A P O C R Y P H A : Included in every Holy Bible from the 4th century AD to the 19th Century AD

[Origen]

It was not until 1826 that Protestant churches refused to print these books as part of the Bible.

The first English Bible published in America (i.e. KJV) was reviewed, approved, and authorized by the Congress of the Confederation in 1782 by Robert Aitken. It did not contain the Apocrypha. The American Bible Society was not founded until 1816. Thus 34 years before the ABS was founded the first English Bible published in America did not have the Apocrypha.

Everyone can see the table of content here.

Aitken Bible

The Aitken Bible, published by Robert Aitken (1735–1802), was the first Bible printed in English in North America. Aitken was born in Scotland and immigrated to Philadelphia in 1769, where he worked as a bookseller and publisher. In 1781, near the end of the American Revolution, he petitioned...

collections.museumofthebible.org

For more information see:

Aitken Bible, 1782

The Centennial Library page from an Aitken Bible is from a copy printed in Philadelphia in 1782, Robert Aitken's first and only edition of the first English Bible printed in America.

digitalcommons.cedarville.edu

However the first Bible printed in America was the Eliot Indian Bible. It was for the indigenous people (Algonquian language). The whole Bible was first published in 1663, it was a translation of the Geneva Bible, and it did contain the Apocrypha. It contained only 66 books. This would be a 153 years before American Bible Society was founded in 1816.

Everyone can see the table of content here.

Stale Request - University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

For more information see:

Eliot Indian Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Andrew]

The first English Bible published in America (i.e. KJV) was reviewed, approved, and authorized by the Congress of the Confederation in 1782 by Robert Aitken. It did not contain the Apocrypha. The American Bible Society was not founded until 1816. Thus 34 years before the ABS was founded the first English Bible published in America did not have the Apocrypha.

Everyone can see the table of content here.

Aitken Bible

The Aitken Bible, published by Robert Aitken (1735–1802), was the first Bible printed in English in North America. Aitken was born in Scotland and immigrated to Philadelphia in 1769, where he worked as a bookseller and publisher. In 1781, near the end of the American Revolution, he petitioned...

collections.museumofthebible.org

For more information see:

Aitken Bible, 1782

The Centennial Library page from an Aitken Bible is from a copy printed in Philadelphia in 1782, Robert Aitken's first and only edition of the first English Bible printed in America.

digitalcommons.cedarville.edu

However the first Bible printed in America was the Eliot Indian Bible. It was for the indigenous people (Algonquian language). The whole Bible was first published in 1663, it was a translation of the Geneva Bible, and it did contain the Apocrypha. It contained only 66 books. This would be a 153 years before American Bible Society was not founded in 1816.

Everyone can see the table of content here.

Stale Request - University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

For more information see:

Eliot Indian Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

When the quote says that the Protestant churches started rejecting the bible society printings of the Bible, I assume he was implying that the uproar was rooted in the mass distribution of society Bibles which made it difficult for independent publishers to compete with the authorized publishers. The supply and demand of the true Protestant Bibles was compromised.

 

[Lanman87]

I care about what the original Hebrew said, what the Jews BEFORE Christ believed, and what the first Christians accepted.

Good luck with that. There is a lot of debate in the academic/theological communities over the best sources for the Hebrew Scripture. Some believe it is as you say and that the MT is less accurate. Others say the MT is more accurate, especially since the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the MT and portion of Hebrew Text we have from the Dead Scrolls show the MT to be over 95% accurate. Which is remarkable for a document copied so many times over so many years. For many evangelical Biblical Translators they actually use Textual Criticism and use both, depending on what the evidence shows is more accurate for any differences in passages between the two historical records, just as they do in differences between different codex of the Greek New Testament. They use Hebrew as the primary source but will also use the LXX if they believe it has the more accurate rendering. But the prevailing opinion is that when God delivered the Old Testament to the Jews He did so in Hebrew.

