Serpent's Acryophra

[KJB1611reader]

Hello,

Gail Riplinger released a new digital book called: 'Serpent's Acryophra.'

Censorship of the Old Testament Apocrypha, against Roman Catholics

Censura librorum apocryphorum Veteris Testamenti, adversum pontificios, inprimis Robertum Bellarminum

John Rainolds did a book against the Acryophra it seems, its all in Latin.

I just checked the sample pages; finally someone is addressing wicked John Rov.

Shawn

 

[Conan]

She is a false witness. You of all people should not read her. She will lie to you.

 

[KJB1611reader]

She is a false witness. You of all people should not read her. She will lie to you.

How hath she lied to me?

 

[KJB1611reader]

Well, so I shouldn't read her book that had sources such as John who was a translator and denied the Acryophra?

She is a false witness. You of all people should not read her. She will lie to you.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Hello,

Gail Riplinger released a new digital book called: 'Serpent's Acryophra.'

Censorship of the Old Testament Apocrypha, against Roman Catholics

Censura librorum apocryphorum Veteris Testamenti, adversum pontificios, inprimis Robertum Bellarminum

John Rainolds did a book against the Acryophra it seems, its all in Latin.

I just checked the sample pages; finally someone is addressing wicked John Rov.

Shawn

I thumbed through her latest edition of "new age translations" it was both sad and laughable at best. One of the greatest claims was "Yahweh is a term developed by German anti-semites," yet this is a term Jews use, and I highly doubt they would use a term developed by German anti-semites given their recent history with such.

She's a terrible source at best.

 

[Logos1560]

Thomas Smith noted that one chief objection to the common prayer book at a 1583 conference was "the appointment of certain apocryphal writings in the public worship of God, in which were several errors and false doctrines while many parts of the canonical writings, and the doctrine of the sacraments, were omitted" (Select Memoirs, p. 327). James Peirce wrote: "Few of the common people ever look into the Articles of the Church of England, to learn what her doctrine is; but what they know of it, is from daily use and custom. So that when the Apocrypha is read at certain times, instead of the Holy Scriptures, and the Book of Common Prayer, which is in every one's hands, after setting down the order how the Psalter is appointed to be read, prescribes the course of both the Canonical and Apocryphal Lessons, under this one general title: The order how the rest of the Holy Scriptures is appointed to be read: they give a handle to the crafty Papist of imposing upon the ignorant sort; nay, and the churchmen themselves sometimes lead them into a great mistake" (Vindication, p. 537). James Peirce also noted: "For those Books which they acknowledge themselves to be Apocryphal, they not only bind up with the Bible, but read them instead thereof" (p. 540). Calamy observed that the ministers ejected by the 1662 Act of Uniformity maintained that “they could not consent to read apocryphal lessons … under the title of Holy Scripture” (Nonconformist’s, p. 42).

The actual high regard that the Church of England of the 1500's and 1600's had for the Apocrypha can also be seen in The Books of Homilies. These books were a collection of "authorized sermons" that were intended to be read aloud in the state churches. The first book of twelve homilies was issued in 1547 with authority of the Council. A second book with twenty-one homilies was issued in 1571 under Queen Elizabeth. Horton Davies observed that "the first book of homilies was issued as a standard of Biblical doctrine and preaching for the nation" (Worship and Theology, I, p. 231). Philip Hughes noted that King James I laid down that "preaching ministers are to take the Articles of 1563 and the two Books of Homilies 'for a pattern and a boundary'" (Reformation in England, p. 399). Does that suggest that the KJV translators were required to accept them as a boundary or standard? Gerald Bray asserted: “To this day the Homilies are considered to be part of the Church of England’s official teaching, and although they are seldom read now, they still remain the most authoritative guide that the church has to the reading of the Bible” (Translating the Bible, p. 11). James Peirce pointed out that in the Church of England's Homilies: "Baruch is cited as the Prophet Baruch; and his writing is called, 'The word of the Lord to the Jews'" (Vindication, pp. 537-538). Peirce also claimed that in the Homilies "the book of Tobit is attributed to the Holy Ghost" (p. 538).

