My King James Version of the Bible does not contain the book of Ecclesiacticus. Could you explain this?
I saw a twitter post using Ecclesiacticus 2:1. While I agree with the statement the verse makes, still it is not in the King James Version, mine or any other KJV I've ever read.
Before I was saved I had a Catholic Bible. Ecclesiasticus was there but you won't find it in a Christian Bible. That's why it's not in the KJV. It's apocryphal. The 1611 King James Bible did have it written separately with a header that read "Apocryphal books." Later on these were further examined (as we know there were a few revisions afterward to the King James Bible). It was eventually determined that there was no reason to keep them in as they're not inspired.
If you go back even further and study the dates in which scripture was written...every apocryphal books seems to be written long after where it should have been. That alone should have been reason for early Bibles to not include it and they were found separately to begin with.
Hi Charles. Ecclesiasticus is considered an Old Testament Apocryphal book, one of many. This KJBO site lists them under the Tab, 'More', at the top of the page. Some present day Bibles contain the Apocrypha, chiefly the RC Edition & those used by the Orthodox Churches.
When the Canon of Scripture was formed, this book alongwith others, were considered suspect for various reasons (e.g. authorship, incorrect teaching when compared with accepted Scriptures, etc.). Not to say that there's no truth within them, but the fact of some errors within them, should give warning to either approach them carefully or not refer to them at all.
It is evident that the accuser will find a "logical" way. Even adding the word cus .
The preacher would find this amusing if it were not real! Like the sands that are removed through time, such are these times of uncertainty! How hard is it to kick against the pricks of unbelief! Is not the word of God enough for us to learn? The archeology of a scroll with nothing but hot air my friend!
I saw a twitter post using Ecclesiacticus 2:1. While I agree with the statement the verse makes, still it is not in the King James Version, mine or any other KJV I've ever read.
If you go back even further and study the dates in which scripture was written...every apocryphal books seems to be written long after where it should have been. That alone should have been reason for early Bibles to not include it and they were found separately to begin with.
When the Canon of Scripture was formed, this book alongwith others, were considered suspect for various reasons (e.g. authorship, incorrect teaching when compared with accepted Scriptures, etc.). Not to say that there's no truth within them, but the fact of some errors within them, should give warning to either approach them carefully or not refer to them at all.
The preacher would find this amusing if it were not real! Like the sands that are removed through time, such are these times of uncertainty! How hard is it to kick against the pricks of unbelief! Is not the word of God enough for us to learn? The archeology of a scroll with nothing but hot air my friend!
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Posting comments is currently unavailable due to high demand on the server.
Please check back in an hour or more. Thank you for your patience!
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?