Changes

*[http://archive.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_102_ApocryphaBackground.pdf BACKGROUND AND HISTORY TO THE APOCRYPHA, By David Phillips] Article reprinted from Cross†Way Issue Autumn 2006 No. 102 (archive.churchsociety.org)

*[http://archive.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_102_ApocryphaBackground.pdf BACKGROUND AND HISTORY TO THE APOCRYPHA, By David Phillips] Article reprinted from Cross†Way Issue Autumn 2006 No. 102 (archive.churchsociety.org)

*[http://churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/misc/apocrypha/iss_doctrine_misc_apocrypha_origin.asp The Origin of the Apocrypha]

*[http://churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/misc/apocrypha/iss_doctrine_misc_apocrypha_origin.asp The Origin of the Apocrypha]

*[https://books.google.com/books?id=dtlDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=apocryphal+books+having+evidence+of+hebrew+or+aramaic+origin&source=bl&ots=CkMPwQMciG&sig=y6w4tnI_wvIqyzCWqCoN3xo8mvQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VGGcVP2RH4r2yQT7toKYAw&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=apocryphal%20books%20having%20evidence%20of%20hebrew%20or%20aramaic%20origin&f=false The Apocrypha of the Old Testament: With Historical Introductions, a Revised Translation, and Notes Critical and Explanatory, by Edwin Cone Bissell. Scribner, 1890. 680 pages], page 208ff, citing evidence that the "additions to Esther" were also translated from the Hebrew. (Google eBook)</ref> The books excluded by this criteria were relatively recent Jewish contributions of the 3rd through the 1st centuries before Christ which had become part of Jewish culture. The rabbinical authorities simultaneously excluded as condemned and false the writings of the "heretics" (the ''minim'', including Christians, called nozrim, no§rim, "Nazarenes"), and cursed Christians in a synagogue service "benediction" against them and others. Palestinian texts of the Eighteen Benedictions from the Cairo Genizah <ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/treasures-in-the-wall The New Yorker: Page-Turner. March 1, 2013 Treasures in the Wall, by Emily Greenhouse] (newyorker.com)<br/>[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Genizah.html Jewish Virtual Library: Modern Jewish History: The Cairo Genizah, by Alden Oreck]</ref> present a text of the benediction which identifies the minim:<blockquote>"''For the apostates may there be no hope unless they return to Your Torah. As for the no§rim and the minim, may they perish immediately. Speedily may they be erased from the Book of Life, and may they not be registered among the righteous.  Blessed are You, O Lord, Who subdues the wicked.''"</blockquote>While other specimens of the Palestinian liturgy show slight variation, the no§rim, (usually translated “Christians”) and minim are included in the best texts of this benediction. The fact remains that the no§rim were included with apostates and heretics and the wicked in the Genizah documents.<ref>[http://lawrenceschiffman.com/?s=the+benediction+against+the+minim Professor Lawrence H. Schiffman: The Benediction Against the Minim] (lawrenceschiffman.com)<br/>[http://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/curse.html DEFENDING  THE  BRIDE. THE  CURSE  AGAINST  CHRISTIANS  AT  JAMNIA  ABOUT  90 AD] (defendingthebride.com)<br/>[http://www.academia.edu/6811953/The_Jewish_Council_of_Jamnia_and_Its_Impact_on_the_Old_Testament_Canon_and_New_Testament_Studies The Jewish “Council” of Jamnia and Its Impact on the Old Testament Canon and New Testament Studies, Tim Gordon October 20, 2007] (academia.edu/6811953)</ref> Martin Luther and the leaders of the [[Reformation]] cite as authoritative and determinative the canon of the Hebrew Bible as defined by rabbinical authorities who excluded and condemned as false the entire New Testament scriptures and Jesus as the Messiah <ref name=Luther>Luther rejected the seven books of the Old Testament, citing the Palestinian Canon as his authority. Clearly his reasons were doctrinal. However, his decision poses serious difficulties. What authority from God would Jews have in the Christian era to determine which books of the Old Testament were or were not divinely inspired? In 1529, Luther proposed adoption of the 39-book canon of rabbinic Judaism as the Old Testament canon of the Christian Bible. He justified his decision to exclude seven books from the Old Testament canon of 46 books by an appeal to precedent, citing Jerome who, around A.D. 400 had expressed concerns also voiced by his rabbinical sources that these books in Greek had no Hebrew counterparts. Research into the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran has discovered Hebrew copies of some of the disputed books, which makes their rejection on this ground unsupportable. Luther's principal reason for opposing these Old Testament books seems to be that they contain textual support for doctrines he had rejected, such as praying for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:42-45).<br/>See [http://www.totustuus.com/luther Luther and the Canon of the Bible, by Jim Seghers]<br/>[http://www.olswahiawa.org/uploads/2/1/8/4/21845996/session_3.pdf The Canon of the Bible]<br/>[http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html Wednesday, July 20, 2011. Can Protestants Rely Upon the "Council of Jamnia" for Their Bible?]</ref> because "''unto them were committed the oracles of God.''" (see [http://biblehub.com/multi/romans/3-2.htm Romans 3:2]). This is an historical fact, and it presents a serious problem, known in logic ''as [[non sequitur]]''. If the Jews have been so entrusted with the word of God that they had therefore been given the divine authority to also determine the ''canon'' of sacred scripture, as Luther and the Reformation Protestants maintain, then the whole New Testament is excluded from the canon of the holy Bible because it does not meet the four established rabbinical criteria for what is sacred inspired scripture. See [[Logical fallacy]]

