AV 1611 and the Church of Rome

[rsr]

To continue, there are various versions of the Apocrypha: Latin Rite, Orthodox, Protestant (and I think Coptic.) Obviously, the acceptance of the Apocrypha has been troublesome from early days. In fact, as far as I know, the Latin Rite acceptance of their canonicity was not confirmed until the Council of Trent (when it became clear that the Reformers were gradually rejecting the books. Even then, the Council didn't quite get the list right. Scribal error, probably. Was the Council's decision on the Canon based upon theology or rather upon the fact it saw a point at which it though it must defend itself from Reformers?)

So, given that the Council had accepted the books as canonical, and the Reformists were distancing themselves from the Apocrypha (however slowly), why did the KJV translators feel bound to include them in the Bible? Straddling, as Hank has said.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Check your sources, Michelle...This resource to which you link quotes RUCKMAN.

For somebody that claim's she's not KJVO, you sure to go to great lengths to defend KJVOism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And you REJECT TRUTH because you disagree with a man who stands for the words of the Lord, and rather ACCEPT lies by UNBELIEVING SCHOLARS such as METZGER and OTHERS? You are only hurting yourself. And if you cannot read, what that site said and honestly look at what is provided there because you have DEEMED it cannot be trusted because they quote Ruckman, then you show that you approach this issue with something other than love for the TRUTH no matter what the cost and are stubborn as a mule.
YOu cannot honestly approach this issue, if you refuse to even consider the other side in this.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Engineers/scientists (my first profession) have inquisitive minds. We search for truth.

I went through a phase of KJVOnlyism (actually probably more preferred) when I first heard about the missing verses. It lasted about two weeks.

This peaked my interest, so I obtained every single book I could find on KJVO and anti-KJVO.

DEVOURED every one looking for the ones that had solid footing (with scripture).

My conclusion, KJVOnlyism is a cult which has the potential to confuse many good Christians.

So, please, quit saying that we do not read the propaganda, I've read it all, probably much more than you ever have or will. Conclusion's the same.

Bottom line, just get a good interlinear Bible with about four translations and read them. You will find out they say the very same thing.

 

[rsr]

Thanks, Gene.

I suspect that Baptists were influenced more by the Geneva Bible than the Moravian Brethren, who, according to my information, had a Bohemian translation that included the Apocrypha in the same way that Luther, the early Geneva, Coverdale and the KJV included it.

As to the Anabaptists, I just don't know. I'll have to study that one.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Ok, michelle, what was the theology of the Church of England during 1611? Tell us what they believed.
--------------------------------------------------


Read the 39 articles of Faith. They tell you, as well as the translators in their preface. They were against the Roman Catholics and their beliefs and traditions.

Here are the links:

http://www.acl.asn.au/39articles.html

and

http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/1611pref.html


Notice this important statement that is CONTRARY to what you are all claiming on this thread (along with all the other articles and what they express):

--------------------------------------------------
Of the Church
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.
--------------------------------------------------


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

Sorry for the interruption, RSR, just trying to put a cap on this (although it probably won't work, as usual.)

 

[GeneMBridges]

RSR,

IMO, it had a lot to do with who commissioned it and the political and religious climate of England at that time.

Nobody was sure if the next monarch would be Catholic, and Catholicism, while not flourishing like it did under Mary, was still a present and threatening force.

Thus, it placated Catholics to include it. Remember, the name of the game politically and within the C of E. itself was COMPROMISE at that time. The entire C.of E.'s theology is a history of compromise and slow change because of these kinds of uncertainties. Nobody wanted to return to Rome's dominance, but nobody was ready to completely let go of many of Rome's traditions in regard to church government and some of its theology. Likewise, with Stuarts on the throne, who had strong Roman Catholic (e.g. French) ties (and France was very much Catholic), as well as ties to the Kirk (Presbyterianism), keeping the Apocrypha was a way of keeping the peace religiously and thus politically. Actually USING or AFFIRMING the Apocrypha was then up to the laity and clergy depending on to which strand of Christianity they gave their allegiance.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by rsr:
Gene said:

"The Geneva Bible was still used primarily by those with serious theological problems with the Anglican Church until the time of the English Civil War (roughly)."

Not so roughly. The Geneva became unpopular especially after the Restoration because it was associated with the Parliamentary Party. Not a good place to be, politically, with the Stuarts back in charge.