As for what the Jew Before Christ believed, well that is also a matter for debate. As I said earlier, there were probably a wide variety of beliefs about the Old Testament in the pre-Christian Era. The opinion I'm most inclined to believe is that of the main groups, the Sadducees only held to the books of the Law, The Hellenist used the LXX, the Essenes had a wider collection of writings, and the Pharisees held to the three fold OT which is the same as the current Jewish and Protestant Old Testament. I've also seen arguments that the Jewish Canon was fixed long before and that the Alexandrian Jews corrupted the canon by adding non-inspired books to the Old Testament. I seen the argument that the Jews added the Duetero books as Historical books and never intended them to be "Canonized". I've seen the argument that the LXX was the true Jewish Canon and the post-Christian Jew removed books from their canon to keep people from converting to Christianity. (if they did then they picked the wrong books to remove).

As for what the first Christian accepted as scripture, well it largely depended on where you were located and who your teacher/bishop was. For the first 200 years this was true of both the Old and New Testaments. By the mid 3rd Century there was a broad consensus about the New Testament and everyone was on board by the 5th Century. And, as I've shown, there was never a consensus about the Duetero books. Catholics accepted some of them at Trent but Protestants had already rejected them as being part of the canon. Eastern Orthodox accepted even more than the Catholics did.

 

[Andrew]

Good luck with that. There is a lot of debate in the academic/theological communities over the best sources for the Hebrew Scripture. Some believe it is as you say and that the MT is less accurate. Others say the MT is more accurate, especially since the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the MT and portion of Hebrew Text we have from the Dead Scrolls show the MT to be over 95% accurate. Which is remarkable for a document copied so many times over so many years. For many evangelical Biblical Translators they actually use Textual Criticism and use both, depending on what the evidence shows is more accurate for any differences in passages between the two historical records, just as they do in differences between different codex of the Greek New Testament. They use Hebrew as the primary source but will also use the LXX if they believe it has the more accurate rendering. But the prevailing opinion is that when God delivered the Old Testament to the Jews He did so in Hebrew.

As for what the Jew Before Christ believed, well that is also a matter for debate. As I said earlier, there were probably a wide variety of beliefs about the Old Testament in the pre-Christian Era. The opinion I'm most inclined to believe is that of the main groups, the Sadducees only held to the books of the Law, The Hellenist used the LXX, the Essenes had a wider collection of writings, and the Pharisees held to the three fold OT which is the same as the current Jewish and Protestant Old Testament. I've also seen arguments that the Jewish Canon was fixed long before and that the Alexandrian Jews corrupted the canon by adding non-inspired books to the Old Testament. I seen the argument that the Jews added the Duetero books as Historical books and never intended them to be "Canonized". I've seen the argument that the LXX was the true Jewish Canon and the post-Christian Jew removed books from their canon to keep people from converting to Christianity. (if they did then they picked the wrong books to remove).

As for what the first Christian accepted as scripture, well it largely depended on where you were located and who your teacher/bishop was. For the first 200 years this was true of both the Old and New Testaments. By the mid 3rd Century there was a broad consensus about the New Testament and everyone was on board by the 5th Century. And, as I've shown, there was never a consensus about the Duetero books. Catholics accepted some of them at Trent but Protestants had already rejected them as being part of the canon. Eastern Orthodox accepted even more than the Catholics did.

Process of elimination; truth is established by 3 or more witnesses; Jospehus, Samaritan Pentateuch, and the NT all favor the accuracy of the Septuagint over the Masoretic.

 

[Josiah]

Christian Newspaper from 1915
-----------------------------------------------
The Rev. Milo H. Gates, of Trinity Church (Prot.), of New York City, accuses the Bible societies of circulating mutilated copies of the Holy Scriptures. The New York Sun, of December 6, Inst, quotes him as saying:

Okay. Now how does that prove...

+ All those Jewish Conspiracy claims...

+ The Apostles declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

+ All books found in all Bibles are equal.

+ Everything found in any book with BIBLE on the cover is therefore inerrant, canonical Scripture...