*[https://books.google.com/books?id=dtlDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=apocryphal+books+having+evidence+of+hebrew+or+aramaic+origin&source=bl&ots=CkMPwQMciG&sig=y6w4tnI_wvIqyzCWqCoN3xo8mvQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VGGcVP2RH4r2yQT7toKYAw&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=apocryphal%20books%20having%20evidence%20of%20hebrew%20or%20aramaic%20origin&f=false The Apocrypha of the Old Testament: With Historical Introductions, a Revised Translation, and Notes Critical and Explanatory, by Edwin Cone Bissell. Scribner, 1890. 680 pages], page 208ff, citing evidence that the "additions to Esther" were also translated from the Hebrew. (Google eBook)</ref> The books excluded by this criteria were relatively recent Jewish contributions of the 3rd through the 1st centuries before Christ which had become part of Jewish culture. The rabbinical authorities simultaneously excluded as condemned and false the writings of the "heretics" (the ''minim'', including Christians, called nozrim, no§rim, "Nazarenes"), and cursed Christians in a synagogue service "benediction" against them and others. Palestinian texts of the Eighteen Benedictions from the Cairo Genizah <ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/treasures-in-the-wall The New Yorker: Page-Turner. March 1, 2013 Treasures in the Wall, by Emily Greenhouse] (newyorker.com)<br/>[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Genizah.html Jewish Virtual Library: Modern Jewish History: The Cairo Genizah, by Alden Oreck]</ref> present a text of the benediction which identifies the minim:<blockquote>"''For the apostates may there be no hope unless they return to Your Torah. As for the no§rim and the minim, may they perish immediately. Speedily may they be erased from the Book of Life, and may they not be registered among the righteous.  Blessed are You, O Lord, Who subdues the wicked.''"</blockquote>While other specimens of the Palestinian liturgy show slight variation, the no§rim, (usually translated “Christians”) and minim are included in the best texts of this benediction. The fact remains that the no§rim were included with apostates and heretics and the wicked in the Genizah documents.<ref>[http://lawrenceschiffman.com/?s=the+benediction+against+the+minim Professor Lawrence H. Schiffman: The Benediction Against the Minim] (lawrenceschiffman.com)<br/>[http://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/curse.html DEFENDING  THE  BRIDE. THE  CURSE  AGAINST  CHRISTIANS  AT  JAMNIA  ABOUT  90 AD] (defendingthebride.com)<br/>[https://www.academia.edu/6811953/The_Jewish_Council_of_Jamnia_and_Its_Impact_on_the_Old_Testament_Canon_and_New_Testament_Studies The Jewish “Council” of Jamnia and Its Impact on the Old Testament Canon and New Testament Studies, Tim Gordon October 20, 2007] (academia.edu/6811953)</ref> Martin Luther and the leaders of the [[Reformation]] cite as authoritative and determinative the canon of the Hebrew Bible as defined by rabbinical authorities who excluded and condemned as false the entire New Testament scriptures and Jesus as the Messiah <ref name=Luther>Luther rejected the seven books of the Old Testament, citing the Palestinian Canon as his authority. Clearly his reasons were doctrinal. However, his decision poses serious difficulties. What authority from God would Jews have in the Christian era to determine which books of the Old Testament were or were not divinely inspired? In 1529, Luther proposed adoption of the 39-book canon of rabbinic Judaism as the Old Testament canon of the Christian Bible. He justified his decision to exclude seven books from the Old Testament canon of 46 books by an appeal to precedent, citing Jerome who, around A.D. 400 had expressed concerns also voiced by his rabbinical sources that these books in Greek had no Hebrew counterparts. Research into the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran has discovered Hebrew copies of some of the disputed books, which makes their rejection on this ground unsupportable. Luther's principal reason for opposing these Old Testament books seems to be that they contain textual support for doctrines he had rejected, such as praying for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:42-45).<br/>See [http://www.totustuus.com/luther Luther and the Canon of the Bible, by Jim Seghers]<br/>[http://www.olswahiawa.org/uploads/2/1/8/4/21845996/session_3.pdf The Canon of the Bible]<br/>[http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html Wednesday, July 20, 2011. Can Protestants Rely Upon the "Council of Jamnia" for Their Bible?]</ref> because "''unto them were committed the oracles of God.''" (see [http://biblehub.com/multi/romans/3-2.htm Romans 3:2]). This is an historical fact, and it presents a serious problem, known in logic ''as [[non sequitur]]''. If the Jews have been so entrusted with the word of God that they had therefore been given the divine authority to also determine the ''canon'' of sacred scripture, as Luther and the Reformation Protestants maintain, then the whole New Testament is excluded from the canon of the holy Bible because it does not meet the four established rabbinical criteria for what is sacred inspired scripture. See [[Logical fallacy]]

