AV 1611 and the Church of Rome

Michelle, quit interrupting and go over and answer my posts on the other threads, please?

This is like having one hour to listen to my history teacher before a big exam and someone keeps running in the room yelling "fire", when there ain't no fire. (Pardon the grammar. Used due to stress----my stress!)

 

--------------------------------------------------
You would turn a skunk into a cat, if it was necessary to fit your belief.
--------------------------------------------------

It is rather you and others that are guilty of this. Read again and stop IGNORING THE FACTS:

From this link:

http://www.acl.asn.au/39articles.html

--------------------------------------------------
Article VI
Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.


Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
The First Book of Samuel
The Second Book of Samuel
The First Book of Kings
The Second Book of Kings
The First Book of Chronicles
The Second Book of Chronicles
The First Book of Esdras
The Second Book of Esdras
The Book of Esther
The Book of Job
The Psalms
The Proverbs
Ecclesiastes or Preacher
Cantica, or Songs of Solomon
Four Prophets the greater
Twelve Prophets the less

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras
The Fourth Book of Esdras
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Judith
The rest of the Book of Esther
The Book of Wisdom
Jesus the Son of Sirach
Baruch the Prophet
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Susanna
Of Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees


All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.




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


Article VII
Of the Old Testament
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore there are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.
--------------------------------------------------


You are IGNORING THE TRUTH in this and BELIEVING the OPINIONS OF MEN. Not FACT and trying to turn a "skunk into a cat".


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Natters, if your not KJVO, she's going to argue with you, plain and simple.

I'm certainly glad I am in a good mood today!

 

I can read ALL DAY LONG what they say they believe....then I can read the Bible that was printed in 1611 and see how the apocrypha is included. Facts, dear Michelle, facts, not opinions of men (like the articles of faith you keep showing us.)

You almost slipped in an earlier post and said that the Anglicans held the same beliefs as we do. If you truly believe that, then you do need to read some opinions.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Second they affirm their error by this statement of the 27th Article

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeablewith the institution of Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice that while they say that baptism is a sign of regeneration or the new birth they also say “Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeablewith the institution of Christ”

Therefore (since young children in the CofE includes babies) babies are born again and grafted into the Church according to the CofE doctrine by water baptism.
--------------------------------------------------


You are adding to what they have said, based upon your FALSE ASSUMPTIONS to prove your FALSE THEORY AND ORIGIONAL ARGUMENT.

They clearly state " Young CHILDREN" not "BABIES". Does your church baptize young children when they are saved? What is the age of a young child or to be considered a young child?


This also states:

"Baptism is not only a sign of profession".


Babies CANNOT profess anything and would be contrary to their statements of faith - all of them.


You are WRONG Hank.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

OOOH my goodness, Michelle, sorry, but I'm going to say it. This is one of the more ridiculous retorts that I have ever seen on this board. Like I said, you will twist a skunk to a cat.

Hank is NOT wrong. Pick up a history book, Michelle.

She won't do it and I'll tell you why:
It reminds me of when I was a very little boy and I brought the Bible to the best Christian I ever knew, my mother, bless her heart. Anyway, I said, "Everything in this book is all I need to know in life, right mom?" "She said, well, many important things, but not quite EVERYTHING son. You'll have to use another book to work on your arithmetic."

 

--------------------------------------------------
michelle said "and has NOTHING to do with this ISSUE or DEBATE."

Which issue? Which debate? There are lots of different issues and lots of different debates on this forum. This forum is for discussing anything related to versions and translations. Not every discussion has to be about what you want it to be about.
--------------------------------------------------


This statement made by the originator of this thread:


--------------------------------------------------
But not just the Apocrypha but also to other items surrounding the AV1611 which were Church of Rome origin affecting, infecting the AV1611.
--------------------------------------------------


With his own statement, he has made this part of the debate and to which my statements were addressed. He is addressing nothing but speculation and assumptions, not based upon FACT, and trying to make them seem as though they are FACT. Read the link I provide you all, if you REALLY desire to know the FACTS concerning the issue of infected Bible versions with Roman Catholic Church influence and beliefs that are EVIDENCED in the modern versions, unlike the KJB as being falsely accused of and assumed it has Catholic influences using the Apocrypha as part of the means by which to prove this.


This thread is nothing more than a straw man and irrelevant to the truth in this issue and DEBATE.
But if you weren't so biased in your own opinions, and against me, and your false belief and false labeling me as KJVO, and falsley assuming I only post because I am KJVO and only trying to argue this in every single post, you would be able to see what I am saying is true.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle, what other English translation besides the KJV is the Word of God?

 

You don't think the Anglicans were baby baptizers in 1611?

 

Michelle said "With his own statement, he has made this part of the debate and to which my statements were addressed. He is addressing nothing but speculation and assumptions, not based upon FACT, and trying to make them seem as though they are FACT."

But I think the apocrypha IS in the KJV because of Catholic reasons. That doesn't mean the KJV translators included it as scripture, but if these books were never considered scripture by anyone throughout history, they probably would have never been included in prior Bibles, and probably would never have been included in the KJV.

But I notice that statement you quote said "not just the Apocrypha". There are other aspects of the KJV that are Catholic-based, such as the calendar at the front that listed the observation of Catholic holy days (such as the Conception of Mary, days honoring various Saints, etc.), the observation of Easter (the Catholic observation of the resurrection of Christ, not the pagan festival), and daily lectionary readings which included apocryphal books.

michelle said "This thread is nothing more than a straw man and irrelevant to the truth in this issue and DEBATE."

Which issue? Which debate? This thread is its own issue. This whole forum is not the "everything must conform to michelle's desired topic" forum.

michelle said "But if you weren't so biased in your own opinions, and against me, and your false belief and false labeling me as KJVO, and falsley assuming I only post because I am KJVO and only trying to argue this in every single post, you would be able to see what I am saying is true."

If YOU weren't so biased against ME, you'd have seen that I did NOT argue, but I AGREED WITH YOU, (repeatedly!) about the apocrypha.

 

--------------------------------------------------
You don't think the Anglicans were baby baptizers in 1611?
--------------------------------------------------


Based upon their statements of belief, I do not. And even if they did, which I highly doubt, does not prove, nor evidence this has "infected the KJB of 1611" as it has so been stated.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

In case you didn't see it....Michelle, what other English translations besides the KJV are the Word of God?

 

Do you really believe what you wrote about 1 & 2 Esdras? Maybe you can help me out. I was unable to find that in any established canon by the Jews or Christian church.

 

She claims that is referring to young saved children. Like we do today. Anything else is just a man's opinion. RE: earlier post by Michelle

 

Then do a little more reading.

 

Michelle, I know you have probably ignored this, but I really would like an answer. You claimed we FALSELY accused you of being a KJVO.

What OTHER English translations are God's Word?

I am only reposting in case you are missing this question.

 

gb93433 said "Do you really believe what you wrote about 1 & 2 Esdras? Maybe you can help me out. I was unable to find that in any established canon by the Jews or Christian church."

1 & 2 Esdras are the old names for Ezra and Nehemiah. What used to be called 3 & 4 Esdras are now sometimes called 1 & 2 Esdras, which causes a bit of confusion when examining the canon historically.