gospels were added to the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke [66] but there is no such evidence of this. If anything at all, it is the apocryphal
Gospels that have borrowed material from the canonized Gospels.
The
compilers’ notes on the Gospel of John:
The
compilers accuse the eight chapter of the Gospel of John of forming the basis
of antisemitism in the Church [67] but a careful reading of the chapter reveals that the
condemnation is not directed towards the Jewish people as a whole, but towards
the religious leaders. There are also
other passages in the NT that desire mercy and redemption for the Jews and not
their destruction. (Lk. 23:34, Acts 7:60, Rom. 11, Rev. 7:1-8, 14:1-5)
The
compilers then claim that there is no evidence that the disciple whom Jesus
loved is the Apostle John himself [68] despite the fact that this disciple
towards the end of the Gospel identifies himself as its author. (Jn. 21:24)
The
compilers’ introductory notes to the epistles of Paul:
The
compilers defame the Apostle Paul as arrogant and fierce tempered and an
apostate Jew and accuse him of causing Christianity to remove itself from its
Jewish foundation and of not knowing Jesus [69] but while Paul displays righteous
indignation, I do not see he comes across as being arrogant, nor did he see
himself as rejecting Judaism, but rather he saw Christianity as the fulfillment
of Judaism; furthermore, how can anyone claim that Paul never knew Jesus when
he was confronted by Him on the road to Damascus (Acts 9) and then later
discipled by Him? (Gal.1:11-18)
The
compilers’ notes on Paul’s epistle to the church in Rome:
The
compilers accuse Paul of turning against his own people citing a passage out of
1 Thessalonians after previously desiring their redemption as expressed in the
eleventh chapter of Romans, [70] but even in his epistle to the Romans, he admitted
their hostility to the Gospel message; (Rom. 11:28) it is just that in his
first epistle to the church in Thessalonica, he goes into greater detail as to
this hostility.
The
compilers’ notes on Pauls’ epistles to the church in Corinth:
The
compilers erroneously accuse Paul of contradicting himself for demanding the
church in Corinth pursue after righteousness and godliness and to hold
accountable those within their ranks who refuse to do so after claiming in his
epistle to the Romans that we are not saved by works but by faith [71] but this
accusation is based upon a poor and errant understanding of his epistle to the
Romans as Paul makes abundantly clear that being saved by faith does not give
us license to continue in the things that we are commanded to turn away from
and avoid (Rom. 6)
They
also claim that Paul’s second epistle to the church in Corinth became the basis
for a rejection of scripture in favor of the guidance of the spirit [72] but Paul makes
clear in his epistles to Timothy that this is not the case (2 Tim. 2:15, 3:16)
as the Spirit of grace is also the author of the written word by which the
Gospel of grace is delivered.
The
compilers’ notes on Paul’s epistle to the church in Galatia:
The
compilers claim that Paul’s epistle to the Galatian church for abolishing the
requiring of gentiles to undergo circumcision or to adhere to the Jewish
dietary and cleanliness laws or to observe Jewish sabbaths and holy days, and
divorcing Christianity from its Jewish heritage [73] but it was the council taken in
Jerusalem as recorded in the fifteenth chapter of Acts that exempted gentile
believers from being subjected to circumcision, the dietary and cleanliness
laws under the direction of the Apostle Peter (Acts 15) but it was never the
intent of either Peter nor Paul to divorce the faith from its Jewish foundation
though there have been attempts by those of succeeding generations to do so.
The
compilers’ notes on Paul’s epistle to the church in Ephesus:
The
compilers cast doubt upon Paul’s authorship of his epistle to the church in
Ephesus by claiming that the writing style differs from that of his other
epistles [74] despite the fact
that it states itself as being from Paul.
What more is needed for the proof of authorship? And how is the writing
style of that epistle any different from that of the others?
The
compilers’ notes on Paul’s epistle to the church in Colossae:
The
compilers cast doubt upon Paul’s authorship of his epistle to the church in
Colossae on the basis that the lettering is larger than what is written in
other epistles [75] but this may have
been due to failing eyesight on the part of Paul as he himself admitted to
having to write at least one of his epistles in large letters. (Gal. 6:11)
The
compilers’ notes on Paul’s epistles to the church in Thessalonica:
The
compilers claim here that “few prophets were actually killed and that it was
not the Jews but the Romans who crucified Jesus—crucifixion” [76] but there were
more prophets than those named which means there were more killed than we know
and while granted that it was not the Jews who did the actual executionary
work, they nevertheless still handed Jesus over to the Romans to be crucified.