===The New Testament===

===The New Testament===

During the middle of the 16th century there was a renewed sense of the need to get the Bible directly into the hands of the common man; prior to that the Bible was restricted to readings in the Church alone. The Reformers were a group of people who were shocked at the differences between what the Roman Catholic Church was practicing as opposed to their readings (interpretations) of what the Bible stated can or cannot be done (this was one of the causes of the [[Reformation]]). At great cost to themselves, the Reformers began the work of translating the Bible in the various languages of Europe; the printing press would ensure the newly translated Bibles would be mass-produced.   

During the middle of the 16th century there was a renewed sense of the need to get the Bible directly into the hands of the common man; prior to that the Bible was restricted to readings in the Church alone. The Reformers were a group of people who were shocked at the differences between what the Roman Catholic Church was practicing as opposed to their readings (interpretations) of what the Bible stated can or cannot be done (this was one of the causes of the [[Reformation]]). At great cost to themselves, the Reformers began the work of translating the Bible in the various languages of Europe; the printing press would ensure the newly translated Bibles would be mass-produced.   

[[William Tyndale]] was committed to getting the Bible into the hands of his English countrymen.  Expressing open defiance of the Pope, Tyndale declared that if God would spare his life he would make it possible for even an ordinary farmer to know more about the Scriptures than the Pope.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_canon#Tyndale CreationWiki. Bible Canon#Tyndale] (creationwiki.org)</ref> Tyndale's translation of the New Testament was completed on the Continent by 1525. By April, 1526, 6,000 copies were printed and delivered to England. Official opposition led to the destruction of most of them, not because of the translation of the Biblical text itself, but because Tyndale also held and published views which were considered heretical, first by the Catholic Church, and later by the Church of England, which was established by King [[Henry VIII]] in 1536.<ref>Act of Supremacy, (1534) English act of Parliament that recognized Henry VIII as the “Supreme Head of the Church of England.” [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/574743/Act-of-Supremacy Encyclopedia Britannica. Act of Supremacy: England (1534)]<br/>[http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm Henry VIII 's Act of Supremacy (1534) - original text]</ref> His Bible translation also included notes and commentary promoting these views.<ref>[http://www.tyndale-bible.com/tyndale-bible-history.html TYNDALE BIBLE HISTORY. William Tyndale (1494-1536). The History of William Tyndale and his Bibles]<br/>[http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4749&CFID=4143742&CFTOKEN=81204680 Tyndale's Heresy, by Matthew A. C. Newsome]<br/>[http://www.bible-researcher.com/tyndale4.html Tyndale] (bible-researcher.com)<br/> [http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html English Bible History. William Tyndale] (greatsite.com)<br/>[http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-books/william-tyndales-translation/ The Wesley Center Online: '''William Tyndale's Translation'''] ''online access to the text of Tyndale's Bible''.</ref> Tyndale's translation was banned by the authorities. Even King Henry VIII in 1531 condemned the Tyndale Bible as a corruption of Scripture. In the words of King Henry's advisors: "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects." <ref>Henry Grey Graham, Where we got the Bible: Our debt to the Catholic Church © 1977 Tan Books and Publishers, Inc. 153 pages. ASIN: B0006YDQ5Q p. 128-130.</ref> Bishop [[Tunstall]] of London <ref>[http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/tunstall.htm Cuthbert Tunstall]</ref> declared that there were upwards of 2,000 errors in Tyndale's Bible.<ref>[http://catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/charge.htm The Charge of Burning Bibles]</ref> The following year Tyndale himself, at the instigation of agents of Henry VIII and the Anglican Church, was arrested and, for his efforts, charged with heresy, and, on May 21, 1536, was executed, burned at the stake. Nevertheless, the printing press rendered it impossible to completely suppress such a book, and new copies were printed on the Continent and smuggled into [[England]]. His efforts at translating the Bible led to the [[Matthews Bible]] (1537) and the [[Bishop's Bible]] (1568), but with many of his notes radically edited by censors or editors, or entirely removed, and these versions led to the [[Geneva Bible]] (1599), and finally to the [[King James Bible|King James Version]], where ninety percent of the text closely follows Tyndale's translation.