+ "The Church", "Christianity" "Christians" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

+ "Protestantism" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

+ There is ONE set of "Apocrypha" books

+ Every Bible among every Christians contained EXACTLY THE SAME content from 300-1800....

+ Protestantism "ripped out" some unidentified books ....

+ The American Bible Society is the authoritative, ruling body of all Protestantism

+ Lutherans especially discourage the reading of "them"....

+ I'm (Josiah), I'M The "prime example" of one who discourages the reading of "them"...



.

 

[Josiah]

I assume he was implying ...

Explains a lot...



.

 

[Josiah]

If you dont even accept the complete Luther Bible of Martin Luther and the Protestants that came before your time.

Conditional clauses are meaningless if the condition is not met. The reason why you don't quote me stating "I don't accept the complete Bible of Martin Luther" is that (as you know, as I know, as everyone knows) I never said that. Which is why you form this as a conditional clause and don't quote me.

You still reject the Bible of Luther.. and you won't accept that reality.

Well, now you eliminate the conditional clause and just make YET ANOTHER absurd, baseless entirely unsubstantiated claim. You don't quote me because you know ... I know... everyone knows you can't. And we all know I've said - repeatedly - that I do 'accept it' as Luther presented it. So, well, I hate to use the "L" word of a moderator on staff but...



Let's add that to your growing list of unsubstantiated claims:


All those Jewish Conspiracy claims...

The Apostles declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

All books found in all Bibles are equal....

"The Church" "Christianity" "Christians" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

"Protestantism" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

There is ONE set of "Apocrypha" books (always the same corpus)....

Every Bible among Christians contained EXACTLY THE SAME material from 300-1800....

Protestantism "ripped out" some unidentified books ....

The American Bible Society is The Authoritative Ruling Body for Protestantism...

Lutherans especially discourage the reading of "them"....

I'm (Josiah) THE "prime example" of one who discourages the reading of "them"..

I (Josiah) rejects the Bible of Luther (although he has and uses one)...



.

 

[Andrew]

Conditional clauses are meaningless if the condition is not met. The reason why you don't quote me stating "I don't accept the complete Bible of Martin Luther" is that (as you know, as I know, as everyone knows) I never said that. Which is why you form this as a conditional clause and don't quote me.






Well, now you eliminate the conditional clause and just make YET ANOTHER absurd, baseless entirely unsubstantiated claim. You don't quote me because you know ... I know... everyone knows you can't. And we all know I've said - repeatedly - that I do 'accept it' as Luther presented it. So, well, I hate to use the "L" word of a moderator on staff but...



Let's add that to your growing list of unsubstantiated claims:


All those Jewish Conspiracy claims...

The Apostles declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

All books found in all Bibles are equal....

"The Church" "Christianity" "Christians" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

"Protestantism" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

There is ONE set of "Apocrypha" books (always the same corpus)....

Every Bible among Christians contained EXACTLY THE SAME material from 300-1800....

Protestantism "ripped out" some unidentified books ....

The American Bible Society is The Authoritative Ruling Body for Protestantism...

Lutherans especially discourage the reading of "them"....

I'm (Josiah) THE "prime example" of one who discourages the reading of "them"..

I (Josiah) rejects the Bible of Luther (although he has and uses one)...



.

I never said that the Protestants ripped them out, The Protestants were against the ripping out of books from their Bibles.

You don't care, and I don't care that you don't care.

You are a neo-Lutheran who is apathetic toward the recent movement of the Protestant Deformation" when "Sola Scriptura" no longer applied to the Bible Luther used, but to a new "Sola Sexaginta Sex" default Lutherless and Catholicless walmart bible.. authorized, published and distrubited through a capitalist universal society of wealthy businessmen who exploit Christendom by overthrowing the pious traditionalist Bible publishers, erasing the memories of Biblical Protestantism.

In my opinion







.