They
then accuse Paul of having conflicting eschatological expectations [77] but I do not see
how this can possibly and just because he speaks of more than one
eschatological event, that does not necessarily mean that those expectations
are contrary to each other.
The
compilers’ notes on Paul’s epistles to Timothy:
The
compilers accuse the church of abandoning older values illustrated by the roles
of women in favor of a male-dominated bureaucracy [78] but cite no
evidence of this being the case.
The
compilers’ notes on Paul’s epistle to Titus:
The compilers here accuse Paul of disliking
his own people and of being xenophobic against the Cretans of his day [79] but he is only
condemning actions, not their ethnicity or lineage.
The
compilers’ notes on Paul’s epistle to Philemon:
The
compilers here state that Christianity did not confront the matter of slavery
until the eighteenth century [80] but it was Christianity that ended the practice as we
know it to be in the Roman empire before confronting the matter again during
the colonial era.
The
compilers’ notes on the epistles of Peter:
The
compilers doubt that the Apostle Peter actually wrote these epistles simply
because he was a fisherman and assume that he did not speak or read Greek [81] even though Greek
was a widely understood language, even amongst the Jews.
The
compilers’ notes on the epistles of John:
The
compilers accuse the Apostle of John of issuing a contradictory teaching for in
the first chapter of his epistle John states “if we say that we have not
sinned, we make him [God] a liar and his word is not in us” (1 Jn. 1:10) and
then later stating “Whosever is born of God doth not commit sin” (1 Jn. 3:9) [82] but if the
compilers had understood what John was saying when he said that those born of
God do not commit sin, they would have understood that John was not claiming
that they should be sinless due to our fallen nature, but that he was saying
that they who are born of God will not sin in the habitual sense.
The
only honest thing that they did do is that they did include in their edition
the translator’s introduction to the King James Bible to the reader unaltered
and unedited and I would daresay that the King James translators have shown far
more integrity and far less bias in their production of the King James Bible
than the compilers have shown in their preface and introduction to their
reproduction of the earliest edition of the translation.
The
compilers had pretended to act out of good will in their reproduction and of
course this reproduction would have been an honorable endeavor on their part,
had they not sown seeds of doubt in the minds of their readers as to the
trustworthiness and divine inspiration of the scriptures.
The
King James Bible, as it was originally produced is a fine work consisting,
before the inspired text itself, of suggested readings and studies, a list of
observed holy days, genealogical records to assist the readers understanding of
how the different nations and peoples of the world originated, and even some
concordances. [83]
I
only regret that due to the type of font used and the manner in which certain
words are spelled it would be difficult reading for most people. I am perhaps one of the few who can, for the
most part, understand the old vernacular and what helped me to be able to
understand it was ample reading of the King James Bible myself and as soon as I
became well-versed in the vernacular in which it was written, I then was able
to understand the older English as well and found myself able to make sense of
the different spelling of words.
I
do not know if anyone has ever done this but if I were to make a reproduction
of the original King James Bible, it would be done not only to dispel the
misconception that no Protestant Bibles ever contained the apocrypha, but also
for the purpose of imparting some enlightenment on the history of the King
James Bible and in this reproduction I would retain all original texts but
present them in a format that would be understandable to the reader, all
genealogical and geographical maps, concordances, suggested lessons, and list
of holy days observed just as was done in the original and it would not be the
trojan horse that the compilers made their reproduction out to be but would be
done in good faith, from a desire to inform and educate my respective audience
and any interested readers and parties, and to see God glorified just as the
translator of the King James Bible themselves wanted God to be honored and
glorified in the work that they had produced.
