The Third Millenium Bible
with the Apocrypha


The following newsletter was reprinted with kind permission from Barb Aho.

From: Watch Unto Prayer
[email protected]
http://watch.pair.com/pray.html
Date: December 4, 1998

THE THIRD MILLENNIUM BIBLE WITH APOCRYPHA

In 1994, Deuel Publishers of Gary Indiana published THE 21ST CENTURY KING JAMES VERSION (KJ21) as: "...an accurate updating of the King James Version (KJV) of A.D. 1611." This publisher has now produced another edition of the 1611 Authorised Version titled THE THIRD MILLENNIUM BIBLE which is touted as "a Bible for all of Christendom!" This latest edition of the 1611 KJV claims to merely update obsolete or obscure words:

"The Third Millennium Bible is neither a new translation nor a revision. No attempt has been made to improve the timeless message or literary style of the A.D 1611 AV. Words which are either obsolete or involve a modern meaning change and are no longer understood by literate Bible readers, have been replaced by carefully selected current equivalents. Updated spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and paragraphing have been used. All changes have been painstakingly made so as not to alter the meaning or beauty of the AV in any way. They simply make the Third Millennium Bible easier to read and understand."

A critique of the THE 21ST CENTURY KING JAMES VERSION and THIRD MILLENNIUM BIBLE on the Way of Life Literature website does reveal a significant number of changes that seem unnecessary:

"One reviewer of the KJV21, George Shafer, did a computer check of the verses in the four Gospels, comparing the KJV21 with the original KJV (Lifeline, January 1998, Anchor Baptist Church, 1880 East 5600 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84121). He discovered that the KJV21 modified 2,200 of the 3,779 verse -- nearly 60% of them!"

THE APOCRYPHA

Of primary concern is the inclusion in THE THIRD MILLENNIUM BIBLE of the Apocrypha, a collection of non-canonical or spurious books written during the intertestamental period. The TMB web site highly recommends the Apocrypha as "deutero-canonical" books, which is the Roman Catholic term for "second canon."

http://www.tmbible.com/

"Many denominations do not consider the Apocrypha (deuterocanonical books) to be canonical. However, persons who are familiar with the Apocrypha immediately recognize the beauty and poetry of these books, and strongly affirm that the Apocrypha is valuable for instruction, for its historic interest, and for its dramatization of morals, virtues, and values. Modern readers will readily recognize the astonishing applicability of much of the Apocrypha's moral teachings and wisdom to the current sullied political, social, and cultural climate."

Moreover, the Preface to THE THIRD MILLENNIUM BIBLE laments the exclusion of the Apocrypha from English Bibles since 1825, at the behest of the English monarchy and "certain activist groups":

http://www.tmbible.com/ToTheReader.htm

"Most contemporary Protestant Bibles, by contrast with their earlier Renaissance editions, have omitted over one hundred thirty-thousand words which were included in the ancient traditional versions, namely, the deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha). All traditional Bibles from the time of the Wycliffe Bible of A.D. 1384 through the King James Version of A.D. 1611 contained the Apocrypha. But after A.D. 1825 Oxford and Cambridge presses in England, having obtained the permanent and exclusive franchise (copyright) on the printing of the King James Version from the English crown, in collaboration with certain activist groups, began to publish the King James Version without the Apocrypha. This practice continues up to the present time. Thereby the history, wisdom and moral imperatives reflected in the beautiful, soulful Apocrypha have been lost for most modern Protestant readers. The Apocrypha was included in the King James Version for the first two hundred twenty-five years of its publication and has been omitted for less than one hundred eighty years since. This omission has been restored in the Third Millennium Bible to its proper and historic position. It should be noted that Bibles used in the Orthodox, Catholic and conservative Episcopal churches contain the Apocrypha (deuterocanonical books)."

Webster's Online Dictionary defines deuterocanonical as: "ecclesiastical writing of inferior authority." The use of the term "deuterocanonical" by the Catholic Church is somewhat misleading, for according to Robert Sargent's "LANDMARKS OF ENGLISH BIBLE: MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE" these books are accepted as canonical:

"The Roman Catholic 'Church' in effect accepts 12 of the apocryphal books as canonical (omitting I & II Esdras and the Prayer of Manassah from the above list.) Because of this the Roman Catholic 'Church' speaks of the Apocrypha as 'deutero-canonical' books, and in turn labels as apocrypha what we may term 'pseudoepigraphical' books."