 

[NathanH83]

The first English Bible published in America (i.e. KJV) was reviewed, approved, and authorized by the Congress of the Confederation in 1782 by Robert Aitken. It did not contain the Apocrypha. The American Bible Society was not founded until 1816. Thus 34 years before the ABS was founded the first English Bible published in America did not have the Apocrypha.

Everyone can see the table of content here.

Aitken Bible

The Aitken Bible, published by Robert Aitken (1735–1802), was the first Bible printed in English in North America. Aitken was born in Scotland and immigrated to Philadelphia in 1769, where he worked as a bookseller and publisher. In 1781, near the end of the American Revolution, he petitioned...

collections.museumofthebible.org

For more information see:

Aitken Bible, 1782

The Centennial Library page from an Aitken Bible is from a copy printed in Philadelphia in 1782, Robert Aitken's first and only edition of the first English Bible printed in America.

digitalcommons.cedarville.edu

However the first Bible printed in America was the Eliot Indian Bible. It was for the indigenous people (Algonquian language). The whole Bible was first published in 1663, it was a translation of the Geneva Bible, and it did contain the Apocrypha. It contained only 66 books. This would be a 153 years before American Bible Society was founded in 1816.

Everyone can see the table of content here.

Stale Request - University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

For more information see:

Eliot Indian Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You act as if you’re somehow disproving the quote that Andy provided.

You’re not.

Prior to the American Revolution, Bibles in America were imported from Europe. These imported Bibles contained the Apocrypha. When the Revolutionary war began, it interrupted trade with Britain, producing a scarcity of Bibles. So there was a need for America to print its own Bibles. Aitken published his Bible without the Apocryphal books.

Just because Aitken published a Bible without the Apocryphal books, that doesn’t mean that ALL Protestant churches refused to print the Apocryphal books at this time.

The Puritans and Presbyterians lobbied for the Apocrypha’s removal, and in 1826 the British and Foreign Bible Society refused to allow its funds to be used to pay for printing it. By 1885 Protestant Bibles no longer carried it.

Let’s look at the quote Andy provided, which you object to:

It was not until 1826 that Protestant churches refused to print these books as part of the Bible.

Were Protestant churches REFUSING to use Bibles with the Apocryphal books when Aitken published his Bible? No, they weren’t refusing. They were BUYING bibles from Britain which contained the Apocrypha prior to the war, and WENT BACK to buying them from Britain AFTER the war because they were cheaper to buy, causing a significant loss in business for Aitken. Just because Aitken published a Bible during the war without the Apocrypha doesn’t mean the Protestant churches were refusing Bibles with the Apocrypha in it.

The refusal of Bible societies to use funds to print the Apocrypha really did come in 1826, just like the quote said. What he said is actually quite true.

Stop trying to pretend that you’re disproving something Andy said when you’re disproving NOTHING.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The first English Bible published in America (i.e. KJV) was reviewed, approved, and authorized by the Congress of the Confederation in 1782 by Robert Aitken. It did not contain the Apocrypha. The American Bible Society was not founded until 1816. Thus 34 years before the ABS was founded the first English Bible published in America did not have the Apocrypha.

Everyone can see the table of content here.

Aitken Bible

The Aitken Bible, published by Robert Aitken (1735–1802), was the first Bible printed in English in North America. Aitken was born in Scotland and immigrated to Philadelphia in 1769, where he worked as a bookseller and publisher. In 1781, near the end of the American Revolution, he petitioned...

collections.museumofthebible.org

For more information see:

Aitken Bible, 1782

The Centennial Library page from an Aitken Bible is from a copy printed in Philadelphia in 1782, Robert Aitken's first and only edition of the first English Bible printed in America.

digitalcommons.cedarville.edu

However the first Bible printed in America was the Eliot Indian Bible. It was for the indigenous people (Algonquian language). The whole Bible was first published in 1663, it was a translation of the Geneva Bible, and it did contain the Apocrypha. It contained only 66 books. This would be a 153 years before American Bible Society was founded in 1816.

