A question for advocates of KJVO

Now, Ben, that isn't a fair question. You know no KJVO advocate can truthfully answer the question.

 

Without.

The underlying texts of the true word of God did not contain the Apocryphal books;the Apocrypha was included for it's historical weight.

However,the bogus Alexandrian forgeries has the Apocrypha in their underlying texts;considered holy writ by the RCC.


Altho I'm not KJBO,I answered your question;which by the way has been answered before in times past beyond the point of ad nauseam!!

Now,we'll see if you'll believe the truth or not.

 

> bogus Alexandrian forgeries

Like the 1611 King James Bible!

 

Ben, the TEXT is what matters. I have one copy of the 1769 KJV, printed in the early 1900s, that contains several rather inaccurate maps, but the text, except for a few spelling differences seems to be the same is that of a later printing of the KJV I have, that contains no maps or illustrations at all.

I have two repro AV 1611s; each contains the Apocrypha, placed between the OT & NT, but nowhere called Scripture. They include I & II Maccabees.

 

Well said Roby.

The Apocrypha is never called scripture in the 1611 but it does have a few references in the OT and NT to the BOA. I can't remember where off the top of my head....

Anti-A,

Since you are so concerned about the RCC then why did the 1611 have extra books?

You set the KJV up for the same negative theories you make against modern bibles etc...

Have you ever read the 1611? If so then I have some questions for you that we can discuss in public that is "if" you will answer my questions.

In Christ,

 

In your 1611, look on the page after the chart
"To find Easter for ever." On the next page,
over half way down, in between lines it stated:
"the order how the rest of holy Scripture (beside the Psalter) is appointed to be read."
Then on the next two pages of those Proper lessons of "Scripture" to be read you find included passages from the Apocrypha such
as Ecclus xxxv, Wisdom iii, Wisdom v (on the page Lessons proper for Holy days).

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 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 OF THE DISSENTERS, p. 537).

This same heading that James Peirce referred to in the Book of Common Prayer is the same one in the 1611 edition of the KJV.

 

The maps, the concordance, the apocrypha, the Schofield notes, the letter, the helps, etc. Come on man, this is the deadest horse ever. No fundamental christian, not one of the translators, king James himself, nobody believed any of those things were part of the 66 book cannon.

Lacy

 

If you want to know the views of the Church of England, you need to look at more than just the 39 Articles. In the 1500's and 1600's, these 39 articles were not the sole source of the doctrinal views of the Church of England of that day. The Book of Common Prayer seems to have had more influence on the views of more members of the Church of England of that day than did the 39 Articles.

In addition, the Books of Homilies were another standard authority for the Church of England in that day. 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). Thus, the KJV translators were required to accept the Books of Homilies as a boundary or standard.

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 maintained that in the HOMILIES "the book of Tobit is attributed to the Holy Ghost" (p. 538).

What about the regard for the Apocrypha that is evident in the stated views of Archbishop John Whitgift (1530-1604) who was involved in crowning James as king of England? Thomas Smith cited Archbishop Whitgift as stating at a 1583 conference 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, LABOURS, AND SUFFERINGS OF THOSE PIOUS AND LEARNED ENGLISH AND SCOTTISH DIVINES, p. 327).

 

Considering the implication of the listing of lessons from the apocrypha under the heading "the rest of holy Scripture" in the 1611, it is obvious that the KJV translators could have been more clear in presenting their views. The KJV translators knew that some of the earlier English Protestant Bibles had a clear disclaimer stating that the Apocrypha books were not inspired, yet they did not include such a disclaimer in the KJV.
KJV defender Thomas Holland acknowledged that the 1611 KJV did not have "an explicit disclaimer, as in the Geneva Bible" (CROWNED WITH GLORY, p. 94).

Archbishop George Abbot, who at least leaned toward or tolerated Puritan views and who was a KJV translator, had such high regard for the Apocrypha that he issued an order in 1615 that forbid the sale of Bibles without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment.

 

Straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

You are so concerned about who God used to give us the AV, while completely ignoring who gave you the underlying Greek text for your MV's.

Bet you would swallow your tongue if you realized that God used an idol-worshipping non-Jew to write some of the OT, and yet you're concerned about people in the Church of England being used of God??? What a low opinion of the power of the Holy Spirit you must have!!

 

You are so wrong. Those believers who disagree with the inconsistent man-made KJV-only theory have just as high a view of the work of the Holy Spirit. Instead of implying an inconsistent, unscriptural KJV-only view that suggests that the guiding of the Holy Spirit made one group of Church of England scholars into exclusive, infallible priests who alone can understand/interpret the Scriptures, other believers hold a view of the guiding of the Holy Spirit that is consistent. Other believers may simply be applying the same exact standards of doctrinal soundness to the KJV translators that KJV-only advocates seem to apply to others. The truth is consistent, but KJV-only reasoning is inconsistent. Do you accept the evidence that shows that the KJV translators had a higher regard for the Apocrypha than later translators such as the doctrinally-sound Baptists who made a revision of the KJV in 1842 or the NKJV translators?

By the way, my view of Bible translation is the same view as that held by the early English translators such as William Tyndale and even the KJV translators. Thus, my view accepts the same traditional Hebrew and Greek texts.

 

Response to Logos1560:

You wrote, "...that the guiding of the Holy Spirit made one group of Church of England scholars into exclusive, infallible priests who alone can understand/interpret the Scriptures,..."

You still don't get it do you? I suggest you do a diligent study on how God inspired and preserved His written word as related in many passages in "The Bible" (AV of course) then perhaps you will understand the nature of inspiration & preservation. Just one hint -- God used an idol-worshipping non-Jew to write some of the Bible. Could God then use some Christians in the Church of England to do the same???

Until you understand, there is just no way you will comprehend our position.

 

If they knew,then they'd know.

 

I tell ya what....I'll go by what the AV1611 translators said:

“Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and auow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee haue seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee vttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by euery Translator with the like grace, nor peraduenture so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, euery where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a naturall man could say, Verum vbi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counted a vertuous man, though hee haue made many slips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and louely, though hee haue some warts vpon his hand, yea, not onely freakles vpon his face, but also skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it.”

“Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled...[that] it hath pleased God in his diuine prouidence, heere and there, to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinal points that concerne saluation (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearfulnesse would better beseeme vs than confidence. . .and to resolue upon modestie....There be many words in Scripture, which be neuer found there but once. ..there be many rare names of certaine birds, beastes and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves...so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (euen in thejudgement of the iudicious) questionable, can be no lesse than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures; so diuersitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded....They that are wise, had rather haue their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be the other.”

Thank God for the good ol AV1611. It sure does waste the KJVO myths and old wives tales.

 

Thank God they had enough sense to use the correct text!!!!!!!

 

Have you ever read the 1611KJV? Ever read the alternate readings etc...found in the 1611?

Correct text? Hum you might want to read that 1611 Slambo. You might find something useful about the KJV and the men who worked on it. These honest men put marginal notes to alt readings etc...

By the way where is your evidence? End the bible version debate right here and right now. Give us the proof (not hear say) to back up KJVO myths.

I want facts and not KJVO myths and KJVO distortions. Remember that the good old AV1611 waste many KJVO tall tales.

Colossians 2:6-8 (NASB)

6 Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,
7 having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude.
8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

 

Sounddoctrine, the KJVO myth's clear man-made origins and total lack of Scriptural support make it wrong from its inception.

Until you understand, there is just no way you will comprehend our position.

We don't hafta comprehend too much about it to know it's WRONG.