[[William Tyndale]] was committed to getting the Bible into the hands of his English countrymen.  Expressing open defiance of the Pope, Tyndale declared that if God would spare his life he would make it possible for even an ordinary farmer to know more about the Scriptures than the Pope.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_canon#Tyndale CreationWiki. Bible Canon#Tyndale] (creationwiki.org)</ref> Tyndale's translation of the New Testament was completed on the Continent by 1525. By April, 1526, 6,000 copies were printed and delivered to England. Official opposition led to the destruction of most of them, not because of the translation of the Biblical text itself, but because Tyndale also held and published views which were considered heretical, first by the Catholic Church, and later by the Church of England, which was established by King [[Henry VIII]] in 1536.<ref>Act of Supremacy, (1534) English act of Parliament that recognized Henry VIII as the “Supreme Head of the Church of England.” [https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/574743/Act-of-Supremacy Encyclopedia Britannica. Act of Supremacy: England (1534)]<br/>[http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm Henry VIII 's Act of Supremacy (1534) - original text]</ref> His Bible translation also included notes and commentary promoting these views.<ref>[http://www.tyndale-bible.com/tyndale-bible-history.html TYNDALE BIBLE HISTORY. William Tyndale (1494-1536). The History of William Tyndale and his Bibles]<br/>[http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4749&CFID=4143742&CFTOKEN=81204680 Tyndale's Heresy, by Matthew A. C. Newsome]<br/>[http://www.bible-researcher.com/tyndale4.html Tyndale] (bible-researcher.com)<br/> [http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html English Bible History. William Tyndale] (greatsite.com)<br/>[http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-books/william-tyndales-translation/ The Wesley Center Online: '''William Tyndale's Translation'''] ''online access to the text of Tyndale's Bible''.</ref> Tyndale's translation was banned by the authorities. Even King Henry VIII in 1531 condemned the Tyndale Bible as a corruption of Scripture. In the words of King Henry's advisors: "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects." <ref>Henry Grey Graham, Where we got the Bible: Our debt to the Catholic Church © 1977 Tan Books and Publishers, Inc. 153 pages. ASIN: B0006YDQ5Q p. 128-130.</ref> Bishop [[Tunstall]] of London <ref>[http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/tunstall.htm Cuthbert Tunstall]</ref> declared that there were upwards of 2,000 errors in Tyndale's Bible.<ref>[http://catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/charge.htm The Charge of Burning Bibles]</ref> The following year Tyndale himself, at the instigation of agents of Henry VIII and the Anglican Church, was arrested and, for his efforts, charged with heresy, and, on May 21, 1536, was executed, burned at the stake. Nevertheless, the printing press rendered it impossible to completely suppress such a book, and new copies were printed on the Continent and smuggled into [[England]]. His efforts at translating the Bible led to the [[Matthews Bible]] (1537) and the [[Bishop's Bible]] (1568), but with many of his notes radically edited by censors or editors, or entirely removed, and these versions led to the [[Geneva Bible]] (1599), and finally to the [[King James Bible|King James Version]], where ninety percent of the text closely follows Tyndale's translation.

===Authorised or King James Version===

===Authorised or King James Version===

See [[Badger skins (Bible)#Protestant commentaries 17th through 19th centuries|Protestant commentaries 17th through 19th centuries]]

See [[Badger skins (Bible)#Protestant commentaries 17th through 19th centuries|Protestant commentaries 17th through 19th centuries]]

