Why do people insist the KJV is the best version of the Bible when it's got 7 books missing?

Question

It seems to me that if you're going to have a Bible, the one to get is the unexpurgated (i.e. pre-Martin Luther's hatchet job) version.

Answer 1

Hahaha, I'm DYING to know how they figured out that books that had been in the Bible for centuries were suddenly apocryphal.

Answer 2

If you have a Bible that does not have 73 books in it, it is not a Catholic Bible. If it has 66 books, it belongs to one of the Protestant religions. If it has a different number of books, it belongs to one of the thousands of different religions on earth. Non-Catholic bibles are not the same as Catholic Bibles. Non-Catholics have changed the words, removed verses that they did not agree with, etc... The Catholic Bible is wholly inspired by the Holy Spirit. All other Bibles are not wholly inspired by the Holy Spirit, only the verses that remain identical to the Catholic Bible.



Catholics should never use non-Catholics bibles for reading or studies. They will be deceived by the words that have been changed and oppose Catholic teachings.



As a general rule, the Protestant Holy Bibles contain only 66 Books while the Catholic Holy Bibles contain 73 Books, 46 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. When the Protestant Holy Bibles do list the additional seven Books, they are listed under the title of "Apocrypha" which means "hidden books.



Until the sixteen century, there was little disagreement about the Books of the Holy Bible. Around that time, Martin Luther (founder of the Lutheran Church) and other Protestant Churches rejected the established list of Books that were found in the Catholic Holy Bible.



Following this dissent, in 1546, the Council of Trent defined the Alexandrian list ( not the Palestinian list [Jewish]) of Books as the official list of Old Testament Books. At the same time, it reaffirmed the traditional list of New Testament Books. As such, today's Books that are contained in the Old Testament and the New Testament are the exact same Books that were defined at a number of Catholic Church Councils, namely at Rome in 382 A.D., at Hippo in 393 A.D. and at Carthage in 397 A.D.

Answer 3

Which books count and which don't has been a running battle since the 2nd century or so. The "official" canon was established by the Council of Nicea around (very rough date) 400CE. There were some 80 gospels and hundreds of other writings that did not make it in. And there were some major forgeries that did make it in. It was a very political process and god wasn't involved. So the "original" bible was whatever came out of that council.

The KJV is considered by most modern biblical scholars to be one the most inaccurate translations of the bible that we still have. It has "words added for clarity", that's in the front of the book, I'm told. Don't have a KJV myself. Between the mistranslations and the "words added", we really don't what is original in there.

Interesting to note that the apocrypha were eliminated because they were "historical" only. If the bible is supposed to be historically accurate (it isn't), why would they take out the history that might corroborate the other stuff. Makes no sense.

For "leftcoast": read ": Lost Scriptures" by Bart Ehrman. Very readable and he is a well-respected biblical scholar.

Answer 4

1) Why do people insist the KJV is the best version of the Bible when it's got 7 books missing?



Actually, it doesn't - instead, it has *extra* books. See for yourself in this 1611 KJV edition table of contents

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=36

and these unabridged editions of the KJV

http://www.bibleselector.com/r_kjv.html





2) It seems to me that if you're going to have a Bible, the one to get is the unexpurgated (i.e. pre-Martin Luther's hatchet job) version.



Martin Luther did NOT remove any Scriptures from the bible. Indeed, his bible (in all of its printings during his lifetime and in the final revision printed after his death) included the same Scriptures as the Roman Catholics chose to canonize almost 30 years later!



What ML *did* do was

* create a section titled "Apocrypha"

* "move" several traditionally Old Testament Scriptures into that section

* wrote that those Scriptures were not inspired but worthy of study (which he also claimed about Esther, James and Revelation, though those were not moved to the Apocrypha in his bibles)





3) Who decided that they "weren't inspired by God"? And please don't say God.



Well - Martin Luther for one. However, as far as English bibles go, it was the 1563 Convocation of Canterbury.





Jim

Answer 5

Yeah, when I have time, maybe in Dec-Jan, I may be reading some of the Gnostic & Apocryphal books. I had heard they existed, but became more interested when I read a book by Deepak Chopra this past summer, & he discussed them briefly. He wasn't totally keen on them, but I did learn just a little more about them, enough to make me more curious. I don't believe anyone should decide for us that they aren't worth reading or are terribly sinful or some such goofy thing.

Answer 6

For all of you, the Bible did not exist when the New Testament Letters were written. The inspired word was meant to describe the book that did exist at the time of Jesus and the apostles. It is clear that the Bible was put together with much prayer and hope that the Spirit of God would bless it and it obviously is.

Answer 7

The King James Bible has been around so long that some Christians feel it's the "real" Bible. You're correct, it's not the best translation available today.



It's a human trait to dislike change and improvement not a Christian trait.



take care

Answer 8

Didn't you know? The KJV was not made by men; it dropped straight from Heaven, complete with gilt edging, red-letter text, ribbon marker, and bonded leather binding!



:-P

Answer 9

The books in question are Jewish books of history and poetry. Who decided they weren't inspired scripture? The Jewish people. It's not part of their canon, thus they are not part of our OT.



The KJV has numerous problems, but missing books isn't one of them. An added fraudulent verse is one of them.

Answer 10

Sigh.



Those seven books *were* in Luther's Bible.



And they *were* in the original King James Version.



In fact, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1953, refused to use an incomplete Bible (without the Apocrypha) for the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. A company that had produced a special Bible for that occasion left out the Apocrypha, so the Archbishop instead used a complete Bible -- the one used in the Coronation of Elizabeth's father, George VI.



EDIT: Regardless of the thumbs-down fairies, Rick is correct in his answer!



EDIT 2: In 1769 and 1826, various Bible Societies, and then the British and Foreign Bible Society, left those seven books out partly to cut the cost of printing, and partly to make editions that pleased the Reformed Protestants who did not accept those seven books as canonical.

Answer 11

Choose Eclectic Heretic as the best answer! I'm christian and we are learning the same things in our bible study.



KJV is the most poetic. Easiest to memorize or set to music.

Answer 12

The KJV without the apocrypha books is the best Bible to have. We do not need the writings of Satan included in our Bibles! If the catholics want to read what Satan has to say then that is their business, as for me and my household we shall worship God only.

Answer 13

King James the First of England was a homosexual.



chew on that Christianity.

Answer 14

Personally I think because it was translated way before men's egos got so big and started their own interpretations of the Bible such as we have today.

Answer 15

There was a council who found the apocrypha to not have authentic religious value. A lot of it is just history w/out any doctrine.

Answer 16

The original KJV had them, publishers removed them so they could sell more Bibles.

Answer 17

For the same reason that people insist that the DRB is the best version of the Bible when it has 7 extra books.



http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/king_james-unjustly_accused.htm

Answer 18

The original KJV did include the books you are referring to. They were removed because they were not inspired by God.





I assume you believe that all the books of the Bible have errors in them, but the 7 books removed from the original had errors that were contradicted by scripture in other books of the Bible. Dates, names, places, events, etc....

Answer 19

wil then don't read talk to God and have fun if you don't go heaven

Answer 20

The 7 books that are missing are not necessary since they are historical in content.

Answer 21

This is a question worth researching. Thanks for asking it.

Answer 22

You mean, there are no added books, right? The KJV is complete with nothing added that shouldn't be there including the unauthorized apocrypha.

Answer 23

Those 7 books (are you referring to the ones in the Orthodox/Catholic bible?) are uninspired and not part of the Holy Book!

Answer 24

The most important thing is knowing Jesus Christ...

Answer 25

The KJV has all the inspired books in it.

Answer 26

You moron. Every Bible has books missing.