 

[Logos1560]

This high regard is also clearly evident in the views of Church of England Archbishop John Whitgift (1530-1604). Thomas Smith cited Archbishop Whitgift as stating at a public conference at Lambeth with Walter Travers and Thomas Sparks in December of 1583 the following: "The books called apocrypha are indeed parts of the scriptures; they have been read in the church in ancient times, and ought to be still read amongst us" (Select Memoirs of the Lives, p. 327). Benjamin Brook also quoted the same above statement made by Whitgift along with the following other statements: “The apocrypha was given by the inspiration of God.“ “You cannot shew that there is any error in the apocrypha. And it has been esteemed a part of the holy scriptures by the ancient fathers” (Lives of the Puritans, II, p. 317). Based on Whitgift’s statements, Samuel Hopkins commented: “I will only observe that the Archbishop of Canterbury insisted that the apocrypha books were part of the Holy Scriptures, were given by inspiration of God, and were without error” (The Puritans, III, p. 45, footnote 3). In the third portion of his Works as edited by John Ayre, John Whitgift is cited as saying or writing the following: “The apocrypha that we read in the Church have been so used of long time; as it may appear in that third council of Carthage, and 47 canon, where they be reckoned among the canonical books of the Scripture. They may as well be read in the church, as counted portions of the old and new testament; and, forasmuch as there is nothing in them contrary to the rest of the Scripture, I see no inconvenience, but much commodity that may come by the reading of them” (Works of John Whitgift, pp. 349-350). William Daubney asserted: “Archbishop Whitgift makes some remarkably strong statements in support of the Apocrypha, in relying to objections: ‘The Scripture here called Apocrypha, abusively and improperly, are Holy Writings, void of error, part of the Bible, and so accounted of in the purest time of the Church and by the best writers; ever read in the Church of Christ, and shall never be forbidden by me, or by my consent” (Use of the Apocrypha, p. 72; Strype, Life and Acts of John Whitgift, Vol. III, p. 137). Several of the KJV translators who worked with, were taught by, or were associated with Whitgift may have held similar views. Is there any evidence that the KJV translators rebuked or criticized Archbishop Whitgift for publicly maintaining that the books called apocrypha are part of the scriptures? The few Puritans among the KJV translators would likely have disagreed with such high regard for the Apocrypha. It was Archbishop Whitgift that presided over the crowning of James as king of England in July of 1603.

 

[Logos1560]

In the 1611 edition of the KJV on the same page with the table that gives the order how the Psalms are to be read, there is also this heading: “The order how the rest of holy Scripture (beside the Psalter) is appointed to be read.“ On the next pages of the 1611 that lists the lessons from the “rest of holy Scripture” are included some readings from the Apocrypha. Thus, these pages of the liturgical calendar in the 1611 KJV assigned portions of the Apocrypha to be read in the churches. In addition, the cross references in the 1611 KJV cross reference the Apocrypha with the rest of the Bible as though it may have the same authority.


In contrast to the KJV, some of the earlier English Bibles had a clear disclaimer stating that the Apocrypha books were not inspired. KJV defender Thomas Holland acknowledged that the 1611 KJV did not have “an explicit disclaimer, as in the Geneva Bible” (Crowned, p. 94). Arthur Farstad noted: “Unlike its predecessors, which clearly stated that the apocryphal books were not part of the canon of Scripture, the 1611 Version contained no comments about the canonicity of the Apocrypha, thus leaving the question open” (The NKJV, p. 24). Before the Apocrypha in the 1560 Geneva Bible, the translators’ disclaimer began with the following: “These books that follow in order after the prophets unto the New Testament, are called Apocrypha, that is books, which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion.“ Did the 1611 KJV indicate the same clear distinction or separation between the Old Testament and the Apocrypha as it indicated between the Old Testament and the New Testament with its separate title page?

KJV-only author D. A. Waite wrote: “I do not believe in a perfect situation with the King James Bible because of the original printing of the Apocrypha in 1611. If it had been perfect and spotless and if God was behind it, they never would have included that Satanic Apocrypha in the Old Testament” (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 110). Waite wrote: “This was a terrible disgrace for the King James translators to put in that heretical section into the 1611 translation of the Bible” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, p. 16).