AV 1611 and the Church of Rome No. 2

That is the way I have understood it. Let me look at my 1611 photocopy and see if I can read it enough to tell.

I still have a standing offer for $5 bucks you get a complete KJV1611, cover to cover in graphics form.

I believe it is originally in WordPerfect, using the wordperfect graphics, but I have converted parts of it to pdf and intend to do the whole thing.

This is NOT for money on my part, just to cover my time, disk costs and gas to drive to the post office (at over 2 bucks a gallon). I hope you can understand. PM your address and I'll send it to you. Otherwise the first of each major section "OT Apocrypha and NT" are on my website as a pdf file: http://www.baptist-

church.org/example.pdf

Free for the downloading and printing. If you cannot download it because of a firewall, I can e-mail it to you.

Just ask me for it and I will mail it, you can pay later. I trust all of these good Baptists.

 

I have noticed about three people have tried to download the file and have hit it several times. Type it in once and it will take about four minutes to load all three pages if you are on a dial-up. If only one page comes up, just wait, the next two will follow. You should wind up with a three page pdf file.

I noticed that you haven't tried to download it Michelle. Are you afraid to see a real 1611 printing photocopy? Just curious. (Amazing how much information you can get from a server log.)

 

--------------------------------------------------
I noticed that you haven't tried to download it Michelle. Are you afraid to see a real 1611 printing photocopy? Just curious. (Amazing how much information you can get from a server log.)

--------------------------------------------------

I don't need to, as I can clearly see through the fallicy of your proposed argument and that it is IRRELEVANT to this issue and not worth my time or efforts. It has nothing to do with being afraid. He who is in me, is greater than he who is in the world. I am at peace on this issue, and do not need to learn outside, irrelevant things, to know and understand this. It is very sad to see that you do.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Somehow your pointer got zonked.
Here it is again:

http://www.baptist-church.org/example.pdf


Of course, the first page of the Holy Bible,
in the form of the REAL King James Version
(KJV) 1611 edition {not to be confused with
the KJV 1769 edition that most people use}
blows the main KJVO argument OUT OF THE
WATER.

Genefis I.14 (KJV1611):

And God said, Let there bee
lights in the firmament of the herauen,
to diuide +the day from the night: and
let them be for signes and for seasons,
and for dayes, and yeeres.

Sidenote: +Hebr. betweene the day and between the night

The existance of this footnote blows
the main KJVO argument: that you cannot
express the same God given idea save in
one and only one set of words. This footnote
shows that in the sources available to
the translators of the King James Version
where was a variation in this verse.
One source says "to divide betweene
the day and between the night" and
another source says: "the day from the night".

Note that both sayings mean the same thing.
But the tenets of KJVOnlyism do NOT allow
for such a variation within or among languages.

[ October 16, 2004, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]

 

Let me ask you a question just based on the facts of what you have seen.

First, you have to assume that my manuscript copies are the real thing. (I can prove that, so step two)

Two, you have to believe me when I say that there are no pages between the end page of the OT and the beginning of the apocrypha.


Finally, Three, you have to understand that there is NOTHING in the introduction or anywhere else in the printing that sets aside the apocrypha.

Now, based on what you have seen and positive answers to the conditions. Does it seem like there is at least a possibility (if not greater) that the translators intended it to be considered scripture?

That is my only point with this. It has nothing to do with a statement of beliefs, it is simply looking at the facts of what was printed in 1611.

 

--------------------------------------------------
I am unable to figure what 1 Esdras is. Could you tell me?
--------------------------------------------------


Sure, here is a link:

http://www.tldm.org/bible/Old%20Testament/1esdras.htm


Or you can open up the Bible to the book of Ezra.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
That is my only point with this. It has nothing to do with a statement of beliefs, it is simply looking at the facts of what was printed in 1611.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


NO, as their statement of Faith says otherwise.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

For better clarification of my statement concerning your comments:


--------------------------------------------------
Now, based on what you have seen and positive answers to the conditions. Does it seem like there is at least a possibility (if not greater) that the translators intended it to be considered scripture?

That is my only point with this. It has nothing to do with a statement of beliefs, it is simply looking at the facts of what was printed in 1611.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO, as their statement of Faith says otherwise.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle, that is NOT what I asked and if you can't even download the 1611 printings, then I suggest you save your ill informed opinions to yourself.

How do I know you have not downloaded it? Your ISP does not show up on my log (unless you just did.)

 

Besides, Michelle, you are wrong. It is YOUR opinion the statement of faith says that. Your opinion is that of man (or woman in your case). Therefore, according to your own rules, it should not be considered. Sorry!