The original meaning of ''' תחשׁ ''t'''<small>a</small>'''ḥ'''<small>a</small>'''š / taḥash / tachash / techash / t'khesh''''' has been debated for centuries. According to ''Encyclopaedia Judaica'' the AV and JPS 1917 translation ''[[badger]]'' has no basis in fact.<ref name=Enc.Jud.>''Encyclopaedia Judaica'' 2nd Edition Volume 19:435. TAḤASH.</ref><ref>''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'' page 161. Badger Skins</ref> Translating ערת תחשׁים ''skins taḥashim'' as "badgers' skins" also presents a [[contradiction]]. The Book of Leviticus, chapter 11, forbids touching the carcasses of all animals that walk on '''paws''', because they are '''טָמֵא''' ''tame'' [[Taboo|unclean]]. This is no trivial matter, as [[God]] Himself is thus represented in the KJV as commanding the handling and use of skins of carcasses He forbids the Israelites to touch, and as commanding them to cover the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant with unclean skins and then commanding them to remove from the camp all that is unclean so that nothing unclean will be seen by Him in the camp ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%205:2-3&version=KJV Numbers 5:2-3]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2023:14&version=KJV Deuteronomy 23:14]). They are forbidden to defile the tabernacle, the sanctuary of the L<small>ORD</small> ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2020:2-3&version=KJV Leviticus 20:2-3]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2021:10-12&version=KJV 21:10-12]), and they are commanded to cover it with '''טָמֵא''' ''tame'' [http://bibleapps.com/hebrew/2931.htm unclean/polluting/defiling "badgers' skins" (KJV).] Even on the sole [[hermeneutics|hermeneutical principle]] of "Scripture interprets Scripture" this is not accurate, and it presents a serious difficulty. [[John Grigg Hewlett]], D.D. (''Bible difficulties explained'' 1860) says:<blockquote>"It would involve a great inconsistency, that the ark of the covenant, which was considered so holy, that no human hand could touch it with impunity, except the hands of those who had been consecrated to God, that it should constantly be covered with the skins of unclean animals...Therefore the coverings of purple, or blue, which our translators have called 'badgers' skins', were of a material that was accounted pure, and could not impart any impurity to those who prepared them, or to those whose office it was to adjust them amidst the vicissitudes of the camp of Israel."<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=J5kCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA159&SOURCE=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q=badger&f=false ''Bible difficulties explained'' (1860) "Badgers' skins" pages 159–163].</ref></blockquote>

The original meaning of ''' תחשׁ ''t'''<small>a</small>'''ḥ'''<small>a</small>'''š / taḥash / tachash / techash / t'khesh''''' has been debated for centuries. According to ''Encyclopaedia Judaica'' the AV and JPS 1917 translation ''[[badger]]'' has no basis in fact.<ref name=Enc.Jud.>''Encyclopaedia Judaica'' 2nd Edition Volume 19:435. TAḤASH.</ref><ref>''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'' page 161. Badger Skins</ref> Translating ערת תחשׁים ''skins taḥashim'' as "badgers' skins" also presents a [[contradiction]]. The Book of Leviticus, chapter 11, forbids touching the carcasses of all animals that walk on '''paws''', because they are '''טָמֵא''' ''tame'' [[Taboo|unclean]]. This is no trivial matter, as [[God]] Himself is thus represented in the KJV as commanding the handling and use of skins of carcasses He forbids the Israelites to touch, and as commanding them to cover the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant with unclean skins and then commanding them to remove from the camp all that is unclean so that nothing unclean will be seen by Him in the camp ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%205:2-3&version=KJV Numbers 5:2-3]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2023:14&version=KJV Deuteronomy 23:14]). They are forbidden to defile the tabernacle, the sanctuary of the L<small>ORD</small> ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2020:2-3&version=KJV Leviticus 20:2-3]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2021:10-12&version=KJV 21:10-12]), and they are commanded to cover it with '''טָמֵא''' ''tame'' [http://bibleapps.com/hebrew/2931.htm unclean/polluting/defiling "badgers' skins" (KJV).] Even on the sole [[hermeneutics|hermeneutical principle]] of "Scripture interprets Scripture" this is not accurate, and it presents a serious difficulty. [[John Grigg Hewlett]], D.D. (''Bible difficulties explained'' 1860) says:<blockquote>"It would involve a great inconsistency, that the ark of the covenant, which was considered so holy, that no human hand could touch it with impunity, except the hands of those who had been consecrated to God, that it should constantly be covered with the skins of unclean animals...Therefore the coverings of purple, or blue, which our translators have called 'badgers' skins', were of a material that was accounted pure, and could not impart any impurity to those who prepared them, or to those whose office it was to adjust them amidst the vicissitudes of the camp of Israel."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=J5kCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA159&SOURCE=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q=badger&f=false ''Bible difficulties explained'' (1860) "Badgers' skins" pages 159–163].</ref></blockquote>

The KJV was first published in 1611, a year after the [[Douay-Rheims|Douay-Rheims Bible]]. The later KJV revision of 1769 <ref>[http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html Changes in the King James Version]</ref> is the version generally published today as the King James Bible, and is the form of the text cited here:

The KJV was first published in 1611, a year after the [[Douay-Rheims|Douay-Rheims Bible]]. The later KJV revision of 1769 <ref>[http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html Changes in the King James Version]</ref> is the version generally published today as the King James Bible, and is the form of the text cited here:

