Bible
Versions Controversy: Yearly CommentsBible Versions Controversy
Books and eBooks by the Director
Comments
on Bible Versions
(2005)
Below are assorted, short e-mails I received in 2005 on the items listed at Bible Versions Controversy and my book Differences Between Bible Versions. The e-mailers’ comments are in black and enclosed in "greater than" and "lesser than" signs. My comments are in red.
>Subject: King James Version and the Apocrypha
I note that the King James Version of 1611 included the Apocrypha. How does that affect its standing, in your view?
I did not see this point addressed on your site, but if it was, I would appreciate it if you could refer me to the prior discussion.
Terrence
1/29/05<
I don't see it as a problem. The Apocrypha was included as a separate section, in-between the Old and New Testaments. So it was clearly offset from the "real" Bible books. This differs from many Catholic Bible which intermix the Apocryphal books among the OT books.
I do believe the Apocryphal books are worth reading, once, to help fill in the "gap" between the two Testaments. 1Maccabees in particularly is historically accurate.
Books and eBooks by Gary F. Zeolla, the Director of Darkness to Light
Bible
Versions Controversy: Yearly Comments
Bible Versions Controversy
Text
Search Alphabetical List of Pages
Subject Index
General Information on Articles
Contact Information
Darkness
to Light Home Page
www.zeolla.org/christian