End
notes:
1. Robert Caroll and Stephen Prickett, “The
Bible: Authorized King James Bible With Apocrypha,” pg. v, Oxford Classics,
1996
https://dn710002.ca.archive.org/0/items/the-bible-authorized-king-james-version-with-apocrypha/The%20Bible%20%20Authorized%20King%20James%20Version%20with%20Apocrypha.pdf
2. Ibid. pg. v
3. Ibid. pg. v.
4. Ibid. pg. v
5. Ibid. pg. vi
6. Ibid. pg. vi
7. Ibid. pg.
xii
8. Ibid. pg.
xiii
9. Ibid. pg.
xiii
10. Theodoret, Historia Ecclesia, Book I,
ch.6-13
https://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPNF2-03/Npnf2-03-10.htm#P1098_224595
11. Socrates, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch.8. (That is Socrates
Scholasticus)
https://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPNF2-02/Npnf2-02-06.htm#P258_77081
12. Sozomen, Historia Ecclesia, Book 1, ch.21
https://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPNF2-02/Npnf2-02-19.htm#P3125_1277828
13. Carroll and
Prickett, pg. xvi
14. Ibid. pg. xvi
15. Ibid. pg. xvi
16. Ibid. pg. xvi
17. Ibid. pg. xvii
18. Ibid. pg. xvii
19. Ibid. pg. xvii
20. Ibid. pg. xviii
21. Ibid. pg. xviii
22. Ibid. pg. xx
23. Ibid. pg. xx
24. Ibid. pg. xxiii
25. Ibid. pg. xxiv
26. Ibid. pg. xxiv
27. Ibid. pg. xxiv
28. Ibid. pg. xxiv
29. Ibid. pg. xxv
30. Ibid. pg. xxix
31. Ibid. pg. xxx.
32. Ibid. pg. xxx.
33. Ibid. pg. xxx.
34. Ibid. pg. xxx.
35. Ibid. pg. xxxii
36. Ibid. pg. xxxii
37. Ibid. pg. xxxii
38. Ibid. pg. xxxii
39. Ibid. pg. 326
40. Ibid. pg. 327
41. Ibid. pg. 328
42. Ibid. pg. 329
43. Ibid. pg. 329
44. Ibid. pg. 330
45. Ibid. pg. 333
46. Ibid. pg. 333
47. Ibid. pg. 334
48. Ibid. pg. 343
49. Ibid. pg. 345
50. Ibid. pg. 345
51. Ibid. pg. 346
52. Ibid. pp. 347
53. Ibid. pp. 347-350
54. Ibid. pg. 351
55. Ibid. pg. 352
56. Ibid. pg. 354
57. Ibid. pp. 355-356
58. Ibid. pg. 361
59. Ibid. pg. 380
60. Ibid. pg. 398.
61. Ibid. pg. 398
62. Ibid. pg. 399
63. Ibid. pg. 399
64. Ibid. pg. 399
65. Ibid. pg. 404
66. Ibid. pg. 409
67. Ibid. pg. 411
68. Ibid. pg. 411
69. Ibid. pg. 415
70. Ibid. pg. 418
71. Ibid. pg. 419
72. Ibid. pg. 420
73.
Ibid. pg. 421
74.
Ibid. pg. 422
75.
Ibid. pg. 424
76.
Ibid. pp. 425-426
77.
Ibid. pg. 426
78.
Ibid. pg. 427
79.
Ibid. pg. 428.
80.
Ibid. pg. 429
81.
Ibid. pg. 433
82.
Ibid. pg. 436
83. 1611 The Authorized King James Bible as it
originally appeared
https://ia800200.us.archive.org/2/items/1611TheAuthorizedKingJamesBible/1611%20The%20Authorized%20King%20James%20Bible.pdf
Scripture references:
1. Genesis 1:26
2. Genesis 3:22
3. Psalm 45:7
4. Psalm 110:1
5. Isaiah 9:6
6. Genesis 12:2-3
7. Isaiah 49:6
8. Hosea 1:10
9. Colossians 2:17
10. Hebrews 10:1
11. Nehemiah 13:24
12. John 19:20
13. Deuteronomy
30:11-14
14. Isaiah 20:1
15. Numbers 5:11-31
16. Matthew 5:17-18
17. Luke 23:34
18. Acts 7:60
19. Romans 11
20. Revelation
7:1-8, 14:1-5
21. Matthew 9:9,
10:3
22. John 21:24
23. Acts 9
24. Galatians
1:11-18
25. Romans 11:28
26. Romans 6
27. 2 Timothy 2:15,
3:16
28. Acts 15
29. Galatians 6:11
30. 1 John 1:10
31. 1 John 3:9
For those who like my work and wish to make a financial donation, you can donate to Contender’s Edge at:
[Note to reader: My Paypal account was suspended for unexplained reasons despite the fact that I have received no donations at that account. Will try to get it restored if possible. In the meantime, for those interested in making financial contributions, donate you can still do so at the above listed]
No comments:
Post a Comment