It is also my understanding that about this time (maybe before) the Americans were printing copies of the KJV in direct conflict with England's wishes, based on their perpetual "copyright" (so to speak). Is this true?

Also, AV came from being AUTHORIZED TO PRINT it, and didn't have anything to do with it was a "special authority". Authorized Version was printed on all KJVs by printers which were approved by the English government.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Then why would they "add" to the scriptures against what the scriptures themselves say? (Whether or not they believe it.)
As I said, look at the first page of each testament (including the apocrypha at http://www.baptist-church.org/example.pdf and see for yourself. There are NO other introduction pages before or after the apocrypha page I posted. The OT simply ends of the page before.
--------------------------------------------------


Maps, footnotes, prefaces, etc. are also NOT scripture and are NOT indicated anywhere that they are not considered by them as such either. The articles of faith, show us what they BELIEVED to be the SCRIPTURES - the words of the Lord. In truth and reality, again, the APOCRYPHA has NOTHING to do with THIS ISSUE and DEBATE. It is a straw man argument being used to deter from the TRUTH.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
By the way, michelle, James I is on record as having said he wished to "harrow out Baptists."

Tell us why he wanted to do that. What was his motive?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


First of all, I cannot speak to his motive. Secondly one cannot have an honest and full understanding of what the King said, with only one small segment of a quote, that can, and probably is being taken out of the context of what he said, and the historical situations that were occuring in that day. Third, it is irrelevant to the issue and debate concerning the scriptures.


Are all those who claim to be baptist right and perfect just because they claim to be baptist?


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by GeneMBridges:

You, sir, get an A!

In retropect, it would have been wiser for Charles to have done less to antagonize the people (since they did eventually depose James), using their overall tiredness of the war in a more positive manner. Of course, he did use the fear of war in his now famous speech in which he dissolved Parliament. He stoutly reminded Parliament that the nation had just suffered a war and that, if they challenged him further, they would plunge the nation into further ruin. (This of course, since Charles had strong French ties, insinuated that, if they went to war, he would gladly pull France into the war on his side, which Parliament knew was a war they could not possibly win...remember, the Queen was French, though she had no children of her own...that is why Catholic James II ascended to the throne...and he was, well, a nut).

The Church of England is actually a fascinating study in the history of what happens when church and state become intertwined and how hybrid theologies develop.

Can you or RSR provide a good book source that covers this portion of English History?

Limited funds here, so a single book that covers the most is fine. The more detail the better.

 

[Phillip]

Or even a website on English History (that doesn't have an agenda.)

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle,

I am simply giving a history lesson here today. I haven't said anything that should require a reference to the Scriptures. I'm articulating the history of the Church of England and, to some extent, the development of its systematic theology some of the historical and political events around the issue. This thread isn't about KJV vs. MV's. You're the one that came here and hijacked it for that purpose.

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


THen go to a history forum and NOT A BIBLE VERSION DEBATE forum if this really is the truth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[rsr]

There are a few unsubstantiated stories that the KJV was printed in the colonies, but no extant copies remain, so it cannot be proven. Some, in fact, have proven to have been frauds.

The first printing of the KJV in what is now the United States than can be established is the one by Robert Aitken in 1782.

The first Bible printed in America was John Eliot’s Algonquin Indian language Bible in 1663.

The first Bible in a European language to be printed in American was, in fact, in German in 1763.

Not surprising, because England insisted that the only (English) Bibles in the colonies should be imprted from the mother country. (A nice tidbit to consider in pondering the American Revolution.)

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Ok, michelle, what was the theology of the Church of England during 1611? Tell us what they believed.
--------------------------------------------------


Read the 39 articles of Faith. They tell you, as well as the translators in their preface. They were against the Roman Catholics and their beliefs and traditions.

Here are the links:

http://www.acl.asn.au/39articles.html

and

http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/1611pref.html


Notice this important statement that is CONTRARY to what you are all claiming on this thread (along with all the other articles and what they express):

--------------------------------------------------
Of the Church
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.
--------------------------------------------------


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

SACRAMENTS michelle, SACRAMENTS. Do you understand the Catholic belief in infusion of grace vs. the Reformed doctrine of imputation which we receive by grace through faith.