*[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003867 Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY: Insight, Volume 2 it-2 pp. 883-884 Sealskin. Copyright © 2014 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania],   

*[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003867 Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY: Insight, Volume 2 it-2 pp. 883-884 Sealskin. Copyright © 2014 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania],   

*[http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/badgers-skin-or-another-type-of-leather-in-exodus-255-et-al KJV Today: "Badgers' skin" or another type of leather in Exodus 25:5 et al.?]<br/>—''compare multiple commentaries on:'' [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/5-2.htm Leviticus 5:2]; [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/11-8.htm 11:8] and [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/11-27.htm 11:27]</ref> These commentaries say that touching the carcass of these animals is only a minor offense which did not require an atoning sacrifice, and that it applied only to ''kohanim'' (priests) and applied to the laity only during the three feasts of Passover/Unleavened Bread, Weeks/Pentecost, and Booths/Tabernacles (Deut. 16). And some cite the ''Talmud'' as their authority, for example, Tractate ''Rosh Hashana'' 16b,<ref>[http://halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Rosh_HaShanah.pdf Babylonian Talmud, Seder ''Mo'ed'', Tractate ''Rosh Hashana'', Folio 16b] —''scroll down to page'' 40</ref> and the ''Sifra'', ''Torath Kohanim'' 11:74,<ref>'''Sifra''' (Aramaic <big>'''סִפְרָא'''</big>, "book" or "The Book"), a ''midrash halakhah'' from the school of R. Akiva on the Book of Leviticus.<br/>See [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13646-sifra ''Jewish Encyclopedia'': Sifra];<br/> ''Encyclopaedia Judaica'' Vol 18 San-Sol 18:560-562 SIFRA;<br/>See [http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%90 Sifra Hebrew text, ed. I. H. Weiss 1862 Vienna.]</ref> and Rashi's commentary,<ref name=opinion/> providing us with an example of what the prophet Jeremiah said, <blockquote>"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the L<small>ORD</small> is with us'? But behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie" ([http://biblehub.com/multi/jeremiah/8-8.htm Jeremiah 8:8]).</blockquote> They omit any reference to that part of Leviticus which decrees that wilfully touching the carcasses of unclean animals (which must be done to harvest their skins) is a '''sin''', which even Rashi's commentary confirms. No mention is made by them of the law in the Torah which says: "Ye shall not make yourselves abominable...neither shall ye make yourselves unclean...neither shall ye defile yourselves" (Leviticus 11:43-44) <ref>See: '''Exodus''' 31:14; '''Leviticus''' 7:19, 21; 10:10; 11:43-44; 18:20, 24, 30; 20:25; 21:4, 11; 22:8; '''Numbers''' 5:3; 6:7; 19:13, 20; 35:33-34; '''Deuteronomy''' 23:14; 27:26.</ref> and that anyone who wilfully does this will be cut off.<ref>see [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%205:2-6&version=KJV Leviticus 5:2-6], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%205:17-19&version=KJV 5:17-19]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2015:29-31&version=KJV Numbers 15:29-31]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2019:20&version=KJV 19:20.]</ref> Some commentaries on the Old Testament supporting ''badgers' skins'' and ''sea mammals' skins'' as the covering of the tabernacle cite the New Testament example of [[Saint Paul]] working with Simon the tanner (Acts 9:43; 10:6, 32), as if both of them were examples of Jews wilfully working with the skins of ''non-kosher'' beasts. Some cite Pliny's ''Natural History'' 2:56,<ref>previously cited in the 19th century: [http://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/B/badger.html ''McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature'' (1887) B: badger]; [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/exodus/25.htm ''Adam Clarke's Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible'' (1831) Exodus 25]</ref> which says that [pagan] temples had roofs of sealskin, as if this applied to the Israelites under the Law of Moses, and cite Eduard Rüppell's short-lived ''taxonomic'' designation of the dugong as ''Halicore tabernaculi'' "dugong of the tabernacle" as an additional support for their opinion.<ref>While travelling the Middle East around the Red Sea and the [[Arabian Peninsula]], Rüppell observed a variety of [[dugong]] which he subsequently designated ''[[Taxonomy|taxonomically]]'' as ''Halicore tabernaculi'' (1843) according to his view that the skin of this animal was certainly used as the outer covering of the tabernacle of the Hebrews, because the Bedouin harvested its skin for tent-curtains and for shoes and called it ''tukhesh, duchash''. His taxonomic designation ''Halicore tabernaculi'' did not last long (1843-1847) and has since been recombined several times, more recently as ''Dugong dugon'' (1963-1998).<br/>Three sources:

