AV 1611 and the Church of Rome No. 2

From what I can tell, everybody that owns and uses an MV also owns a KJV and considers both to be the inspired, preserved, and inerrent words of God.

Michelle, you really do need to take a look at your motives with your arguments. All you are accomplishing on this board is causing divisions. You need to listen to your own advice regarding young Christians reading our posts. Sometimes it seems to me that you live to create arguments and bickering here. Believe it or not, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, and that does NOT depend on which translation we use! Remember, "A house divided against itself shall not stand."

Now back to the topic, please. I have been learning a lot up until the thread gets hijacked by the same ol' whacky argument.

Btw, great site Hank! I too copied it to my favorites.

In Christ,
Deborah

 

You are both very welcome.

Amazing site!! Over in the right corner you can enlarge the page up to 8 times and see the blemishes in the paper.

Is it just me or when you use the printer friendly screen and print a page it comes out with a green tint?

HankD

 

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

Michelle, you really do need to take a look at your motives with your arguments. All you are accomplishing on this board is causing divisions. You need to listen to your own advice regarding young Christians reading our posts. Sometimes it seems to me that you live to create arguments and bickering here. Believe it or not, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, and that does NOT depend on which translation we use! Remember, "A house divided against itself shall not stand."
--------------------------------------------------


Actually, I have stuck right on topic. You see it as divisive, because I do not agree with what others are saying, because it is not the truth, and I am pointing that out. Can two walk together, unless they be agreed?


As for your comment about my arguments being wacky (since I am the only one here talking about this from the opposite side), are you referring to my arguments being KJVO? If so, you are very wrong. By the way, I also do not live to come here and create arguments. Hank did this, by virtue of starting this thread, and proposing an outright lie to which many are agreeing with, and also encouraging it. I am showing that it is a lie, and what is being said is untrue, and quite irrelevant to the scriptures.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

As a matter of fact,
my main Bible now is the HCSB = Holman Christian
Standard Bible. But i have three different
versions of the KJV on the shelves on my
computer desk.

Nearly all the scripture in my head is KJV.
I don't dis the KJV, i dis only militant KJVOs
and folks who talk like militant KJVOs.

 

--------------------------------------------------
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."
--------------------------------------------------


You see, everyone blames me, for turning everything into a KJVO debate, when this is not true. Who in the above is doing this? Huh?

Regarding your comments of "it is inconsistent to reject" the Apocrypha and then because you say this they also "need to account for it" is merely YOUR OWN OPINION and neither true, nor is it BINDING. This is like saying one is inconsistent for the inclusion of footnotes, maps, etc. in their bible, and that they need to account for them.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

oops, printheads needed cleaning.

HankD

 

Another equivocation of the Anglican Church (particularly among Scottish high-churchmen) concerning the romish doctrine of "transubstantiation" is illustrated by Archbishop William Laud in the Invocation of "Laud's Liturgy" of 1637, which read as follows:

Again:

presently:

While it is true that for the most part that the division was heavily weighed against the Church of Rome doctrine of "transubstantiation" many high Church members held this romish doctrine both then and now.

See a history of this conflict :
http://www.thechurchoftheascension.org/dissuasive.htm#AnchorVIII

HankD

 

Michelle, you keep hollering about later versions having ALTERING THE SCRIPTURES. Now, didn't the AV do EXACTLY THE SAME THING in relation to the English standard Bible of the day, the GENEVA?

You keep saying you're not KJVO. If that's true, you MUST have accepted another version or versions also. If you're not KJVO, what other specific version(s) do you recommend?

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, you keep hollering about later versions having ALTERING THE SCRIPTURES. Now, didn't the AV do EXACTLY THE SAME THING in relation to the English standard Bible of the day, the GENEVA?

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


Nope, as the the AV reflected the underlying preserved and inspired texts, and the Geneva did not in very few cases. Why this is? I do not know, nor does it matter in this issue.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Wonderful Hank! All you have provided us with is that the Anglican Church seemed to progressively become more apostate to their statement of faith. Your example is not reflective of the majority of Anglicans during 1611 or prior to that. Even so, it still has no affect upon the scriptures, as you would like everyone to believe.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle,

Congradulations! You have single-handedly turned what could have been a purposeful discussion into a circus. Seems to be a real talent of yours.

