KJV only debate

[SumTinWong]

Me thinkest thou protesteth too mucheth

 

[@@Paul@@]

Me thinkest thou protesteth too mucheth

 

[mesue]

I am embarrassed to say that I have not had the time to write out a study on this matter. I lent out my study materials. It will take me a lot longer than anticipated.

 

[@@Paul@@]

I am embarrassed to say that I have not had the time to write out a study on this matter. I lent out my study materials. It will take me a lot longer than anticipated.

You can have mine!!

 

[PreacherFergy]

Thanks for speaking for all KJVO everywhere, but no KJVO believes the bible is God. We simply give it more credence then say, oh, the TV Guide. To accuse an entire group of people of being "prejudice or ignorance" is unfair and unjustifiable. You may want to educate yourself on what KJVO actually believe before you make such accusations. I suggest http://biblebelievers.com as a source.

I know and have read numerous authors from that site. Dr. Bill Grady, Dr. D.A. Waite, etc.

However, I wonder what the author of their page on Bible versions would say to a reply to their assertion,
"Any version of the Bible, that does not agree with the GREEK TEXTUS RECEPTUS, from which the King James Bible was translated in 1611, is certainly to befounded upon corrupted manuscripts"

Well, how about in Acts 19:20 where the Textus Receptus and the KJV disagree?

 

[jukesk9]

I'm jumping in late and don't have the patience to read through all nine pages to see if this has been asked. So if it has, forgive me

The original KJV contained the Deuterocanons/Apocrypha. It actually contained 80 books (http://www.geocities.com/cott1388/kjv.html) but in 1885 the Archbishop of Cantebury conformed to the rest of the non-Catholic Christian world and omitted the D/A down to the current Protestant canon of 66. So, which 1611 Version is the true word of God? The one with the D/A or the one without? and why? Thank you.

 

[verismo]

tee hee

 

[TwinCrier]

I know and have read numerous authors from that site. Dr. Bill Grady, Dr. D.A. Waite, etc.

However, I wonder what the author of their page on Bible versions would say to a reply to their assertion,
"Any version of the Bible, that does not agree with the GREEK TEXTUS RECEPTUS, from which the King James Bible was translated in 1611, is certainly to befounded upon corrupted manuscripts"

Well, how about in Acts 19:20 where the Textus Receptus and the KJV disagree?

Other than being in English instead of Greek, how do you feel this verse differs?

 

[TwinCrier]

I'm jumping in late and don't have the patience to read through all nine pages to see if this has been asked. So if it has, forgive me

The original KJV contained the Deuterocanons/Apocrypha. It actually contained 80 books (http://www.geocities.com/cott1388/kjv.html) but in 1885 the Archbishop of Cantebury conformed to the rest of the non-Catholic Christian world and omitted the D/A down to the current Protestant canon of 66. So, which 1611 Version is the true word of God? The one with the D/A or the one without? and why? Thank you.

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html#fight14
The Apocrypha are Apocryphal, hence the name.

 

[ZiSunka]

I'm jumping in late and don't have the patience to read through all nine pages to see if this has been asked. So if it has, forgive me

The original KJV contained the Deuterocanons/Apocrypha. It actually contained 80 books (http://www.geocities.com/cott1388/kjv.html) but in 1885 the Archbishop of Cantebury conformed to the rest of the non-Catholic Christian world and omitted the D/A down to the current Protestant canon of 66. So, which 1611 Version is the true word of God? The one with the D/A or the one without? and why? Thank you.

Apocrypha (websters):
1 : writings or statements of dubious authenticity
2 capitalized a : books included in the Septuagint and Vulgate but excluded from the Jewish and Protestant canons of the Old Testament -- see [size=-1]BIBLE [/size]table b : early Christian writings not included in the New Testament

Deuterocanonical:
1: books other than those found in the canon of scripture
2 any writings outside the accepted canon of scripture
3 of, relating to, or constituting the books of Scripture contained in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew canon, typically accepted by Catholic and Othrodox sects, but not by Jews or Protestants.

The one without I would guess.

 

[Gold Dragon]

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html#fight14
The Apocrypha are Apocryphal, hence the name.

There are tons of historical and factual errors and misrepresentations on this link. We could be here all day. But I'll just look at the section regarding the Apocrypha.

The Apocrypha is a collection of several pagan writings which the Catholic church accepts as inspired Scripture.

The Apocrypha, or Deuterocanonicals, like the 39 books of the OT were writen by Jews.

In fact, the Council of Trent (1546) pronounced a CURSE upon anyone who denied that these books were inspired.

This is what the Council of Trent had to say about those who disagreed with their canonical list.

Fourth Session Council of Trent
...
But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema....

Anathema has been used in councils to denote a status of heresy or excommunication.

Catholic Encyclopedia : Anathema
...
At an early date the Church adopted the word anathema to signify the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the faithful; but the anathema was pronounced chiefly against heretics. All the councils, from the Council of Nicæa to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: "If any one says . . . let him be anathema". Nevertheless, although during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication, beginning with the sixth century a distinction was made between the two...