In very fact, the Declarations of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) include the following:

"FOURTH SESSION: DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES: 'If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts [the 66 books of the Bible plus 12 apocryphal books, being two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Sophonias, two of Macabees], as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.'"

David Cloud's critique of the Third Millennium Bible includes further discussion of the Apocrypha and its historical context that is worth repeating here:

http://wayoflife.org/~dcloud/fbns/21st.htm

"The Third Millennium Bible will contain 14 of the Apocryphal Books. These were written during the two hundred years preceding and one hundred years following Christ's birth. The Roman Catholic Church considers most of these writings to be part of the inspired Scripture, and the Apocryphal books promote Catholic heresies such as prayers to the dead, the use of ritual to overcome the devil, and salvation through good works. In 1546 the Council of Trent decreed that the canon of the O.T. should include them (except the Prayer of Manasseh and I and II Esdras) ... the decree pronounces an anathema upon anyone who 'does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts' (The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, pp. x,xv). The Council of Trent was an attempt by the Catholic Church to counteract the Protestant Reformation with its battle cry of 'faith alone' and 'Scripture alone.' By adding the Apocrypha to the canon of Scripture, the Catholic Church, in effect, rendered the rest of the Bible impotent. 'The books named in the decree [of Trent] include the apocryphal Old Testament books, and placed unwritten traditions of the church upon an equal footing with Holy Scriptures as approved of Christ or of the Holy Spirit. Any appeal to Holy Scripture as expressing the supreme will of God was thereafter useless in the Latin Church' (Edwin W. Rice, Our Sixty-six Sacred Books, p. 112).

"It is true that early editions of the 1611 KJV (as well as many other Reformation Bibles, including the German Luther Bible) contained the Apocrypha, but these books were included for historical reference only, not as additions to the canon of Scripture. By 1640 editions of the KJV were being printed without the Apocrypha (though it continued to be printed in some editions of the KJV until the 1800s). It is important to note that in the early King James Bibles the Apocryphal books were placed between the Old and New Testaments rather than intermingled within the O.T. itself as is done in Catholic Bibles. In the Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic Bible), for example, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees follow Nehemiah; the Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus follow Ecclesiastes; Baruch follows Lamentations; etc.

Edward F. Hills wrote in his volume, THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED:

"But although all Protestants rejected the Apocrypha as canonical Old Testament Scripture, there was still considerable disagreement among them as to what to do with these controversial books. Luther rejected 1 and 2 Esdras, and placed the other apocryphal books in an appendix AT THE CLOSE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, prefacing it with the statement: 'Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.' The early English Bibles, including finally the King James Version, placed the Apocrypha in the SAME LOCATION..." (p. 98; Introduction to the Apocrypha, Metzger, p. 183)

It is important to understand that English Bibles which preceded the A.V. also contained the Apocrypha: Tyndale's Bible (1525 A.D.), Coverdale's Bible (1535 A.D.), Matthew's Bible (1537 A.D.), Taverner's Bible (1539 A.D.), the Great Bible, (1539 A.D.), the Geneva Bible (1560 A.D.) and the Bishop's Bible (1568 A.D.). Apocryphal books began to be omitted from the A.V. in 1629 and by 1827 the Apocrypha was excluded permanently.

The Watch Unto Prayer web site provides additional information on the Apocrypha excerpted from LANDMARKS OF ENGLISH BIBLE: MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE, a seminary textbook by Robert Sargent, who offers this explanation for its inclusion in the Reformation Bibles:

"Many of the early English versions contained the Apocrypha for two basic reasons - because of the general acceptance of the Apocrypha during the Dark Ages, and/or (in case of the Authorized, King James Version) for Scriptural analysis. In each case, the Apocrypha were delineated either in an appendix and/or with an explanation showing them to be non-canonical."

Way of Life Literature delineates the traditional Protestant disposition toward the Apocrypha:

"The Apocryphal books were never considered inspired or canonical by Protestant denominations. Alexander McClure, a biographer of the KJV translators, says: '...the Apocryphal books in those times were more read and accounted of than now, though by no means placed on a level with the canonical books of Scripture' (McClure, Translators Revived, p. 185). He then lists seven reasons assigned by the KJV translators for rejecting the Apocrypha as inspired. The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England clearly states that the Apocrypha have no scriptural authority. '...[the Church of England] doth not apply to them to establish any doctrine.' The Westminster Confession says, 'The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.' Luther included a note on the Apocrypha which stated, 'These are books not to be held in equal esteem with those of Holy Scripture...'"