Not everyone (well, let's be honest...practically no one) thinks that the KJV is the actual words of God (since it wasn't written in 17th century high-fullutin' English wat back when). And your absurd harping on the "pure words of God" being changed in MV's is almost as funny as your deluded notions.

Who made you judge as to what bible was the only one? Where does the Scriptures say that the KJV is absolutely correct? How do you come by the authority to declare the KJV is the 'standard' by which any other translation should be judged?

You are not God, michelle. Stop trying to act like Him.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

--------------------------------------------------
Who made you judge as to what bible was the only one? Where does the Scriptures say that the KJV is absolutely correct? How do you come by the authority to declare the KJV is the 'standard' by which any other translation should be judged?
--------------------------------------------------


I didn't, nor do. God did, does.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle said "I didn't, nor do. God did, does."

No he didn't. He didn't mention the KJV even once.

 

Don't forget OPINIONS 3:18

 

Don't hold your breath!

 

Round and round it goes, and whither it stops, only the Mods knows.
You're right Trotter, this thread has degraded from Enlightenment to Entertainment.

 

It didn't take long, Orvie, once you-know-her showed up.

 

I would like also to point out another item concerning the identity crisis of the Church of England and that is the doctrine of the sacerdotal priesthood which dovetails with my last post showing that the “high” church of England has always supported the romish doctrine of "transubstantiation".

In modern times the Church of England claims to be Protestant, but the high-church of England (which is officially a sizable element within the CofE) definitely supports the sacerdotal priesthood and "transubstantiation” in spite of the vacillating Articles of Religion.

The following quote is from a Church of England (“high” or “Anglo-Catholic”) website:
It is advise given to aspiring neophytes to the Church of England priesthood.

Take a closer look if you wish: http://www.hlyspirit.org.uk/cms/index.php?id=13

This identity crisis has been woven through the history of the Church of England, an equivocation caused by Henry the 8th and his desire for "many women". Had it not been for him, England would in all probability remained within the fold of the Church of Rome. This is in my opinion why the KJV is/has been tainted by the doctrines of Rome, the sacerdotal priesthood (made evident by the support of the KJV for the office of “bishop”) being one in a succession of several splitting the Church of England between “high” and “low” and often intersecting. These include: The quasi-canonical Alexandrian Scripture called the Apocrypha inserted within the covers of the King James Holy Bible. Which Bible is still copyrighted by the Crown including the Apocrypha.

Then there is baptismal regeneration/pado-baptism, “transubstantiation” and the sacerdotal priesthood and the offering up of the sacrifice of the “mass” among many other romish things (priestly vestments, auricular confession, use of candles, etc).

If the English words of the AV (although no one can tell us which 1611-1850?) are the “pure” and “perfect” words of God then that means that God himself approves of this Church that has a written statement; the Articles of Religion (which have changed several times over the years, in fact the current version is dated 1801)

But in fact, their practices (which has been abundantly documented by many) shows that they are Church of Rome wanabees.

If God has “moved” the KJV translators (some of which were high-church) to translate the inspired Greek and Hebrew words into inspired English words then by all means make haste to join this Church having the power of the prophets and apostles and therefore the Apostolic Church.

Personally I will look to the Traditional Texts of the original languages for the preservation of those inspired words which (as Jesus testified) not one “jot” or “tittle” will pass. The AV1611 has neither jot nor tittle.

MY point: no translation is perfect, they are all flawed because those who produced the translations are flawedd.

Yes, some more flawed than others.

There is nothing “magic” about the KJV.
It is the imperfect work of imperfect men, else why spend hundreds of years correcting and revising it?

Every charge brought against the MV’s, their translators, affiliations and shortcomings can similarly be brought against King James, his translators and his Church of England (a wayward child of Rome).

HankD