*[http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/badgers-skin-or-another-type-of-leather-in-exodus-255-et-al KJV Today: "Badgers' skin" or another type of leather in Exodus 25:5 et al.?]<br/>—''compare multiple commentaries on:'' [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/5-2.htm Leviticus 5:2]; [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/11-8.htm 11:8] and [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/11-27.htm 11:27]</ref> These commentaries say that touching the carcass of these animals is only a minor offense which did not require an atoning sacrifice, and that it applied only to ''kohanim'' (priests) and applied to the laity only during the three feasts of Passover/Unleavened Bread, Weeks/Pentecost, and Booths/Tabernacles (Deut. 16). And some cite the ''Talmud'' as their authority, for example, Tractate ''Rosh Hashana'' 16b,<ref>[http://halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Rosh_HaShanah.pdf Babylonian Talmud, Seder ''Mo'ed'', Tractate ''Rosh Hashana'', Folio 16b] —''scroll down to page'' 40</ref> and the ''Sifra'', ''Torath Kohanim'' 11:74,<ref>'''Sifra''' (Aramaic <big>'''סִפְרָא'''</big>, "book" or "The Book"), a ''midrash halakhah'' from the school of R. Akiva on the Book of Leviticus.<br/>See [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13646-sifra ''Jewish Encyclopedia'': Sifra];<br/> ''Encyclopaedia Judaica'' Vol 18 San-Sol 18:560-562 SIFRA;<br/>See [http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%90 Sifra Hebrew text, ed. I. H. Weiss 1862 Vienna.]</ref> and Rashi's commentary,<ref name=opinion/> providing us with an example of what the prophet Jeremiah said, <blockquote>"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the L<small>ORD</small> is with us'? But behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie" ([http://biblehub.com/multi/jeremiah/8-8.htm Jeremiah 8:8]).</blockquote> They omit any reference to that part of Leviticus which decrees that wilfully touching the carcasses of unclean animals (which must be done to harvest their skins) is a '''sin''', which even Rashi's commentary confirms. No mention is made by them of the law in the Torah which says: "Ye shall not make yourselves abominable...neither shall ye make yourselves unclean...neither shall ye defile yourselves" (Leviticus 11:43-44) <ref>See: '''Exodus''' 31:14; '''Leviticus''' 7:19, 21; 10:10; 11:43-44; 18:20, 24, 30; 20:25; 21:4, 11; 22:8; '''Numbers''' 5:3; 6:7; 19:13, 20; 35:33-34; '''Deuteronomy''' 23:14; 27:26.</ref> and that anyone who wilfully does this will be cut off.<ref>see [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%205:2-6&version=KJV Leviticus 5:2-6], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%205:17-19&version=KJV 5:17-19]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2015:29-31&version=KJV Numbers 15:29-31]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2019:20&version=KJV 19:20.]</ref> Some commentaries on the Old Testament supporting ''badgers' skins'' and ''sea mammals' skins'' as the covering of the tabernacle cite the New Testament example of [[Saint Paul]] working with Simon the tanner (Acts 9:43; 10:6, 32), as if both of them were examples of Jews wilfully working with the skins of ''non-kosher'' beasts. Some cite Pliny's ''Natural History'' 2:56,<ref>previously cited in the 19th century: [http://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/B/badger.html ''McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature'' (1887) B: badger]; [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/exodus/25.htm ''Adam Clarke's Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible'' (1831) Exodus 25]</ref> which says that [pagan] temples had roofs of sealskin, as if this applied to the Israelites under the Law of Moses, and cite Eduard Rüppell's short-lived ''taxonomic'' designation of the dugong as ''Halicore tabernaculi'' "dugong of the tabernacle" as an additional support for their opinion.<ref>While travelling the Middle East around the Red Sea and the [[Arabian Peninsula]], Rüppell observed a variety of [[dugong]] which he subsequently designated ''[[Taxonomy|taxonomically]]'' as ''Halicore tabernaculi'' (1843) according to his view that the skin of this animal was certainly used as the outer covering of the tabernacle of the Hebrews, because the Bedouin harvested its skin for tent-curtains and for shoes and called it ''tukhesh, duchash''. His taxonomic designation ''Halicore tabernaculi'' did not last long (1843-1847) and has since been recombined several times, more recently as ''Dugong dugon'' (1963-1998).<br/>Three sources:

*[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/512932/Eduard-Ruppell ''Encyclopaedia Britannica''. "Eduard Rüppell"]

*[https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/512932/Eduard-Ruppell ''Encyclopaedia Britannica''. "Eduard Rüppell"]

*[http://www.probertencyclopedia.com/B_DUGONG.HTM The Probert Encyclopedia of Nature. "Dugong".] "A variety [of dugong] was discovered in the Red Sea by Ruppell, and called Halicore tabernaculi."

