The KJV1611 is Alexandrian

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Ed Edwards, Apr 22, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quoted From "Other Christian Denominations"
    "The cannon As Scripture",
    the initial post:

    //There is a significant difference between Catholic and Protestant Bibles. Catholic Bibles contain seven more books than Protestant Bibles do. The seven books, all in the Old Testament, are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Catholics call the disputed books Deuterocanonical and consider them to be inspired. Bible Christians call them Apocryphal and consider them to be spurious.

    //The list of books that comprise the Bible is referred to as the canon. During Jesus' time there were two Old Testament canons in use. There was the Palestinian canon, which is identical to the Protestant Old Testament, and there was the Alexandrian canon – also known as the Septuagint – which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament. The reason why the Catholic Bible has the longer canon is simple. The Apostles and the early Church used the Septuagint.//

    If these are correct statements (and I suspect they are):
    that makes the KJV1611 Edition an Alexandrian Bible ;)
    That makes the KJV1769 Edition (AKA /also known as/:
    the AV 1611 [​IMG] ) a non-Alexandrian text.

    On another front:
    I define any Bible written after 4 July 1776 to be a
    MODERN VERSION. That makes the KJV1769 Edition
    (AKA /also known as/: the AV 1611 [​IMG] ) a Modern Version (MV) [​IMG]
     
  2. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed, I think you need to check your dates there. If you define a modern version as any Bible written after July 4, 1776, then that doesn't qualify the KJV1769 as a modern version. After all, 1769 came before 1776 last time I checked...

    Also, the Bible was written long before 1776, no matter what manuscript is used. It has gone through various translations. Many of these translations were published after 1776.

    Musta been pretty late when you wrote that, huh?

    (Sorry, brother, I just had to joke with you a little this morning!)

    [​IMG] :D ;) :confused:
     
  3. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    IFB are not protestants and never were
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Actually, the original 1769 Oxford edition also included the Apocrypha. Several changes have been introduced into the KJV text since 1769 so that the present Oxford KJV is not every word identical in text to the 1769 Oxford edition.
     
  5. 4His_glory

    4His_glory
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    IFB are not protestants and never were </font>[/QUOTE]They certainly are, they protest a whole bunch of things- like MVs. :D :D
     
  6. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    William, brother, we are still waiting for your first coherent post.

    If IFB are not protestants, what are they?
     
  7. Linda64

    Linda64
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    William, brother, we are still waiting for your first coherent post.

    If IFB are not protestants, what are they?
    </font>[/QUOTE]Saved
     
  8. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Years ago I read a booklet which traced the roots of the Baptist church back to the apostolic church and not to the Catholic church. Many of you may have read The Trail of Blood, which shows that the Baptist church did not break off from the Catholic church at any point in history.

    Many people today think the word Protestant refers to any church or denomination which is not Catholic, but this is a very broad definition for the word. The word Protestant actually refers to any church or denomination which separated from the Catholic church.

    We who are Baptist are not Protestant in the true sense of the word. The Baptist church has existed down through Christian history and was never a part of the Catholic church. So it is true that many can say they are not Protestant and not Catholic at the same time. Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians may be Protestant, but Baptists are not.

    Hope this helps!
     
  9. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    Purports to show, I think, would be a better description. Carroll's genealogy is notional, not factual.

    No one except early 16th century Lutherans are Protestants in the true sense of the word, but that seems to me to be quibbling. Now, I don't care if you consider yourself a Protestant or not, but many Baptists have and do. Protestant influence upon Baptists has been profound, and sometimes acknowledged.

    In 1678, the General Baptists published "An Orthodox Creed or Protestant Confession of Faith, Being an Essay to Unite and Confirm all True Protestants," and that was from Baptists whose soteriology was more closely akin to the Anabaptists.

    In addition, the preface to the 1677 London Confession recognizes no great divide between Baptists and other non-Baptist groups as the authors explain why they have cribbed a good deal of the (Presbyterian) Westminster Confession:

    " ... it best to follow their example in making use of the very same words with them both, in these articles (which are very many) wherein our faith and doctrine is the same with theirs, and this we did, the more abundantly, to manifest our consent with both, in all the fundamental articles of the Christian Religion, as also with many others, whose orthodox confessions have been published to the world; on behalf of the Protestants in divers Nations and Cities: and also to convince all, that we have no itch to clogge Religion with new words, but do readily acquiesce in that form of sound words, which hath been, in consent with the holy Scriptures, used by others before us; hereby declaring before God, Angels, & Men, our hearty agreement with them, in that wholesome Protestant Doctrine, which with so clear evidence of Scriptures they have asserted: ... "
     
  10. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    But then, I'm off topic ... [​IMG]
     
  11. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    We who are Baptist are not Protestant in the true sense of the word. The Baptist church has existed down through Christian history and was never a part of the Catholic church. So it is true that many can say they are not Protestant and not Catholic at the same time. Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians may be Protestant, but Baptists are not.

