King James Only movement

[Alizia Tyler]

Is "The Wisdom of Solomon" the same as "The Song of Solomon"?

No, it appears that The Song of Solomon is Apocrypha.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I loved the I Ain't Doin It video.

 

[Daisy]

The wisdom of Solomon is considered as Apocrypha...


The Greek word a·poʹkry·phos is used in its original sense in three Bible texts as referring to things “carefully concealed.” (Mr 4:22; Lu 8:17; Col 2:3) As applied to writings, it originally referred to those not read publicly, hence “concealed” from others. Later, however, the word took on the meaning of spurious or uncanonical, and today is used most commonly to refer to the additional writings declared part of the Bible canon by the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1546). Catholic writers refer to these books as deuterocanonical, meaning “of the second (or later) canon,” as distinguished from protocanonical.

These additional writings are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus (not Ecclesiastes), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, supplements to Esther, and three additions to Daniel: The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna and the Elders, and The Destruction of Bel and the Dragon. The exact time of their being written is uncertain, but the evidence points to a time no earlier than the second or third century B.C.E.

Evidence Against Canonicity. While in some cases they have certain historical value, any claim for canonicity on the part of these writings is without any solid foundation. The evidence points to a closing of the Hebrew canon following the writing of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi in the fifth century B.C.E. The Apocryphal writings were never included in the Jewish canon of inspired Scriptures and do not form part of it today.

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus shows the recognition given only to those few books (of the Hebrew canon) viewed as sacred, stating: “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty [the equivalent of the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures according to modern division], and contain the record of all time.” He thereafter clearly shows an awareness of the existence of Apocryphal books and their exclusion from the Hebrew canon by adding: “From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.”—Against Apion, I, 38, 41 (8).

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000305#h=25:0-28:425

 

[NewfieMom]

In my Bible the stories about what Solomon does are all in KINGS. Only "The Song of Solomon" is separate.

 

[NewfieMom]

The wisdom of Solomon is considered as Apocrypha...


The Greek word a·poʹkry·phos is used in its original sense in three Bible texts as referring to things “carefully concealed.” (Mr 4:22; Lu 8:17; Col 2:3) As applied to writings, it originally referred to those not read publicly, hence “concealed” from others. Later, however, the word took on the meaning of spurious or uncanonical, and today is used most commonly to refer to the additional writings declared part of the Bible canon by the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1546). Catholic writers refer to these books as deuterocanonical, meaning “of the second (or later) canon,” as distinguished from protocanonical.

These additional writings are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus (not Ecclesiastes), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, supplements to Esther, and three additions to Daniel: The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna and the Elders, and The Destruction of Bel and the Dragon. The exact time of their being written is uncertain, but the evidence points to a time no earlier than the second or third century B.C.E.

Evidence Against Canonicity. While in some cases they have certain historical value, any claim for canonicity on the part of these writings is without any solid foundation. The evidence points to a closing of the Hebrew canon following the writing of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi in the fifth century B.C.E. The Apocryphal writings were never included in the Jewish canon of inspired Scriptures and do not form part of it today.

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus shows the recognition given only to those few books (of the Hebrew canon) viewed as sacred, stating: “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty [the equivalent of the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures according to modern division], and contain the record of all time.” He thereafter clearly shows an awareness of the existence of Apocryphal books and their exclusion from the Hebrew canon by adding: “From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.”—Against Apion, I, 38, 41 (8).

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000305#h=25:0-28:425

Thank you, Elvira!

 

[Daisy]

I loved the I Ain't Doin It video.

Ain't she a hoot? I just love her videos...so much so, I had to have one of her t-shirts...

 

[Mircea]

It was also the hand of blessing, whereas the left is of cursing. Orientalisms.

But only because it was the hand of preeminence.

 

[Mircea]

Don't tell me, let me guess: another message board "expert". What a surprise. From where did you get this expertise?

It's published in professional peer-reviewed journals. You need only read to be informed and no longer be ignorant.

The fact that the King Joke Vision lied and added the phrase "her cunning" to the Hebrew text is a matter of fact and not in dispute.

The fact that a French-Israeli archaeology team discovered the original Psalm 137 as written in Ugartic Aramaic from which the Hebrews plagiarized in the ruins of Ugarit is also a matter of fact and not in dispute.

The fact that all Semitic languages, including Sumerian, Akkadian, Elamite, Kassite (the biblical "Kush), Eblaite, Aramaic et al are connotial languages is a fact not in dispute.

 

[Overitall]

But only because it was the hand of preeminence.

Ok, if you insist.

Interesting tidbit. When Jesus ascended into heaven he sat down at the right hand of God.