Everyone can see the table of content here.

Stale Request - University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

For more information see:

Eliot Indian Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The first Bible published in America in a Modern or European language was by Christoph (Christopher) Saur (1695-1758), who was born near Heidelberg in the Palatine, the son of a Reformed pastor." .... "There were about seven paper mills in America at the time, most of these, including Rittenhouse and Ephrata, being in Pennsylvania. Possibly, both imported and Pennsylvania paper was needed to print the 1200 large, quarto-sized Bibles (with Apocrypha), each of which were at least 1267 pages in length. Some of the Bibles also contained, as an option, three other books from the Berleburg Bible, the third and fourth book of Ezra and the third book of Maccabees. Saur printed the Bibles for fellow German refugees in Pennsylvania, and claimed that “for the poor we have no price.” Yet the 1743 Bibles did not sell out for twenty years, five years after Saur’s death. Saur also published German New Testaments in 1745 (Evans 5542) and 1755 (Evans 7359)." (source)

 

[Origen]

"The first Bible published in America in a Modern or European language was by Christoph (Christopher) Saur (1695-1758), who was born near Heidelberg in the Palatine, the son of a Reformed pastor." .... "There were about seven paper mills in America at the time, most of these, including Rittenhouse and Ephrata, being in Pennsylvania. Possibly, both imported and Pennsylvania paper was needed to print the 1200 large, quarto-sized Bibles (with Apocrypha), each of which were at least 1267 pages in length. Some of the Bibles also contained, as an option, three other books from the Berleburg Bible, the third and fourth book of Ezra and the third book of Maccabees. Saur printed the Bibles for fellow German refugees in Pennsylvania, and claimed that “for the poor we have no price.” Yet the 1743 Bibles did not sell out for twenty years, five years after Saur’s death. Saur also published German New Testaments in 1745 (Evans 5542) and 1755 (Evans 7359)." (source)

Interesting! Therefore Bibles were being published with and without the Apocrypha long before the date of that article and before the founding of the ABS.

That could only mean that Bibles with or without the Apocrypha were available for those who wanted it and for those who did not.

Thank you for your help.

 

[Josiah]

@Andy


Here's your latest claim - in the very, very, very long list of remarkable claims you've made in these threads...

You reject the Bible of Luther.

Here's my reply:

YET ANOTHER absurd, baseless entirely unsubstantiated claim. You don't quote me because you know ... I know... everyone knows... you can't because it's not true. And we all know I've said - repeatedly - that I do 'accept it' as Luther presented it.

I've simply called on you to substantiate this claim. As I have with the many, numerous others you've made.


Here's what we got:

You are a neo-Lutheran who is apathetic toward the recent movement of the Protestant Deformation" when "Sola Scriptura" no longer applied to the Bible Luther used, but to a new "Sola Sexaginta Sex" default Lutherless and Catholicless walmart bible.. authorized, published and distrubited through a capitalist universal society of wealthy businessmen who exploit Christendom by overthrowing the pious traditionalist Bible publishers, erasing the memories of Biblical Protestantism.

Evasion.... again
Dodging.... again

YET again, still again, yet another time - NOTHING.
Absolutely NOTHING to substantiate the claim.
No confirmation.
No evidence.
No quotes.
No substantiation.
Nothing.

As with every one of your long, long list of claims related to content in a Bible.

Rather than showing your claim is true, what we get is all this weird, nonsensical gobbleygook.
And even more entirely, completely unsubstantiated claims.
Not even an attempt to substantiate.
This is a pattern with you.




.

 

[Albion]

Here's my reply:

I've simply called on you to substantiate these claims and attacks.

Here's what we got:

Evasion....
Dodging....

YET again, still again, yet another time - NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING
No confirmation.
No evidence.
No quotes.
No substantiation.
Nothing.

As with every one of your long, long list of claims related to content in a Bible.

Rather than showing your claim is true, what we get is all this weird, nonsensical gobbleygook.
And even more entirely, completely unsubstantiated claims.
Not even an attempt to substantiate.
This is a pattern with you.