*[http://www.probertencyclopedia.com/B_DUGONG.HTM The Probert Encyclopedia of Nature. "Dugong".] "A variety [of dugong] was discovered in the Red Sea by Ruppell, and called Halicore tabernaculi."

*[http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?action=checkTaxonInfo&taxon_no65051&is_real_user=0 The Paleobiology Database:] —''when the page comes up, at'' "You must enter a taxon name" ''move cursor to'' "Full search"—''menu will appear; select'' "classifications of taxa in groups" ''and click—when'' "Taxonomic classification search form" ''appears enter '''''Halicore tabernaculi''''' in the top search field (ignore the rest), click'' [Show classification]—''page will display "Halicore tabernaculi'' Rüppell 1843"—''click highlighted link'' "Halicore tabernaculi"–''page will show list "Dugong dugon'' Illiger 1811: Classification of '''Trichechus dugon''' (''Halicore tabernaculi'' Ruppell/Rupell 1843):<br/>the listing of the zoological taxonomic nomenclature of the dugong on that page is here rearranged in chronological order:

*[http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?action=checkTaxonInfo&taxon_no65051&is_real_user=0 The Paleobiology Database:] —''when the page comes up, at'' "You must enter a taxon name" ''move cursor to'' "Full search"—''menu will appear; select'' "classifications of taxa in groups" ''and click—when'' "Taxonomic classification search form" ''appears enter '''''Halicore tabernaculi''''' in the top search field (ignore the rest), click'' [Show classification]—''page will display "Halicore tabernaculi'' Rüppell 1843"—''click highlighted link'' "Halicore tabernaculi"–''page will show list "Dugong dugon'' Illiger 1811: Classification of '''Trichechus dugon''' (''Halicore tabernaculi'' Ruppell/Rupell 1843):<br/>the listing of the zoological taxonomic nomenclature of the dugong on that page is here rearranged in chronological order:

==Bible Translations==

==Bible Translations==

The Bible has been translated many times and in many ways so anyone, from the youngest child to the most learned scholar, can read the entire scripture in their own language and at their own reading level. Early versions in the languages of their people include the Septuagint, Syriac [http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/syriacbib.html Peshitta] and [[Vulgate]], also the [http://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_arb_gen-1 Arabic], the [http://lexicity.com/coptic-biblical-texts.html Coptic], and Persic [http://www.wordproject.org/bibles/parallel/g/farsi.htm Farsi].  Here are some common English versions:

The Bible has been translated many times and in many ways so anyone, from the youngest child to the most learned scholar, can read the entire scripture in their own language and at their own reading level. Early versions in the languages of their people include the Septuagint, Syriac [http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/syriacbib.html Peshitta] and [[Vulgate]], also the [https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_arb_gen-1 Arabic], the [http://lexicity.com/coptic-biblical-texts.html Coptic], and Persic [http://www.wordproject.org/bibles/parallel/g/farsi.htm Farsi].  Here are some common English versions:

*[[American Standard Version]]

*[[American Standard Version]]

*Halley, Henry H. ''Halley's Bible Handbook'', Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI (1965); Evangelical  

*Halley, Henry H. ''Halley's Bible Handbook'', Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI (1965); Evangelical  

* Sandys-Wunsch, John. ''What Have They Done to the Bible: A History of Modern Biblical Interpretation'' (2005) Scholarly history of transations and interpretations to 1900; [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814650287 excerpt and text search]

* Sandys-Wunsch, John. ''What Have They Done to the Bible: A History of Modern Biblical Interpretation'' (2005) Scholarly history of transations and interpretations to 1900; [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814650287 excerpt and text search]

* Williamspn, Peter. ''Catholic principles for interpreting scripture: a study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission's The interpretation of the Bible in the Church'' (2001); Catholic; [http://books.google.com/books?id=kooFtFGQsfsC&dq=intitle:bible+intitle:interpretation&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=2000&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpts and text search]

* Williamspn, Peter. ''Catholic principles for interpreting scripture: a study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission's The interpretation of the Bible in the Church'' (2001); Catholic; [https://books.google.com/books?id=kooFtFGQsfsC&dq=intitle:bible+intitle:interpretation&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=2000&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpts and text search]

*Wilson, Robert D. ''A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament'', Sunday School Times, Inc, Philadelphia, PA (1926).

*Wilson, Robert D. ''A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament'', Sunday School Times, Inc, Philadelphia, PA (1926).