• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

All Churches are commanded to teach Scripture

L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
makahiya117 said:
When an individual says “ the Greek ” , “ the original Greek ” ,
“ the original text ” , “ the original manuscript ” , etc. ,
that individual is speaking like a parrot or a deceiver.
.
Click to expand...

Why are you in effect implying that the makers of the KJV were deceivers since they referred to the Greek, the original Greek, etc.?
 
A

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
makahiya117 said:
When an individual says “ the Greek ” , “ the original Greek ” ,
“ the original text ” , “ the original manuscript ” , etc. ,
that individual is speaking like a parrot or a deceiver.
There are over 24 reconstructed (Christian, Catholic, Cult) Greek N.T. Texts
which do not match in content, volume or doctrine.

You cannot honestly say “ the Greek N.T. ” or “ all N.T. Greek Texts ”
are given by inspiration of God. There are over 24 reconstructed
(Christian, Catholic, Cult) Greek N.T. Texts which do not match
in content, volume or doctrine.

What reconstructed Greek N.T. text are you talking about ?

Be sincere, explain how a reconstructed text is infallible.
Click to expand...

These reconstructed texts are just what the KJV is based off of as well. Sorry to inform you but God did not write His holy scriptures in English in 1611 and even the KJV translators will tell you that.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
annsni said:
These reconstructed texts are just what the KJV is based off of as well. Sorry to inform you but God did not write His holy scriptures in English in 1611 and even the KJV translators will tell you that.
Click to expand...

true, as they also regarded versions such as the Bishop and geneva as being just as much the word of God as theirs was in English!
 
HankD

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
makahiya117 said:
Five Clear, Simple, Critical, Categorical, Computational,
Conclusive Facts about the AV 1611 KJV Holy Bibles first edition.

All KJV Holy Bibles are editions of the AV 1611 KJV Holy Bible first edition.

KJV Holy Bibles are the most published, read and loved bibles of all time.

KJV Holy Bibles are the most published, read and loved books of all time.

Academic Theology demonstrates the apologetics of the AV 1611 KJV Holy Bible.
The Record Theory independently answers the questions of final authority and final canonization.
The Purified Text Theory supports the Record Theory, demonstrated in the manuscript evidence,
bible canonization, bible doctrines, billions of bibles and computational linguistics.

While the entire line of scripture are records, the outstanding record of scripture,
and the scripture of final authority is the published text and form
of the AV 1611 KJV Holy Bible first edition.
Click to expand...

Just wondering makahiya117,

According to this statement you must therefore accept the Apocrypha as final authority as these books are included in the first edition as it is included in between the testaments.

Some folks say that the AD1611 somewhere claims that these books are not canonical.
I have not been able to find that statement in any of the translators notes within the first edition itself.

If you believe that (don't know if you do but if you do) please point it out to me. I have provided a photographic image of the entire publication of the AD1611 in another post in this thread.

In other places they do now admit that the Apocrypha is not canonical but (or so it appears) not in the AD1611 itself.

For daily scripture readings Apocrypha readings are noted as to be read.

Within the the canonical text, chain references are made to Apocryphal texts.

Within the Apocrypha, chain references are made to canonical scripture.

Secondly, even if they didn't believe at the time of publication that the Apocrypha was canonical why was it included as it contains romish heresy - e.g. prayers for the dead.

HankD
 
A

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
HankD said:
Just wondering makahiya117,

According to this statement you must therefore accept the Apocrypha as final authority as these books are included in the first edition as it is included in between the testaments.

Some folks say that the AD1611 somewhere claims that these books are not canonical.
I have not been able to find that statement in any of the translators notes within the first edition itself.

If you believe that (don't know if you do but if you do) please point it out to me. I have provided a photographic image of the entire publication of the AD1611 in another post in this thread.

In other places they do now admit that the Apocrypha is not canonical but (or so it appears) not in the AD1611 itself.

For daily scripture readings Apocrypha readings are noted as to be read.

Within the the canonical text, chain references are made to Apocryphal texts.

Within the Apocrypha, chain references are made to canonical scripture.

Secondly, even if they didn't believe at the time of publication that the Apocrypha was canonical why was it included as it contains romish heresy - e.g. prayers for the dead.

HankD
Click to expand...

He's not going to be able to answer you since he joined the banned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top