Refuting KJOism, What Works, and What Does Not

Wrong???? I did not see what HomeBound said here:

Skan, you use the word, "wrong" to accuse Homebound. I agree with HomeBound.

Please list them.

HomeBound quoted:

Skan, HomeBound is right.

Incorrect. The NKJV is incorrect to change some words because it affects any doctrines. The KJV disagrees with the NKJV 2,000 times!

The same to you!!! You avoided answering ANY of my questions.

 

If you believe that "the Bible was complete in 1611," then how do you explain the omission of the Apocrypha from the 1769 Revision?

 

</font>[/QUOTE]That may be due to the fact you are looking in the wrong place. In the list I gave, one reading was from the 1611 and the other from the 1769. In each case HomeBound said the 1769 was right and the 1611 was wrong.

So you think the AV1611 was wrong too? Wow!

Please list them. </font>[/QUOTE]I already did.

Skan, HomeBound is right.</font>[/QUOTE]So, the words were not inspired, only the thought, concepts, and ideas. The words being changed doesn't matter?

Incorrect. The NKJV is incorrect to change some words because it affects any doctrines. The KJV disagrees with the NKJV 2,000 times! </font>[/QUOTE]So the NKJV is wrong to change some words but the KJV is not wrong to change some words?

The same to you!!! You avoided answering ANY of my questions. </font>[/QUOTE]I have answered all of your questions. Every last one of them.

 

You are hitting the nail on the head. I believe the Bible and don't need to study to prove it. You either believe it or you don't.

 

If you believe that "the Bible was complete in 1611," then how do you explain the omission of the Apocrypha from the 1769 Revision? </font>[/QUOTE]The Apocrypha began to be omitted from the Authorized Version in 1629. Puritans and Presbyterians lobbied for the complete removal of the Apocrypha from the Bible and in 1825 the British and Foreign Bible Society agreed. From that time on, the Apocrypha has been eliminated from practically all English Bibles--Catholic Bibles and some pulpit Bibles excepted.


Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.

Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).
The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:
Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:

2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
Salvation by works:

Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.
Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

Magic:

Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.
Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):

Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.

source = http://jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm

 

The KJV can be bought today with the Apocrypha, even the Oxford Edition.

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=17-0192835254-2

Since as you claim that the Apocrypha supports the teaching of Purgatory, salvation by works, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, magic and “It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation”, are you now prepared to pass the same KJVO judgment of “satanic influence” upon the 1611 KJV First Edition as the KJVO passes upon the NIV (for instance) for the inclusion of “Alexandrian readings”?

HankD

 

The Apocrypha was never considered scripture, so what is the problem?

 

Well, since the "Alexandrian readings" are not Scripture (according to KJVO) and since they are included in the NIV (for instance) and the KJVO call it "satanic" (among other pejoratives) then why do you put your stamp of approval upon the 1611KJV First Edition which contains such abominations as you have enumerated?

BTW the First Edition included the Apocrypha in the "Scripture" KJV reading guide, included cross-references to the Apocrypha in margins along with the other Scripture cross-references, put it in between the Testaments, made it look like Scripture with the same format along with cross-references to the NT Scriptures. The Church of England while claiming that it is/was not "canon" and does not establish a doctrine, equivocated and called the Apocrypha a writing to “read for example of life and instruction of manners” agreeing publicly with the words of Jerome, renown saint of the Church of Rome.

Below an extract from the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England:

“read for example of life and instruction of manners” although not established “doctrine” of the CofE, clearly we can then pray for the dead and practice magic, etc according to your litany of offenses against the Apocrypha? Do you receive these things as an “example of life and instruction of manners”?

King James and company intended their work to be “read in the Churches” including the Apocrypha for they made no exception to it and in the reading guide and cross-references to it through out.

But you say I am not Church of England. Well then why not since you read in your churches the “pure” Bible they authorized and thereby you have by default endowed them with the secondary “inspiration” of God of the 1611 English, the KJVO have thereby proclaimed to the world the Church of England to be the Apostolic Church of God on earth since by their doctrine they have inadvertently endowed this Church with the power of the prophets and apostles.

That is not to say that one cannot hold the KJV in the highest of places among the English translations, go right ahead.

To say it has the purity of primary inspiration and also a source of advanced revelation is to make of it something it is not and to exalt the King of England to Titular head of the Church of Jesus Christ and the Church of England as the true Church not just a local (huge as it is) Church.

HankD

 

First, is the Apocrypha Alexandrian? Second, again, they are not scripture.

If you're talking about these marginal/side notes, then they are not scripture either.

Again, the Apocrypha is not scripture.

 

What works? In this order: the Word of God, truth, logic. Only the Spirit of God can work in a person's life to bring about truth. It's kind of like asking what "works" to see someone respond to the gospel...it's a mystery. You just be faithful to proclaim the truth.

 

Again HB you missed my points and sidesteped the main issue.

The King of England and the KJV translators were still enamored with the Church of Rome, the Apocrypha, The “saints” of the Church of Rome, the mass, baptismal regeneration, etc.

They were not perfect neither prophets or apostles, coming out of the Dark Age of many centuries in which the true Gospel was either hidden or suppressed. Their resources, methods and final work reflect this truth and IMO they did quite well considering the religious environment of their day.

Then they refined their work for nearly two centuries cleansing it of these Catholic grave clothes in the dawing light of the Reformation. However it still remains a translation. The best English translation?

Perhaps in it’s day.

As Ed would say, it started out perfect and became even more perfect.

But now...

Psalm 37:25 I have been young, and now am old...

HankD

 

Actually its a song:

I'M HENERY THE EIGHTH I AM, HENERY THE EIGHTH I AM I AM!!

HankD

 

It was released in 1989 by Herman's Hermits.

It's from an older "traditional" English drinking song a parody on Henry the 8th who broke from the Church of Rome forming the Church of England in 1534.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Supremacy_1534

Here are the lyrics to the song:

http://www.know-britain.com/songs/im_henery_eighth.html

HankD

 

And yet, there it is in the Authorised Version. Here is your statement again:

You are right: the "KJB" WAS complete in 1611. Since we agree on that point, then why was the Apocrypha removed? The omission of this now makes the Bible "incomplete." If one removes five chapters from a novel, it is now an incomplete copy.

Is the Apocrypha Divinely Inspired?
No.
Should it be in the Bible?
Yes.

BTW, the Puritans wouldn't use the Authorised Version.

If you follow this link, take note of the "av1611" on the top of the page. They do not use the "av1611."

 

Oops, I meant to say:
If you follow this link, go to the home page and take note of the of the "KJV 1611" at the top of the page. They do not use the "KJV 1611."

 

Originally posted by HomeBound:

Not fermented wine, no sir.

You have been listening to too many ignorant southern preachers give you that baloney. My parents were grape framers and some of the crop went to wine. Grape juice would never keep very long in the weather it is harvested in without refrigeration. Ever tasted grape juice. It is like a watery slightly sugar flavored liquid.

So you think when they asked why did Jesus save the best until last that they were referring to sweet water instead of wine? Sounds like relative theology rather eisegesis. I live in the midst of wine country and I have never heard a sermon stating that Jesus only drank sweet water. The preacher would get laughed at. The only time I ever read and heard that nonsense was when I was in the south.

 

I have never understood the claim that Jesus did not drink wine. What was the first miracle and where did it take place? Have any of you ever been to a Jewish wedding? Look at the movie Fidler on the Roof: does anyone really believe that they are dancing at Tzeitel's wedding with bottles of grape juice on their heads?