Tacenda Posted December 22, 2016 Posted December 22, 2016 Was the 1611 King James Bible six thousand verses longer than the one we're using now? I listened to this podcast http://mormonmisc.podbean.com/e/172baptist-lds-reminisce-1981-conversations/#respond by Van Hale this morning and he and Lee Baker were hashing this out, with Lee disagreeing that there were. I am now needing help from my go-to crowd on if this is true or not. Thanks!
hagoth7 Posted December 22, 2016 Posted December 22, 2016 IIRC, the first KJV included books in the Bible that aren't published in the current KJV (apocrypha). 1
hagoth7 Posted December 22, 2016 Posted December 22, 2016 Yep. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ 1
CV75 Posted December 22, 2016 Posted December 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: Was the 1611 King James Bible six thousand verses longer than the one we're using now? I listened to this podcast http://mormonmisc.podbean.com/e/172baptist-lds-reminisce-1981-conversations/#respond by Van Hale this morning and he and Lee Baker were hashing this out, with Lee disagreeing that there were. I am now needing help from my go-to crowd on if this is true or not. Thanks! Indisputably. "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." 1
Tacenda Posted December 22, 2016 Author Posted December 22, 2016 21 minutes ago, CV75 said: Indisputably. "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." Where can your quote be found? Opposite of a scriptorian that I am.
ksfisher Posted December 22, 2016 Posted December 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: Was the 1611 King James Bible six thousand verses longer than the one we're using now? I listened to this podcast http://mormonmisc.podbean.com/e/172baptist-lds-reminisce-1981-conversations/#respond by Van Hale this morning and he and Lee Baker were hashing this out, with Lee disagreeing that there were. I am now needing help from my go-to crowd on if this is true or not. Thanks! Bible translators at the time were paid by the verse.
Tacenda Posted December 22, 2016 Author Posted December 22, 2016 25 minutes ago, hagoth7 said: Yep. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ Great, learned something new today! So how come Lee Baker disputes it? Oh well, I might have misunderstood the whole debate!
CV75 Posted December 22, 2016 Posted December 22, 2016 22 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Where can your quote be found? Opposite of a scriptorian that I am. John 21:25
hagoth7 Posted December 23, 2016 Posted December 23, 2016 6 hours ago, Tacenda said: Great, learned something new today! So how come Lee Baker disputes it?... It might be worthwhile to ask Lee that question. ??
sunstoned Posted December 23, 2016 Posted December 23, 2016 10 hours ago, Tacenda said: Was the 1611 King James Bible six thousand verses longer than the one we're using now? I listened to this podcast http://mormonmisc.podbean.com/e/172baptist-lds-reminisce-1981-conversations/#respond by Van Hale this morning and he and Lee Baker were hashing this out, with Lee disagreeing that there were. I am now needing help from my go-to crowd on if this is true or not. Thanks! Not to worry Tacenda. We have a modern prophet who would have alerted us to any revelations that were missing. That is what modern prophets are for.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 23, 2016 Posted December 23, 2016 4 hours ago, sunstoned said: Not to worry Tacenda. We have a modern prophet who would have alerted us to any revelations that were missing. That is what modern prophets are for. yours was the only false and sarcastic note struck in any of the above replies. Why is that I wonder? 1
Five Solas Posted December 24, 2016 Posted December 24, 2016 As a side note, my Catholic Study Bible (NAB) includes additional books, but prefers the term "deuterocanonical" (meaning second canon) to "apocrypha." Out of respect for 3DOP, maybe we should refer to them accordingly... :0) As a bit of historical trivia on the topic, F.F. Bruce in his book, The Canon of Scripture, relates the story of King Edward VII's coronation in 1902. As it happened, the copy of the Bible provided for that purpose contained only the 66 books. But the Archbishop of Canterbury refused to use it, saying a "mutilated bible" was unacceptable. A last-minute scramble succeeded in finding a Bible with all the requisite books. --Erik 1
Robert F. Smith Posted December 24, 2016 Posted December 24, 2016 2 hours ago, Five Solas said: As a side note, my Catholic Study Bible (NAB) includes additional books, but prefers the term "deuterocanonical" (meaning second canon) to "apocrypha." Out of respect for 3DOP, maybe we should refer to them accordingly... :0) As a bit of historical trivia on the topic, F.F. Bruce in his book, The Canon of Scripture, relates the story of King Edward VII's coronation in 1902. As it happened, the copy of the Bible provided for that purpose contained only the 66 books. But the Archbishop of Canterbury refused to use it, saying a "mutilated bible" was unacceptable. A last-minute scramble succeeded in finding a Bible with all the requisite books. --Erik Yes, and Joseph Smith's 1611 KJV Bible included all the Apocrypha, as they had for centuries.
LittleNipper Posted December 24, 2016 Posted December 24, 2016 On 12/22/2016 at 1:10 PM, CV75 said: Indisputably. "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." What was written was what was necessary (inspired by GOD) to prove Jesus was the Messiah and not a running diary of every specific miracle and what Jesus had for lunch daily --- if you get my drift...
CV75 Posted December 24, 2016 Posted December 24, 2016 9 hours ago, LittleNipper said: What was written was what was necessary (inspired by GOD) to prove Jesus was the Messiah and not a running diary of every specific miracle and what Jesus had for lunch daily --- if you get my drift... And it is a miracle to me that the surviving portion of that was sufficient to squeak by the Apostasy and prepare the world for the Restoration.
theplains Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 On 22/12/2016 at 10:03 PM, sunstoned said: Not to worry Tacenda. We have a modern prophet who would have alerted us to any revelations that were missing. That is what modern prophets are for. The 'doctrine' part of the Doctrines and Covenants was removed in 1921 when these so-called prophets decided to remove it. See De-canonizing the Lectures on Faith. Thanks, Jim
Recommended Posts