The King James translators did NOT consider the books to be inspired Scripture, nor did they include them in the canon as such. They merely placed the Apocryphal books BETWEEN the Old and New testament as a historical document, not as Scripture.

While the KJV translators may not have considered the Deuterocanonicals to be inspired, they probably held the general protestant opinion at that time that the Deuterocanonicals were still respected books that were still valuable which is why they were included. It is also important to note that the KJV translators were puritan and conformist Anglican scholars who never formally protested against the RCC like Luther and the other reformers. The conformists were probably very sympathetic to the Deuterocanonicals while the puritans tended to be more in line with the positions of the reformers.

Their later exclusion was in line with general protestant reactions and distancing from the RCC due to tensioned Protestant-Catholic relations.

 

[ZiSunka]

I don't think the apocrypha really ADD anything valuable to the scriptures.

And I seriously doubt that some of them should be included in the canon. Like the story of Judith, a widow who seduces a man so she can kill him in a violent, disgusting manner after they have sex. What is really gained through that book? What do we learn about God or His dealings with us through such a horrible story?

I find that non-catholics who defend them usually have never read them.

 

[Dikaioo]

Other than being in English instead of Greek, how do you feel this verse differs?

KJV: Acts 19:20 So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.
Textus Receptus says "tou kuriou ho logos" or "word of the Lord" (literally it translates, "of the Lord the word")

 

[Gold Dragon]

I don't think the apocrypha really ADD anything valuable to the scriptures.

And I seriously doubt that some of them should be included in the canon. Like the story of Judith, a widow who seduces a man so she can kill him in a violent, disgusting manner after they have sex. What is really gained through that book? What do we learn about God or His dealings with us through such a horrible story?

I've never read Judith so I can't really comment on its value as a book.

However, I can comment on some of the horrible characters we read about in the other biblical histories involving sex and violence.

We have the story of how the sons of Jacob trick, circumcise and kill all the men of a town because their sister Dinah slept with a man in the town who sincerely seemed to love her. Genesis 34

There is also some pretty disgusting sex and violence in Judges 19-20 where a woman is raped, killed and cut to pieces. The rest of Israel goes to civil war against the tribe of Benjamin and almost destroys the tribe.

What is gained by these stories?

 

[ZiSunka]

I've never read Judith so I can't really comment on its value as a book.

However, I can comment on some of the horrible characters we read about in the other biblical histories involving sex and violence.

We have the story of how the sons of Jacob trick, circumcise and kill all the men of a town because their sister Dinah slept with a man in the town who sincerely seemed to love her. Genesis 34

There is also some pretty disgusting sex and violence in Judges 19-20 where a woman is raped, killed and cut to pieces. The rest of Israel goes to civil war against the tribe of Benjamin and almost destroys the tribe.

What is gained by these stories?

Those are incidents in books of the Bible. The so-called book of Judith is ALL about the brave acts of this woman Judith, who seduces a man with the intent to kill him as revenge. But God says that it is up to him to exact revenge and that fornication is evil, so how can it be that Judith is honorable for doing the things that God hates?

 

[Cary.Melvin]

Those are incidents in books of the Bible. The so-called book of Judith is ALL about the brave acts of this woman Judith, who seduces a man with the intent to kill him as revenge. But God says that it is up to him to exact revenge and that fornication is evil, so how can it be that Judith is honorable for doing the things that God hates?

It has been a while since I have read the book of Judith, But I didn't think that she killed the Assyrian General (I think) for revenge. I thought she did it to deliver the Jews that were under seige at the time. Also, I don't think she commited fornication.

As I remember, the story sort of sounded like the Book of Judges where God would raise up an individual to deliver Israel in a time of persecution.

 

[@@Paul@@]

The one without I would guess.

full circle
back to starting point: back to the starting point, usually after passing through various stages​

Which would be 1885 right??

Anyone feel like guessing when Tyndale's New Testament was published?

 

[verismo]

I don't think the apocrypha really ADD anything valuable to the scriptures.

And I seriously doubt that some of them should be included in the canon. Like the story of Judith, a widow who seduces a man so she can kill him in a violent, disgusting manner after they have sex. What is really gained through that book? What do we learn about God or His dealings with us through such a horrible story?

I find that non-catholics who defend them usually have never read them.

So WE, i.e. the believers, are to decide what is canonical?

 

[verismo]

full circle

back to starting point: back to the starting point, usually after passing through various stages
​

Which would be 1885 right??

Anyone feel like guessing when Tyndale's New Testament was published?

Pre-Luther wasn't it?

 

[@@Paul@@]

Pre-Luther wasn't it?

Yup...

HINTS:
full circle
back to starting point: back to the starting point, usually after passing through various stages
come full circle to return to an earlier or first position or situation after leaving it