Is all 66 Books Bible the infallible, inerrant Word of God?

The Apocrypha was never treated or classified by Protestants as inspired.

It was included in the KJV since people had gotten used to seeing it. But it was clearly separated from the OT and NT, and eventually removed.

The Bible predates the Protestant Reformation.
This may help your studies. From the source link already posted in my other reply. And your post there reiterates that prior observation about inerrancy.


A clear history exists of the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the King James Bible:

• In the year 1615 Archbishop Gorge Abbott, a High Commission Court member and one of the original translators of the 1611 translation, “forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year’s imprisonment”

• “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or Deutero-canonical books. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary” (Early Christian Doctrines, J. Kelly)

• “In 405 Pope Innocent I embodied a list of canonical books in a letter addressed to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse; it too included the Apocrypha. The Sixth Council of Carthage (419) Re-enacted the ruling of the Third Council, again with the inclusion of the apocryphal books… “The Sixth Council of Carthage repromulgated in Canon 24 the resolution of the Third Council regarding the canon of scripture, and added a note directing that the resolution be sent to the bishop of Rome (Boniface I) and other bishops: ‘Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon [Canon 47 of the Third Council], because we have received from our fathers that these are the books which are to be read in church.’” (The Canon on Scripture, F. F. Bruce)

• “The holy ecumenical and general Council of Trent . . . following the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates all the books of the Old and New Testament . . . and also the traditions pertaining to faith and conduct . . . with an equal sense of devotion and reverence . . . If, however, any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have by custom been read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be accursed.” (Decree of the Council of Trent in 1546)

• “In the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. . . And the other books (as Jerome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.” (Articles of Religion of the Church of England, 1563, Sixth Article)

Most early Bibles contained the Apocrypha; here are just a few:

• 1534 Luther’s German translation of the Bible
• 1534 The Coverdale Bible
• 1537 Thomas Matthew Bible
• 1539 The Taverner Bible
• 1541 The “Great” or “Cromwell’s” Bible
• 1551 The “Tyndale/ Matthews” Bible
• 1560 The Geneva Bible
• 1568 The Bishops’ Bible
• 1610 Catholic Old Testament
• 1611 King James Bible
• 1615 King James Version Robert Barker at London, England

For readers information, there are still Bibles published today that contain the Apocrypha.

you thihk Matthew may have been in Hebrew originally?

No doubt that many (if not most) of the KJV translators were Calvinists, but above and beyond that, they were men of character, integrity, piety, and outstanding scholarship. The last thing they would try to do is to tamper with the actual words as found in the printed Hebrew and Greek texts. Their task was to TRANSLATE, not interpret (as found in the Calvinist Geneva Bible). They also ensured that any words which they inserted as helps were clearly distinguished from the actual text through the use of italics.

So why should Christians regard the KJV as the very Word of God in English (with the 66 books of the Bible) and continue using it as their sole Bible?

1. The KJV was THE (sole) English Bible worldwide for at least 300 years

2. It is the only commonly used Bible in English that is squarely based upon the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text and the traditional Greek Textus Receptus (Received Text).

4. The KJV is a faithful word-for-word translation of the Holy Scriptures

5. It has stood the test of time, and been used mightily by God to bring millions of souls to Christ, and also to edify millions of Christians worldwide. In other words, God blessed this translation, because it was faithful.

6. It is still used by Christians and non-Christians alike, and a recent survey showed that it is used more widely than modern translations.

7. All the propaganda against the King James Bible is BOGUS.

8. The beauty of the language and the spiritual POWER of the KJV has impressed people for ages,

View attachment 191590

1970 Road Runner...


View attachment 191591

Your post is replete with hogwash and codswollop. Translation is IMPOSSIBLE without interpretation.


An absolute lie! The Tyndale, Bishop's, Coverdale, Geneva, Matthews, and Great Bibles were published in English before the KJV... and still exist!


The Masoretic text is from about the 900s AD. Lots of time for things to get mis-copied. The term "Textus Receptus" was an advertising gimmick from AFTER the KJV's original publication.


Another lie, because such is impossible! Greek and Hebrew cannot be translated word-for-word into English because the grammatical structures are too different. Plus, it is easy to demonstrate that certain words are NOT accurate translations (yam suph in Hebrew means reed sea in English, not Red Sea). Further, some words are transliterations, not translations.



The Latin Vulgate "stood the test of time" for over 1100 years! The KJV is a mere pup in comparison.



Irrelevant.



This statement itself is nothing but propaganda.



Also irrelevant. The language of the KJV has no spiritual power; such a view is idolatry. The word of God has spiritual power... in any translation, as the KJV translators themselves implicitly acknowledged.

Does not matter.....ALL GREEK words come from one source and that is the beauty of a DEAD LANGUAGE.....

I never thought about it like that. I always thought of koine greek being a dead language as a negative.

But atleast dead languages dont change or develop like english is still doing!

Thanks dcon i like that.

Exactly......and exactly why we study to see what was meant when written to a 1st Century Greek speaking Gentile believer......

Your post is replete with hogwash and codswollop. Translation is IMPOSSIBLE without interpretation.