 

[mrjurrs]

It was not before today that I heard of this:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement


I still can hardly believe that adult people can belive such nonsense.

I'd rather have Curry than LeBron.

 

[Mircea]

Ok, if you insist.

Interesting tidbit. When Jesus ascended into heaven he sat down at the right hand of God.

I would hypothesize it has to do with the majority of people being right-handed.

I would also hypothesize that once people became "civilized" and realized that poo was nasty and started using their non-dominant hand -- the left hand -- to wipe it reinforced the right hand is preeminent and powerful thing.

 

[Overitall]

I would hypothesize it has to do with the majority of people being right-handed.

I would also hypothesize that once people became "civilized" and realized that poo was nasty and started using their non-dominant hand -- the left hand -- to wipe it reinforced the right hand is preeminent and powerful thing.

I imagine that’s why the left hand is used to slap someone. A stinky slap in the face is a double whammy.

 

[Questerr]

It was not before today that I heard of this:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement


I still can hardly believe that adult people can belive such nonsense.

It’s one of the most idiotic stances in Protestantism. They claim that the King Uames version is perfect “God inspired” version, but they ignore that the first edition (and there’s been like a dozen editions) contained a foreword by the translators stating they didn’t believe they had a very good translation and that it would need more revision when better primary sources became available.

 

[NewfieMom]

It’s one of the most idiotic stances in Protestantism. They claim that the King Uames version is perfect “God inspired” version, but they ignore that the first edition (and there’s been like a dozen editions) contained a foreword by the translators stating they didn’t believe they had a very good translation and that it would need more revision when better primary sources became available.

There are a huge number of Protestant denominations. Not all of them take the stance that The King James Bible is the only acceptable Bible. Not all Protestant denominations insist that the Bible be read at all. The Unitarian-Universalists do not. To Quakers (The Society of Friends), scripture is useful, but not the most important thing: relationship to God is. I am sure there are many, many more denominations I am skipping!

 

[Questerr]

There are a huge number of Protestant denominations. Not all of them take the stance that The King James Bible is the only acceptable Bible. Not all Protestant denominations insist that the Bible be read at all. The Unitarian-Universalists do not. To Quakers (The Society of Friends), scripture is useful, but not the most important thing: relationship to God is. I am sure there are many, many more denominations I am skipping!

I didn’t say all Protestants are King James Only adherents, but all King James Only adherents are Protestants.

 

[NewfieMom]

I didn’t say all Protestants are King James Only adherents, but all King James Only adherents are Protestants.

That makes sense.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Lisa, you don't know hog jowls from horse shit. People just like the way the KJV reads because it is very poetic when read aloud.

No, some believe that the KJV is the most accurate and complete translation. Not saying I'm one of those.

 

[MamboDervish]

It was not before today that I heard of this:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement


I still can hardly believe that adult people can belive such nonsense.

Sounds like the punchline to a joke, doesn't it?

What's brown, smells like shit, and sits on King James' throne?

King James' Only Movement

 

[Closer]

I much prefer the NKJV translations; don' know if the 'Movement' brought up in the OP includes that one or not, and don't care. I will add that even Catholic scholars admired the KJV, particularly its OT translation when it came out; it was pretty elegant for an English translation in its time, and some still like the language and style.

 

[nota bene]

I much prefer the NKJV translations; don' know if the 'Movement' brought up in the OP includes that one or not, and don't care. I will add that even Catholic scholars admired the KJV, particularly its OT translation when it came out; it was pretty elegant for an English translation in its time, and some still like the language and style.

I do love the language.

 

[Rumpelstil]

I do love the language.

The language may be fine.

But that it is the only true translation of the Bible worldwide and of all times - that is just plain stupid.

 

[Rumpelstil]

It’s one of the most idiotic stances in Protestantism.

I would say that it is one of the most idiotic stances of fanatical "Bible Christians".

 

[Questerr]

I would say that it is one of the most idiotic stances of fanatical "Bible Christians".

"Bible Christians" could apply to Catholics, Orthodox, and other non-Protestant denominations who would reject the authority of the King James version.

 

[Rumpelstil]

"Bible Christians" could apply to Catholics, Orthodox, and other non-Protestant denominations who would reject the authority of the King James version.

Then you don't know who "Bible Christians" are.

 

[Mircea]

I do love the language.

The language is archaic, ridiculous, and just plain wrong.

"Thou shalt not kill" is just plain wrong.

The best accurate translation is, "You will not murder."

One reason the King Joke Vision incorrectly translates it as "Thou shalt..." is to prevent people from realizing the Hebrews plagiarized those commandments from the Egyptians.