AV 1611 and the Church of Rome No. 2

--------------------------------------------------
No, michelle, that's a red herring. This thread IS about the 1611 and the Apocrypha. Changing the subject is a red herring.
--------------------------------------------------

No, what is a red herring, and a straw man argement is this WHOLE THREAD and the nonsense and irrelevancy of it. You ignore the important and serious issues of this debate that HAVE AND DO affect the scriptures, to focus upon this NONSENSE that DO not, NOR HAVE affected the scriptures, only to fight some label because you disagree with the truth that God has given us his infallible, inerrant words of truth perfectly in our own language. Unbelievable!


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
What do you call the apocryphal books in the KJV 1611?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What do you call the footnotes or maps, or concordances, etc.? Some here have stated they believe the footnotes are inspired. That is for them to believe it, but it isn't true.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
I DON'T reject the KJB at all. However, if you say W-H, et.al. are to be rejected because of their theology, as AskjO often says here, then it is a double standard to not reject the KJB, given the history of the C.of E. and its theology regarding baptismal regeneration in particular. To reject the Alex. texttypes based on some association with Catholicism makes no real sense if the basis of the rejection is simply Catholic theology, because to accept the KJB while using that rationale vs. the MV's is inconsistent. Why? Because of the papism still going on in the Anglican Communion as late as the mid 19th century, no doubt more rampant in 1611.
--------------------------------------------------


If you actually read about the real issues and facts concerning this debate, and stopped trying to excuse them away with this nonsense, then maybe you would be able to see it quite clearly. The two do not compare. You are arguing the beliefs of the Anglican church that DID NOT AFFECT the scriptures, and IGNORING those things THAT HAVE.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle squawled:

"No, what is a red herring, and a straw man argement is this WHOLE THREAD and the nonsense and irrelevancy of it."

In truth, this WHOLE THREAD has been a welcome RELIEF from the KJVO-MV debate, with one major exception. Care to guess what the EXCEPTION is?
---------------------------------------------------

And care to know the reason why I believe that you believe this has been a "welcom relief"? I will tell you why I believe this: Because you cannot stand to hear the truth in this issue, and this thread has taken your eyes and attention away from that truth and focus upon those things that try to denigrate that truth with man's opinions, and assumptions, trying to relate something that doesn't relate and to appease your beliefs and false assumptions - your ears are being tickled. THis is why you believe I am the one "exception", because I bring your attention, yet again to the real truth and you don't like it one bit.

Oh well...

Now try to tell me I am wrong with a clear conscience.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

HankD, I owe you BIG THANKS! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

This link is very interesting so I put it in my favirite in my computer.

 

Michelle, a red herring is to change the subject to something else to deflect from the original subject. The thread can't be a red herring, because it is about the AV 1611 and the Apocrypha. That is the stated subject. The only person changing it has been, frankly, you.

A straw man is to construct a weaker presentation of what others believe so as to discredit it. Has that been done? No, I do not believe it has. (However, you have done so by saying we do not believe the KJB is God's Word. That simply is not so. We simply repudiate the notion that it was inspired specially above any other versions. We affirm the KJB is God's Word, as are other MV's. As Ed says, those are shadows you are fighting).

There are some that believe the KJV in ANY addition is inspired and inerrant, not because of the underlying text, but because of some sort of special dispensation of God. Some for the underlying text, and others for both reasons. Others pick a particular edition. It is more consistent to pick a particular edition than to make a blanket statement about all of the KJB or the 1611 version in particular, because to chose those two options leaves this subject open, as the translators themselves included it, not as a separate section, but as part of the OT itself. Furthermore, Anglican history shows that it was used in worship for a significant time after the KJB was first published, again showing some degree of papism, in addition to the mere fact of its acceptance. If KJVOist reject the Apocrypha it must be for the same reasons other Protestants do, and these same principles are, in part, similar to the principles underlying the rise of MV's use, not because the KJB is repudiated, but because there appear to be some things in it that may reflect some degree of bias theologically. We all know that James I did not allow any Baptists on the KJV committee, stating publicly he wished to "harrow them out." Additionally, there is some feeling among some MV's that some of the prepositions used in the baptismal passages are more biased toward baptismal regeneration or covenant baptism (the historic beliefs of Catholics, Anglicans, and Presbyterians, depending on which group one follows. It is notable that Church of Christ members and some Baptists that strangely affirm baptismal regeneration prefer the KJB for that very reason). Some MV proponents don't find those prepositional choices as harmful at all, however, and use MV's for other reasons. However, the concern is there, and is worth noting, given its roots. It is NOT a red herring or a straw man, therefore, to bring this issue to the KJVOists attention.

Now, at least part of the argument against the Alex. texttype is the association with Catholicism. This position argues that the MSS are somehow "tainted" because certain parts were omitted because they conflicted with Catholic theology. They were earlier MSS, so, the argument goes, the RCC edited them or "trashed" them because of the conflict. Another strand of this line of thinking simply says they should be discounted because they were preserved and later used by the RCC, which is just a form of guilt by association and not truly reflective of the entire translation process. It also fails to account for the use of the Latin Vulgate, a RCC product as well, or for the fact that the TR was partly compiled using the Vulgate (and the Vulgate was also used for parts of the KJB).