    Hope this helps!
    </font>[/QUOTE]The Trail of blood is not trustworhy...
    Carroll would have us not going through the RCC, but places us in other heretical groups...
    One cult is as bad as another!

    God has always had a church somewhere, but Baptists cannot claim sole ownership...

    It's funny, but other denominations claim the same thing about the trail from Christ to 2006.

    And IFBs are protestant... How many IFBs agree with the RCC? if they are against it, they they are protesting it...

    And what denomination of Baptist is the correct one... Freewill, SBC, IFB, ABC, GARB,etc?

    And do you have to be Calvinistic? pre-trib, Open communion, closed communion, Local church only, etc.

    There are too many types of Baptists to say that all are the true church.... or perhaps, you don't need to be in a Baptist church to be part of the true church... perhaps, just perhaps, being saved is enough! Nah.... That would never fly.. (tiny being sarcastic!)

    For that goes against our pride. You know, "I'm always right, and even when I'm not, you are wrong"!
     
  12. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, this is a very good
    topic to do 'off topic' ;)
     
  13. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    William, brother, we are still waiting for your first coherent post.

    If IFB are not protestants, what are they?
    </font>[/QUOTE]Your not nice
     
  14. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    William, brother, we are still waiting for your first coherent post.

    If IFB are not protestants, what are they?
    </font>[/QUOTE]Saved
    </font>[/QUOTE]Amen to that. We never needed to protest against the RCC and Alexandrian manuscripts are just that. Thanx to the RCC causing confusion and doubt on the Word of God that caused the reformation, and All this rucus about MV's. All other denominations are protestant, for they came out of HER! But IFB already Knew the Truth, the Saved ones that is; and therfore didnt need to protest. You wont find that in any History book! read the AV 1611. food for thought!! food for the soul!!
     
  15. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    How did the IFBs already know the truth when they didn't exist until the twentieth century?..
     
  16. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do read the KJ but not the 1611 one. I've tryed and it takes to long and is even harder to understand. I had better say it was a reprint of the 1611 AV.
     
  17. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    William S. Correa: //read the AV 1611. food for thought!! food for the soul!!//

    The Song of the Three Holy Children, v. 48 (KJV 1611 Edition):
    Oyee yce and colde, blesse ye the
    Lord: praise and exalt him aboue all
    for euver.


    What is 'yce'?

    Is this verse part of what is called the "AV 1611"?
    So maybe the AV 1611 is more like 'ice cream for the soul'?
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    BobAlkire: //I had better say it was a reprint of the 1611 AV.//

    What Bro. William is calling the 'AV 1611' has nothing whatsoever
    to do with what you are calling the '1611 AV'. You are each
    talking about something different.

    Some people beleive that the:

    1. KJV1611 Edition
    2. KJV1769 Edition (most common KJV)
    3. KJV1873 (may be KJV1850 Edition)

    are each by themselves the KJB (King James Bible).
    Hardly anybody who talkes about the KJB uses what
    BobAlkire calles the '1611 AV'.

    Others claim (and I gave them more reason to claim)
    that the KJV1769 Edition (most common KJV) is
    the only KJB and the only KJV AUTHORIZED
    by God.

    I'm not so sure that God authorized the
    KJV1769 edition and I know for sure that
    King James did not authorize the KJV1769
    edition.
     
  19. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed...while I don't wish to belittle you cause you obviously have studied your Bible(s) quite a bit,I have come to believe after reading many of your posts that you have a sarcastic streak a mile wide and take some special pleasure in "gigging" those of us in here who place simple FAITH in the one book that we believe is the very basis for our FAITH. For me,it doesn't matter WHICH edition of the KJV that I use.(I'm fairly sure it is the 1769 edition).All that matters to me is that it is an accurate edition and derivative of the AV1611(minus the apocropyha).The King James IS the best Bible for english speaking people(that is my opinion)simply because it DOESN'T include all the many FOOTNOTES that the new MV's use to bring into question the AUTHORITY of so many passages in the Word of God.I HATE those kind of footnotes and I refuse to study out of any so-called bible that has them.For example,the NIV and the NASV are notorious for them....seems like I have seen them in the NKJV as well....yep...just checked...they are.My old KJV isn't like that so ya'll can have the MV's...they aren't even in the same hemisphere as far as I'm concerned.By the way....the other "versions" I mentioned(MV's)above were given to me at one time or another by well-meaning friends.They are good for comparing good translations from poor ones...but I'd have never wasted the valuable money the Lord gave me to buy them.Thankfully,I didn't have too.God Bless you Brother Ed.....you are nothing if not entertaining!!

    Yours for Christ and His Wonderful Word,
    Greg Sr.
     
  20. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    In other words, the less you know, the happier you are. Not all of us are persuaded by such reasoning.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...