The Westminster Confession refers to Article VI of the 1562 Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England: "The Church of England in the 6th of the Thirty-nine Articles published in 1562 calls the apocryphal treatises books which the 'Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.'"

CF., "Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion: As established by the Bishops, the Clergy, and the Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, in Convention, on the twelfth day of September, in the Year of our Lord, 1801.

http://virtual.chattanooga.net/stalbans/39.html

"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."

Whereas the tendency since the Reformation has been away from inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Scripture, a counter-movement to reinstate these uninspired books is gaining momentum. The next step will likely be to intermingle the Apocryphal books chronologically throughout the Old Testament. Then will follow a general acceptance of the New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudographia which are seriously corrupted with Gnostic doctrines, i.e., the Epistle of Barnabas, Epistles of Clement (founder of Gnostic School of Alexandria), Shepherd of Hermas, Secret Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Thomas, et al.

TEACHINGS IN THE APOCRYPHA

Stand to Reason, an apologetic ministry which makes available an online Revised Standard Version of the Apocrypha, also emphasizes the historical non-canonicity of these books:

http://str.org/free/studies/apocryph.htm

"The Jews never did (and still don't) accept these books as inspired on par with the rest of the OT Scripture (the Palestinian Canon, 22 books in Hebrew, equivalent to our 39 Old Testament books). However, the Apocrypha were translated into Greek along with the rest of the Old Testament in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT, circa 250 B.C.) to make up the Alexandrian canon. The 1 century Jewish historian Josephus said the prophets wrote from Moses to Artaxerxes (Malachi). The Talmud concurs. Jews did not consider this collection of their books as canon.

"Reasons to Reject the Apocrypha:

  1. Oldest versions of the LXX date to 4th century. We don't know if the earlier copies, the version that Jesus and the apostles used, included it. Jesus and the Apostles never quote from it, though they quote hundreds of times from all parts of the OT. The apostles only allude to it in two places (2 Peter?, Jude), but not as authoritative canon.
  2. The Apocrypha itself never claims to be the Word of God.
  3. Some books promote unbiblical concepts, e.g. prayer for the dead (2 Macc. 12:45-46).
  4. Some books have serious historical inaccuracies, e.g Tobit, Judith. -- end STR quote --

The following verses from Apocryphal books represent their general promotion of unscriptural doctrines:

Lying, assassination and magical incantations are also approved.

http://str.org/free/studies/apocryph.htm

KING JAMES VI & I on THE APOCRYPHA

In 1598, King James VI of Scotland, who later became James I of England and authorized translation of the version which bears his name today, wrote the BASILICON DORON (THE KINGLY GIFT) - "as a testament to instruct his young son, Prince Henry, in manners, morals and the ways of kingship." A web site devoted to providing source documents on King James VI & I has posted the first book of this trilogy, as well as other writings of the Christian monarch whose unfeigned faith is witnessed therein.

"As Hee can not bee thought worthie to rule & command others, that cannot rule and dantone his owne proper affections & unreasonable appetites; so can he not be thought worthy to governe a Christian people, knowing & fearing God, that in his own person and hart feareth not, and loveth not the Divine Majestie."

After this introduction, King James summarized the various portions of Scripture, explaining the necessity of careful reading and application of its commands. As for the Apocrypha, however, the King advised his son to avoid these books as common fare incomparable to the precious pearl of the inspired canon:

"As to the Apocriphe bookes, I omit them because I am no Papist (as I said before) & indeed some of them are as like the dietement of the Spirite of God, as an Egge is to an Oyster."

THE ECUMENICAL BIBLE

By reintroducing the spurious books of the Apocrypha to Protestantism, the THIRD MILLENNIUM BIBLE will advance the globalist plan of ecumenical unity. Various ecumenical Bible Societies have for years diligently distributed such bibles worldwide:

"The Third Millennium Bible (based on the KJV21) is following the trend today to bring the Apocryphal books back into common use. Because of ecumenical activities involving the Roman Catholic Church in these end times, there is an increasing tendency for publishers to include the Apocryphal writings with the Bible. This is being done by the United Bible Societies in many languages. By 1981, for example, the American Bible Society had published over 500,000 copies of the Today's English Version with the Apocryphal books included. In the mid-1980s I visited the Bible Society book depot in Calcutta, India, and was shown massive stacks of Revised Standard Version Bibles containing the Apocrypha. These had been published by the American Bible Society and shipped to India for distribution. The 1992-93 American Bible Society catalog of Scripture Resources lists at least nine different Bibles containing the Apocrypha."