 

She could do it better
using this link:
http://www.baptist-church.org/example.pdf
(she also needs to have Adobe Reader 6.0
which she might not want to download. Also
note it would be easier on her ego NOT to
ever download the proof of the falseness
of her unnamed position. BTW, while i
was chaning my previous post, this topic
got a half-dozen posts

 

--------------------------------------------------
Besides, Michelle, you are wrong. It is YOUR opinion the statement of faith says that. Your opinion is that of man (or woman in your case). Therefore, according to your own rules, it should not be considered. Sorry!
--------------------------------------------------


If you knew how statements of Faith come into existance, you would not say this. I think however, that you do and are just attempting to argue.


Here is a link, please read the pertinant part about apocrypha:

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/lesson07.htm


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

For the record, michelle, since you don't believe that Anglicans in 1611 believed in baptismal regeneration of infants...

Here is what Bromiley, a historian of the Reformation period, writing about Anglican beliefs of that period had to say about the view of some Anglicans in view of Article 27 regarding baptism:

"Baptism means the almost automatic infusion of a mysterious substance which accomplishes a miraculous but not very obvious transformation. It is thus to be regarded with awe, and fulfilled as an action of absolute necessity to salvation except in very special cases. The true mystery of the Holy Spirit yields before ecclesiastical magic and theological sophistry."

He articulates their CURRENT belief on the issue here: "Where infant baptism, or paedobaptism, as it is sometimes called, is practiced, it is right and necessary that those who grow to maturity should make their own confession of faith. But they do so with the clear witness that it is not this which saves them, but the work of God already done for them before they believed. The possibility arises, of course, that they will not make this confession, or do so formally. But this cannot be avoided by a different mode of administration. It is a problem of preaching and teaching. And even if they do not believe, or do so nominally, their prior baptism as a sign of the work of God is a constant witness to call or finally to condemn them.

On the mission field adult baptism will naturally continue. In days of apostasy it can and will be common even in evangelized lands. Indeed, as a witness to the fact that our response is really demanded it is good for the church that there should always be a Baptist section within it. But once the gospel has gained an entry into a family or community, there is good scriptural and theological ground that infant baptism should be the normal practice."


This should be self-explanatory, but just in case you don't understand it, I'll interpret it for you...some Anglicans in 1611 ascribed to infusion theology. Article 27 was written to appease those persons. Note that the Articles were completed in 1542. It is important to understand that many of the bishops that formulated the articles were themselves Catholic priests who had renounced Rome, not for theological reasons, but for their lives. Henry VIII, as soon as he declared the Church of England separate from Rome, set about destroying Catholic churches, monasteries, and abbeys. Many of which still litter the English countryside. Those priests that did not repudiate Rome were executed. Some, who were already of like mind with Luther and Calvin, like Cranmer, were happy to forget about Rome and her heresies. Others, however, repudiated Rome under fear of the axe. This is history that is well documented. Many of the bishops that formulated the Articles were still Roman theologically. This is fact, not fiction. Simply put, Anglicans have (and still do) baptise babies. (Just as an Episcopal priest). Now, that is an indication of participation in the Christian community and its covenants, just like modern day Presbyterians do. In 1611, some did it out of a belief in baptismal regeneration and infusion of grace, others did not. It just plain depended on how they interpreted the article.

This shows that, in 1611, the Church of England was still partly Roman theologically. It also accounts for the inclusion of the Apocrypha.

To tell me, in particular, otherwise is just laughable. FYI, I remind you my degree specializes in this particular subject, and some of my professors, from whom I learned about the history of the Anglican Communion were, themselves, ANGLICANS. I would think that they taught me accurately, since they lived in England all their lives.

 

--------------------------------------------------
This shows that, in 1611, the Church of England was still partly Roman theologically. It also accounts for the inclusion of the Apocrypha.

--------------------------------------------------


It shows no such thing. The reason the apocrypha was included was also stated by them why it was. Just read them and also read the rules the translators were to go by. This smacks of nothing but mere assumption and opinions. The articles of faith, ALL OF THEM were in OPPOSITION to the Roman Catholic Church, and even indicated in the preface to the KJB 1611.

You claim for me to believe this is lauphable. Think what you will. But the FACT IS that all this IS IRRELEVANT anyway to the issue and debate to which is the KJB is the preserved words of God perfectly in the English language and that the modern versions are NOT because of FACTUAL AND SCRIPTURAL reasons and not merely IRRELEVANT ones as many try to make it with the KJB.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Here is a web site in which (presumably) you can access any/every page of the KJV First edition photocopy facsimile.

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible

HankD

 

Also, here is a short summary of the volatile and colorful history of the Church of England and its lover's quarrel with the Church of Rome.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/en/EnglandCh.html

You will also see that the Articles of Religion vascilated between 6 and 42 over this period.

I will try to find a copy of the 1611 version of the Articles of Religion and compare them to today's 39.

HankD