Right.

And I'm going to suggest that, hereafter, it not be allowed for any thread's title to be a theory or hearsay or a hunch, etc. stated as if it were fact.

If there is something controversial that all of us should examine, then a question should be posed for the forum to discuss, but no more starting us off with disinformation in the expectation that this gives that poster some advantage.

When doing the latter is allowed, everyone else has to spend time correcting the falsehood, only to have the writer of the title and the OP simply reiterate the initial claim as though it's an "everyone knows" fact that stands unless it can be countered--with the agreement of the first poster, of course.

The right approach is for the writer of the OP to support his thesis with evidence from the start.

 

[Josiah]

Right.

Discussions are impossible when for some, truth is entirely irrelevant.
Discussions get nowhere if nonsensical, gobbleygook claims need NOTHING to support them, just joined with more of the same.

It serves to discredit the one who insists on such claims, this "just believe me cuz that's all I got."
And in these cases, it also serves to cause folks reject the books he's trying to support because CRAZY things are being claimed for them, even impossible things.

But more disturbing, our attempts to get this poster to at least admit he can't confirm his claims, he just piles on even MORE (as we see in post 368)... even crazier ones ... and engages in personal attacks. It really is a form of flaming.



.

 

[Andrew]

@Josiah @Alibion

"And I'm going to suggest that, hereafter, it not be allowed for any thread's title to be a theory or hearsay or a hunch, etc. stated as if it were fact."

Read the THREAD title! How is THIS hearsay?
V V V V V V V VV V
--------
Jerome's Latin Vulgate 382 [Latin]
(Labeled "Apocrypha" by Jerome, although others before had simply referred to them as Scripture or Ecclesiasticals, the Church would officially declare them Deuterocanon)

1000 years pass...

Wycliffe's Bible 1382 [Middle English] (Deuterocanon)

The Luther Bible 1522 [German]
("Apocrypha")

Coverdale Bible 1535 [Modern English] ("Apocrypha")

The Mathew Bible 1537 [Modern English]
("Apocrypha")

The Great Bible 1539 [English]
("Apocrypha")

Geneva Bible 1560 [English]
("Apocrypha")

The Brest Bible 1563 [Polish]
("Apocrypha")

Bishop's Bible 1568 [English]
("Apocrypha")

Reina Valera Bible 1569 [Spanish]
(Deuterocanon)

The Douay-Rheims Bible 1609 [English]
(Deuterocanon)

King James Version 1611 [English]
("Apocrypha")

The Bible of Kralice 1613 [Czech]
("Apocrypha")

The Illuminated Bible 1846 [English]
("Apocrypha")

Revised King James Version 1885 [English]
The "Apocrypha" was officially removed by a society of wealthy businessmen (The American Bible Society) to make even more money by using less resources (paper, ink) and selling them at the same price to Protestants (who protested the removal of the "Apocrypha") while overcharging Catholic Bishops to print the Deuterocanon/"Apocrypha"
----------

 

[Andrew]

Discussions are impossible when for some, truth is entirely irrelevant.
Discussions get nowhere if nonsensical, gobbleygook claims need NOTHING to support them, just joined with more of the same.

It serves to discredit the one who insists on such claims, this "just believe me cuz that's all I got."
And in these cases, it also serves to cause folks reject the books he's trying to support because CRAZY things are being claimed for them, even impossible things.

But more disturbing, our attempts to get this poster to at least admit he can't confirm his claims, he just piles on even MORE (as we see in post 368)... even crazier ones ... and engages in personal attacks. It really is a form of flaming.



.