Deuel Publishers also produce the Revised Standard Version, which publication was first authorized in 1951 by the National Council of Churches of Christ (formerly the Rockefeller-funded Federal Council of Churches) in the U.S.A. The RSV is highly recommended by the Canadian Council of Churches, the United Bible Societies and most ecumenical councils throughout the world. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), which also includes the Apocrypha, is published in various editions and also marketed in massive quantities:

http://mnemosyne.oup-usa.org/catalogs/gencat/index/Bible.html

It appears that THE THIRD MILLENNIUM BIBLE may become the bible of choice for ecumenically-minded Catholics and Protestants. The KJ21 web site (www.kj21.com /) displays a wide range of religious endorsements. The Third Millennium Bible web site moreover deplores the lack of unity among religions professing to be Christian:

"The grievous shame of Christendom is its tragic fragmentation: it has succumbed to the process of division, not only into denominations and social entities, but into fractious sects, as well... Historians, philosophers, and theologians will never agree on why this untoward divisiveness has obtained, or who might be responsible for it. But as we contemplate the third millennium and try to divine its course and direction, certain minimal conditions may be envisaged which might help to bring about the loving unity which Christ intended for His people: (1) a language of universal religious communication and (2) a commonly accepted biblical text. Let us reflect on each of these in turn."

According to Deuel publishers, the development of a Universal Language is being "hastened by stunning modern technological advances, especially the World Wide Web of cyberspace. The development of cyberspace as the highway of intellectual communication is, for the most part, being mediated through the English idiom..."

Only a universal bible is required for the unification of Christendom:

"Yet, a second and further realization is required to unite The Body of Christ into a vibrant trans-national communications network of Christianity's exalted spirituality: a universally accepted biblical text. Almost four hundred years ago Western Christendom was providentially presented with two commonly and widely accepted biblical texts in the English language. During the first decade of the seventeenth century two learned and distinguished groups of scholars were diligently and prayerfully engaged in translating the scriptures from the disparate biblical languages of the past into English. The work was being done by one group on the continent of Europe at Douay and Rheims in France, and at approximately the same time another group was working at Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster in England. Perhaps the two greatest groups of scholars ever assembled to translate the Word of God were both working to complete the translation into English. The group working from the Latin Vulgate in France completed the Catholic Douay-Rheims Version in A.D. 1609 (N.T. 1582); the group working from the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts in England completed the Protestant King James Version two years later in A.D. 1611."

The Preface of THE THIRD MILLENNIUM BIBLE (based on the KJV21) places equal value on the Catholic Douay-Rheims Version and the King James Bible:

"'The Douay-Rheims Version and the King James Version have provided English-language Bible readers world-wide with intrinsically similar, though not identical, wording for well over four centuries. These two historic versions in turn are the only universally accepted English Bible translations developed over the past four hundred years. One of these need only be minimally updated to furnish all believers with a truly universal text. This has now been accomplished. The Third Millennium Bible presents the updated modern recension of the A.D. 1611 King James Version. It stands markedly closer to the Douay-Rheims Version than does either the King James Version or the Douay-Rheims Version to any contemporary Bible."

This comparison is misleading in the extreme, since the King James and the Douay Rheims Bibles are based on radically different Greek texts. The Douay-Rheims was produced by the Jesuits in a last ditch effort to undermine the Protestant Reformation. It was based on Gnostic Alexandrian manuscripts from the Vatican previously rejected by Erasmus in editing the Greek text, which later became the Textus Receptus upon which the King James Version was based.

William Tyndale studied Greek under Erasmus at Cambridge University from 1510-1514. Fluent in seven languages, he translated two-thirds of the Bible into English using the Erasmus Greek text. Determined to put the Scriptures into the hands of the common people, Tyndale was eventually martyred for his labors. Tyndale's English Bible was published in 1525 after his death; the Douay Rheims was the Jesuits' attempt to destroy confidence in Tyndale's English Version.