An absolute lie! The Tyndale, Bishop's, Coverdale, Geneva, Matthews, and Great Bibles were published in English before the KJV... and still exist!


The Masoretic text is from about the 900s AD. Lots of time for things to get mis-copied. The term "Textus Receptus" was an advertising gimmick from AFTER the KJV's original publication.


Another lie, because such is impossible! Greek and Hebrew cannot be translated word-for-word into English because the grammatical structures are too different. Plus, it is easy to demonstrate that certain words are NOT accurate translations (yam suph in Hebrew means reed sea in English, not Red Sea). Further, some words are transliterations, not translations.



The Latin Vulgate "stood the test of time" for over 1100 years! The KJV is a mere pup in comparison.



Irrelevant.



This statement itself is nothing but propaganda.



Also irrelevant. The language of the KJV has no spiritual power; such a view is idolatry. The word of God has spiritual power... in any translation, as the KJV translators themselves implicitly acknowledged.

No, not personally.....I have seen no references that prove that....the N.T. was written in Koine Greek....some phrases by Jesus in Aramic..........

Exactly......and exactly why we study to see what was meant when written to a 1st Century Greek speaking Gentile believer......

Is all 66 Books Bible the infallible, inerrant Word of God? If you chose no, can you please explain how Salvation can be true then?

As preserved by God in the King James Bible? Yes.

The Bible predates the Protestant Reformation.
This may help your studies. From the source link already posted in my other reply. And your post there reiterates that prior observation about inerrancy.


A clear history exists of the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the King James Bible:

• In the year 1615 Archbishop Gorge Abbott, a High Commission Court member and one of the original translators of the 1611 translation, “forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year’s imprisonment”

• “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or Deutero-canonical books. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary” (Early Christian Doctrines, J. Kelly)

• “In 405 Pope Innocent I embodied a list of canonical books in a letter addressed to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse; it too included the Apocrypha. The Sixth Council of Carthage (419) Re-enacted the ruling of the Third Council, again with the inclusion of the apocryphal books… “The Sixth Council of Carthage repromulgated in Canon 24 the resolution of the Third Council regarding the canon of scripture, and added a note directing that the resolution be sent to the bishop of Rome (Boniface I) and other bishops: ‘Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon [Canon 47 of the Third Council], because we have received from our fathers that these are the books which are to be read in church.’” (The Canon on Scripture, F. F. Bruce)

• “The holy ecumenical and general Council of Trent . . . following the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates all the books of the Old and New Testament . . . and also the traditions pertaining to faith and conduct . . . with an equal sense of devotion and reverence . . . If, however, any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have by custom been read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be accursed.” (Decree of the Council of Trent in 1546)

• “In the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. . . And the other books (as Jerome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.” (Articles of Religion of the Church of England, 1563, Sixth Article)

Most early Bibles contained the Apocrypha; here are just a few:

• 1534 Luther’s German translation of the Bible
• 1534 The Coverdale Bible
• 1537 Thomas Matthew Bible
• 1539 The Taverner Bible
• 1541 The “Great” or “Cromwell’s” Bible
• 1551 The “Tyndale/ Matthews” Bible
• 1560 The Geneva Bible
• 1568 The Bishops’ Bible
• 1610 Catholic Old Testament
• 1611 King James Bible
• 1615 King James Version Robert Barker at London, England

For readers information, there are still Bibles published today that contain the Apocrypha.

ROFL
KJV is 400 years old and the language has changed plus the animal kingdom is much better understood!!

Problems with KJV!!

For example, because of the changes in the English language, a number of words occur in the King James that make zero sense to most people today. These include the following nuggets that you will find scattered here and there:

Almug
Algum
Charashim
Chode
Cracknels
Gat
Habergeon
Hosen
Kab
Ligure
Neesed
Nusings
Ouches
ring-straked
sycamyne
trow
wimples, ….
The King James translators also translated some animal names into animals that in fact we now have pretty good reason for thinking don’t actually exist:

unicorn (Deut. 33:17)
satyr (Isa 13:21);
dragon (Deut 32:33) (for serpent)
cockatrice (Iswa 11:8),
arrowsnake (Gen 49:11, in the margin).
Moreover,, there are phrases that simply don’t make sense any more to modern readers: Phrases that no longer make sense:

ouches of gold (Exod. 28:11);
collops of fat (Job 15:25);
naughty figs (Jer 24:2);
ien with (Jer. 3:2);
the ground is chapt (Jer 14:4);
brazen wall” (Jer 15:20);
rentest thy face (Jer. 4:30);
urrain of the cattle (Exod. 9:2);
And there are whole sentences that are confusing at best, virtually indecipherable (or humorous)

And Jacob sod pottage (Gen 25:29)
And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exoc. 19:18)
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing (Ps. 5:6)
I trow not (Luke 17:9)
We do you to wit of the grace of God (2 Cor. 8:1)
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels (2 Cor. 6:12)
He who letteth will let (2 Thes 2:7)
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd (Eccles. 12:11)


Other sentences make sense, but would today be considered somewhat problematic – at least for the sacred Scripture. My favorite is the one that refers to a man who: “Pisseth against the wall:…. 1 Sam 25:22, 34, I Kings 14:10!

What are ouches of gold?

Here's my advice:

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.