How is calling you a Neo-Lutheran a personal attack and form of flaiming when you have personally called my personal thoughts weird and crazy, laughable?
How many times have I posted the obvious changes in the masoretic? Or the quotes from Rufinus about the Jerome's teacher "Barabbas"? And the points he makes?
Or the books I have suggested on the topic?
The Nathans video I have posted dozens of times in this forum and even personally messaged to you that shows Rabbis proving Jesus could not be the Messiah according to Jewish tradition by pointing to a change in Genesis that three older manuscripts have witnessed as false???
I even screen snapped the newspaper clipping, edited the photo to make it clear to read, and transcribed it!
Videos that go into great detail about the Bible Societies.

Those are sources that I have provided.
So when you accuse me of offering no substance of evidence that YOU asked for in response to MY answers that YOU asked that were UNRELATED to the thread in the first place, I charge you and Albion both of libel against me.

The tradition as it is defined, shows us that protestants had the Apocrypha included in their Bibles for a great, long season, so yes, modern Protestantism IN MY OPINION as stated, is different than that of Luther concerning Biblical tradition.

 

[Albion]

@Josiah @Alibion

"And I'm going to suggest that, hereafter, it not be allowed for any thread's title to be a theory or hearsay or a hunch, etc. stated as if it were fact."

Read the THREAD title! How is THIS hearsay?

You could, of course, have been misled by somebody else.

Do I take it that you're admitting that the title is either an unproven theory or a personal hunch--seeing that you didn't question those possibilities?

Revised King James Version 1885 [English]
The "Apocrypha" was officially removed by a society of wealthy businessmen (The American Bible Society) to make even more money by using less resources (paper, ink) and selling them at the same price to Protestants (who protested the removal of the "Apocrypha") while overcharging Catholic Bishops to print the Deuterocanon/"Apocrypha"
----------

We've already corrected that disinformation. And what do you gain by making such a claim anyway?? It doesn't prove anything about either the churches or the Apocrypha.

Best you move on to something more credible now.

 

[NathanH83]

What I want to know is WHY did the Puritans and Presbyterians in the early 1800’s lobby for the Bible societies to print Bibles without the Apocrypha? Why did they do that? What was their reasoning? And does their reasoning really hold up to scrutiny?

Anybody know what the Puritans and Presbyterians argued in their move against the Apocrypha? What did they say? What were their main arguments?

Looking at how the Puritans handled the Salem trials, I’m not sure how much I trust their judgment.

Certainly the Puritans and Presbyterians knew that the 8th and 11th chapters of Daniel prophesied about the events recorded in 1 and 2 Maccabees. They knew that because their Bibles told them so in the margin! So why on Earth would they want to get rid of that, when you can’t even understand the prophesies without it???

Makes no sense to me. REALLY doesn’t make sense to me AT ALL.

 

[Albion]

It was included because it was included in the "bibles" before, in that sense I can say that any books of the Bible were at one point "included"

...just like the maps, tables of contents, publisher's statement, the publication date, and so on.

All of that is "included" but NONE OF IT IS the very word of God, divine revelation.

And yet you appear determined to insist that ALL OF IT and the uninspired Apocrypha books are indeed the word of God, with all that that implies. The rest of us cannot figure why you would want to make such a nonsensical claim, let alone repeat it endlessly.

 

[NathanH83]

The King James 1611 included them, the Geneva bible, ALL bibles included them for the majorty of Christendom... were they ignorant dummies and conspiracy theorists when they became concerned that the Jews were removing them when they obviously quote them in their Targums and in the dead sea scrolls? Jospehus included who soley spoke Greek and used the Greek Septuagint?

I think we can safely say that the Apocryphal books were in every Christian-approved Bible from the start of Christianity up until the 1600’s.

In the 1500’s, the “Apocryphal” books (so-called) were removed from the main body of text and placed in a separate section FOR THE FIRST TIME in the history of Christianity. But that section was still included in all those Protestant translations of the 1500’s.

In the 1600’s, the practice of Christians to START to print Bibles without the Apocryphal section began, and became more predominant over time, until finally in the mid to late 1800’s the Apocryphal books disappeared entirely from Protestant Bibles.

That’s a major break from tradition, especially looking at what the early church said about the Greek Septuagint.