Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club! On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:55:52 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > I had never heard the story that the translation committee assembled > under appointment by King James I had included the Apocrypha in the first > edition. All of the editions of the King James Version translation that > I have seen are purported to be the "authorized" version of 1611, i.e., > the version "authorized" by King James I. None of them include the > Apocrypha. I believe that is correct. > According to a Roman Catholic nun who was my school teacher when I was > in the eighth grade, all of the translations of the Bible authorized by > the then current pope and all past pontiffs of the Roman Catholic Church > include the Apocrypha. Of course she was of the opinion that all the > popes are much better qualified than a king of England to determine which > books ought to be included in a translation of the Bible. Was she wrong > about her understanding of history that King James I did not want to > include the Apocrypha? But the Council of Nicaea in 325 threw out a lot of "heretic" books and defined what should be included in the Bible. I have no information about these so-called heretic books, but I believe that the book of James may have been one of them. . ,-./\ from Greg Mayman, in Adelaide, South Australia . / \ "Queen City of The South" 34:55 S 138:36 E . \_,-*_/ . v homepage http://users.tpg.com.au/gmone/index.htm Arachne at FreeLists -- Arachne, The Web Browser/Suite for DOS and Linux --