When the leadership of the Reformation passed from Germany to England via Tyndale's English Version, the Catholic Church recognized that it must regain England if the English-speaking world would be Catholic. The Jesuits produced an English New Testament in 1582, which in 1609 became the Douay Rheims Bible upon completion of the Old Testament based on the Alexandrian manuscripts. During this critical period, England would be assaulted by Rome not only from within by the Jesuit English New Testament in 1582, but also from without by the Spanish Armada which was allied with Rome. Determined to meet the challenge, in 1588, the English fleet defeated the Armada, a strategic victory which positioned England to become a world sea power. On the spiritual front, the English clergy were alarmed that the Jesuit Bible was poisoning the people with Roman doctrines. In 1582, one thousand ministers had also petitioned the English monarch, James I, "that there might be a new translation of the Bible, without note or comment." (WHICH BIBLE?, p. 248.)

David Otis Fuller reveals in WHICH BIBLE? the mysterious updating of the Douay Rheims Version to conform to the KJV, while the modern versions retain the Gnostic corruptions:

"The Rheims-Douay and the King James Version were published less than 30 years apart. Since then the King James has steadily held its own. The Rheims-Douay has been repeatedly changed to approximate the King James. The result of is that the Douay of 1600 and that of 1900 are not the same in many ways... if you seek to compare the Douay with the American Revised Version you will find that the older, or first Douay of 1582, is more like it in Catholic readings than those editions of today, inasmuch as the 1582 Version had been doctored and redoctored. Yet, even in the later editions, you will find many of those corruptions which the Reformers denounced and which reappear in the American Revised Version [ASV 1901].

A REASONABLE SOLUTION

Does the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the 1611 King James Version and all Reformation Bibles negate their authenticity? Those who are inclined to trust the modern translations instead should spend time in the Bible Version section of our web site reading about the circumstances and persona involved in editing the 1881 New Greek Text (based on Gnostic manuscripts) which underlies all modern translations. No one has ever documented that King James or the KJV translators were occultists or heretics, yet B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort incriminate themselves in their own writings. As well, their contemporaries document the witchcraft and apostasy of these Bible revisers.

The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival
http://watch.pair.com/occult.html

Another Bible, Another Gospel
http://watch.pair.com/another.html

Is the King James Version obsolete? Consider these endorsements:

"The translators of the Revised Version, nearly three centuries later, declared: 'We have had to study this great Version carefully and minutely, line by line; and the longer we have been engaged upon it the more we have learned to admire its simplicity, its dignity, its power; its happy turns of expression, its general accuracy, and, we must not fail to add, the music of its cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm.' Even the non-Christian, Thomas Huxley, offered the following glowing tribute to this version of the Scriptures:

"'Consider the great historical fact that for three centuries this book has been woven into the life of all that is best and noblest in English history; that it has become the national epic of Britain, and is as familiar to the noble and simple, from John-o-Groat's House to Land's End, as Dante and Tasso once were to the Italians; that it is written in the noblest and purest English, and abounds in exquisite beauties of pure literary form; and finally that it forbids the veriest hind who never left his village to be ignorant of the existence of other countries and other civilizations, and of a great past stretching back to the furthest limits of the oldest civilizations of the world." ("The English Bible & Its Development," THE OPEN BIBLE EXPANDED EDITION, Thomas Nelson Pub., p. 1328)

An interesting contrast is that T.H. Huxley declined an invitation by the London Dialectical Society participate in investigating spiritualistic phenomena - the national pastime of Great Britain during the apostate era of Westcott & Hort, whose Cambridge Ghost Society was the forerunner of the world renowned Society for Psychical Research. Wrote Huxley to the LDS:

"The only case of 'Spiritualism' I have had the opportunity of examining was as gross an imposture as ever come under my notice. But supposing the the phenomena to be genuine - they do not interest me. If anybody would endow me with the faculty of listening to the chatter of old women and curates in the nearest town, I should decline the privilege, having better things to do. And if the folk in the spiritual world do not talk more wisely than their friends report them to do, I put them in the same category." (Report of the Committee on Spiritualism of the London Dialectical Society, London, 1871, p. 229)

[Tracy's Note: For more famous quotes on the King James, please go here. For a short article on the apocrypha, please go here.]




| Eternal Life | Hell is Real | The Gospel According to John |
| My Testimony |Why I Read the Authorized KJV Bible|
| The Hymnal | Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus Christ |
| Epistle Dedicatory to the Authorized King James of 1611 |



Jesus Christ is the Only Way to God / [email protected]

Home