Now, if it is true that baptismal regeneration and papism were present in whole or in part at the time the AV 1611 was translated, this presents a serious problem if they use the above rationale of "guilt by association" or, more precisely the genetic fallacy (the use of the history of a claim or, in particular irrelevant associations, to discredit at claim), because they are guilty of a double standard. In other words, they reject the Apocrypha and the MV's for similar reasons, yet the KJB translators own theology and inclusion of the Apocrypha in the original edition is considered unimportant or irrelevant, while the KJB is considered valid, inerrant, infallible, et.al. In other words, they don't apply the same reasoning to their own translation that they do to MV's with regard to the Apocrypha, and, more importantly the association with Catholicism/Catholic theology. This is inconsistent.

 

--------------------------------------------------
There are some that believe the KJV in ANY addition is inspired and inerrant, not because of the underlying text, but because of some sort of special dispensation of God. Some for the underlying text, and others for both reasons. Others pick a particular edition. It is more consistent to pick a particular edition than to make a blanket statement about all of the KJB or the 1611 version in particular, because to chose those two options leaves this subject open, as the translators themselves included it, not as a separate section, but as part of the OT itself.
--------------------------------------------------


Definition of Apocrypha:


Apocrypha
(n. pl.) Something, as a writing, that is of doubtful authorship or authority; -- formerly used also adjectively.
(n. pl.) Specif.: Certain writings which are received by some Christians as an authentic part of the Holy Scriptures, but are rejected by others.


From this link:

http://www.brainydictionary.com/words/ap/apocrypha131366.html


The English Speaking people had knowledge of what Apocrypha meant and still do today and most definately the KJB translators also did, and that section of books was titled "Apocrypha" quite clearly, and plainly.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Now, if it is true that baptismal regeneration and papism were present in whole or in part at the time the AV 1611 was translated, this presents a serious problem if they use the above rationale of "guilt by association" or, more precisely the genetic fallacy (the use of the history of a claim or, in particular irrelevant associations, to discredit at claim), because they are guilty of a double standard. In other words, they reject the Apocrypha and the MV's for similar reasons, yet the KJB translators own theology and inclusion of the Apocrypha in the original edition is considered unimportant or irrelevant, while the KJB is considered valid, inerrant, infallible, et.al. In other words, they don't apply the same reasoning to their own translation that they do to MV's with regard to the Apocrypha, and, more importantly the association with Catholicism/Catholic theology. This is inconsistent.
---------------------------------------------------


As this above seems to show that all that is learned from this, and that is important to understand is that the KJVO uses double standards - in your opinion, and at the expense of the truth. Unbelievable. Like I said, you are fighting a false man made label, and putting forth all your time and efforts towards fighting this, rather than focusing your attention on the serious and important issues concerning this debate to which are those things that HAVE ALTERED the scriptures.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

---------------------------------------------------
Well you don't have a KJV 1611. It is a KJV updated and modernized. So it doesn't qualify as a KJV 1611. I have seen the apocrypha in the KJV until the late part of the 19th century.
--------------------------------------------------


Sure it does. It has the same scriptures in it, that I have today, and many other christians in generations past have had. It may not have all the same uninspired things in it such as the apocrypha, maps, footnotes, etc., but it surely has the same scriptures. Praise God, for He has preserved His words for us, just as He has said.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
I asked you a question and you answer with a question? I was just wondering if you say the apocrypha is not the KJV then what do you call the apocrypha when they included it in the KJV 1611. It is you that has decided against what the KJV 1611 folks meant to include.
--------------------------------------------------


When you answer my questions, you then have my answer.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Yes, michelle, you are right on your definition of Apocrypha. However, as has been shown by the Anglican Communion's own testimony, the Apocrypha was, at the time of the AV 1611 at least, considered Scripture by many, if not most, Anglicans. Over time, this did change to be more of an appendix. Later, it was removed altogether.

The point regarding the inclusion of the Apocrypha is simply that, for those that consider the AV 1611 as authoritative as other editions of the KJB, it is inconsitent to reject the Apocrypha and accept the OT only or the NT. They are free to do so, but they need to account for this. Instead, "they just do."
Why do they reject the Apocrypha, particularly when it was considered part of the Old Testament and therefore not removed or set apart? (Moreover it was clearly known, at least in part, to the NT writers themselves, as bits and pieces of it do appear in the NT itself...are these allusions and quotes canonical while rest is not?).

Then, there is still the matter of the rejection of the Alex texttype, at least in part, simpy because of "guilt by association" or the alleged faulty theology or lack of theology of certain compilers of the underlying MV Greek. This is inconsistent, because the translators of the KJB itself seemed to have, at least part of them, believed in baptismal regeneration of infants which is the prime soteriological affirmation of the Roman Church itself. To reject one texttype or one underlying text on such a basis but accept the other and ignore the same fundamental basis is extremely inconsistent and must be accounted for as well. Those that make this argument do not account for it; they seem to simply ignore it completely. In short, they apply a double standard.