Holy Bible King James Version including The Apocrypha and the Book of Enoch

[HiddenLotus]

Hey everyone Today i was looking around online and came across this bible and was wondering what is "The Apocrypha" and why was they removed? I found the book on amazon for sell https://amzn.to/2tvdcSW would it be worth it? Please comment.

 

[Philip_B]

The original King James translation included the deuterocanonicals (sometimes call the Apocrypha). This is a standard of scripture set out in the 39 Articles of the Church of England. Some (most) of the continental reformers preferred to accept the Masoretic Canon (which does not include them), though they had been part of the Greek translation called the Septuagint of LXX. It's worth to you will probably depend upon the community of faith in which your worship. I would rather have them than not, as I think they add depth to our understanding of the New Testament. The Bible Society made a decision in the 19th century to stop including the deuterocanonicals based on an economic argument.

That having been said, I would not be looking for a KJV, but perhaps a more modern translation that included them, normally marketed as a Catholic Bible.

 

[Athanasius377]

The Apocrypha are a collection of books written during the intertestamental period. They were included in various editions of the Greek Old Testament the Septuagint (LXX). However these books are not found in Hebrew and are rejected as inspired by Jewish sources. These books were included in various ways into early collections of the Christian scriptures in both the East and West. They are called Apocrypha (meaning hidden) as they are doubtful in authenticity and inspiration or at best disputed. For example fourth century church father Augustine thought they were inspired while Jerome his contemporary thought they were not. Martin Luther was among the first reformers to deny their inspiration though he included the books in an appendix to the Old Testament. Likewise with the King James Version almost a century later. The translators included these book but moved them to the section in the bible between the Old and New Testaments.

Over time as the KJV began to gather popularity and Bible Societies began to print bibles themselves they removed the apocrypha outright as a cost saving measure. So most modern KJV bibles do not contain the apocrypha though there are some that still retain the books. There is one from Cambridge that still contains the books though most will buy the apocrypha as a separate volume.

Officially, Rome considers the books inspired and part of the "Deuterocanon". The Orthodox (Eastern) have various degrees on the inspiration but most include in their canonical lists a few more books than does Rome (3rd Esdras if memory serves for example). The Ethiopian Tewahedo Church includes the longer list along with the Book of Enoch that is referenced in the Book Jude.

As far as reading the books I see no harm. They were included for centuries and Christians for generations have found them edifying. That said, they also contain things such as superstition, prayers for the dead, laughably incorrect history among tales of great struggle and faith. In other words they are mixed bag. You can read them for free at this website:

Read the King James Version w/ Apocrypha Free Online

And the Book of Enoch here:

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

 

[Radagast]

The original King James translation included the deuterocanonicals (sometimes call the Apocrypha). This is a standard of scripture set out in the 39 Articles of the Church of England.

The 39 articles say:

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:​

The Third Book of Esdras
The Fourth Book of Esdras
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Judith
The rest of the Book of Esther
The Book of Wisdom
Jesus the Son of Sirach
Baruch the Prophet
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Susanna
Of Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees​

The continental reformers had a similar attitude, with the Belgic Confession saying:

We distinguish those sacred books from the apocryphal, namely: the third book of Esdras, the books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Jesus Syrach, Baruch, the appendix to the book of Esther, the Song of the three Children in the Furnace, the history of Susannah, of Bell and the Dragon, the prayer of Manasses, and the two books of the Maccabees. All of which the Church may read and take instruction from, so far as they agree with the canonical books; but they are far from having such power and efficacy, as that we may from their testimony confirm any point of faith, or of the Christian religion; much less detract from the authority of the other sacred books.​

Eventually, Protestants left these non-canonical books out of the Bible completely.

The "Bible" in the OP is fake, though -- no version of the KJV ever included Enoch, so this is not actually a "reprint."

I would say: get a good modern translation instead, like the ESV.

 

[Knee V]

Enoch was never part of the King James version, so if a KJV has Enoch, that book of Enoch is not a genuine part of the KJV in that it was never translated by the KJV translators.

 

[Radagast]

Enoch was never part of the King James version, so if a KJV has Enoch, that book of Enoch is not a genuine part of the KJV in that it was never translated by the KJV translators.

Indeed.