The Church of England believed very much in consubstatiation and still retained a belief in Eucharistic infusion at that time. That's why they included a statement about SACRAMENTS and not ORDINANCES. They took a more Lutheran view of the sacraments in that respect than Calvinists did. They still practiced paedobaptism, michelle. Presbyterians practice it as a sign of inclusion in the covenant, which is just short of a literal infusion of grace. Presbyterians believed in what we call traditional "by grace through faith" indivdual salvation. Episcopalians believed in either infusion or imputation, depending on the identity of the theological head of the Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury . The Articles of Faith are intentionally vague for that reason, so that they can be interpreted theologically by the current head of the church.

You clearly know nothing of the 400 year long tradition regarding the selection of the Archbishop. It is done on a "high church" and "low church" basis. In the days before theological liberalism, that meant "Catholic leaning" or "Calvinist leaning." Now, it means "liberal" or "evangelical."

Like I said, michelle, I studied British Religious History in London itself, and my degree is actually in history with a concentration in British Religious, Social, and Cultural Development. Please don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, when you clearly do not.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Then why would they "add" to the scriptures against what the scriptures themselves say? (Whether or not they believe it.)
As I said, look at the first page of each testament (including the apocrypha at http://www.baptist-church.org/example.pdf and see for yourself. There are NO other introduction pages before or after the apocrypha page I posted. The OT simply ends of the page before.
--------------------------------------------------


Maps, footnotes, prefaces, etc. are also NOT scripture and are NOT indicated anywhere that they are not considered by them as such either. The articles of faith, show us what they BELIEVED to be the SCRIPTURES - the words of the Lord. In truth and reality, again, the APOCRYPHA has NOTHING to do with THIS ISSUE and DEBATE. It is a straw man argument being used to deter from the TRUTH.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Look at the pictures, Michelle, the apocrypha was NOT set aside as anything different, it used the same type face, the same headings, the same chapter and verse divisions. NOTHING indicates it is anything BUT scripture. If the Anglicans felt strongly about it, there would have at least been a note, or it would have been seperated (like maps and other stuff you mentioned) and put in the back or front with a special heading. The rest of the information included in the book that is not scriptural was handled that way, NOT the apocrypha. Your explanation does not fly.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by rsr:
The first printing of the KJV in what is now the United States than can be established is the one by Robert Aitken in 1782.

Was this done, with or without approval of the Crown?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Or even a website on English History (that doesn't have an agenda.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you are looking for an unbiased source, you are going to be looking forever. All have a bias and agenda of some sort. Just as this thread does.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GeneMBridges:

You, sir, get an A!

In retropect, it would have been wiser for Charles to have done less to antagonize the people (since they did eventually depose James), using their overall tiredness of the war in a more positive manner. Of course, he did use the fear of war in his now famous speech in which he dissolved Parliament. He stoutly reminded Parliament that the nation had just suffered a war and that, if they challenged him further, they would plunge the nation into further ruin. (This of course, since Charles had strong French ties, insinuated that, if they went to war, he would gladly pull France into the war on his side, which Parliament knew was a war they could not possibly win...remember, the Queen was French, though she had no children of her own...that is why Catholic James II ascended to the throne...and he was, well, a nut).

The Church of England is actually a fascinating study in the history of what happens when church and state become intertwined and how hybrid theologies develop.

Can you or RSR provide a good book source that covers this portion of English History?

Limited funds here, so a single book that covers the most is fine. The more detail the better. </font>[/QUOTE]The Political History of Tudor and Stuart England by Stater is really good, but pricey ($96 at Amazon.

You can get a book on the history of the Church of Scotland as well. Mine is called Our Church by R.D. Kernohan. It's simple, easy to read, and is published by the Church of Scotland itself via The St. Andrew Press in Edinburgh.

You can also do a search for things like "Cromwell, House of Stuart, Tudor, Church of England, etc. and look for references to her theological development, in particular the political influences of the time).

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle,

I am simply giving a history lesson here today. I haven't said anything that should require a reference to the Scriptures. I'm articulating the history of the Church of England and, to some extent, the development of its systematic theology some of the historical and political events around the issue. This thread isn't about KJV vs. MV's. You're the one that came here and hijacked it for that purpose.

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


THen go to a history forum and NOT A BIBLE VERSION DEBATE forum if this really is the truth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

I'll be happy to let a moderator tell me where to post, not you, michelle. Thanks for your input.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by GeneMBridges:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Ok, michelle, what was the theology of the Church of England during 1611? Tell us what they believed.
--------------------------------------------------blah-blah-blah---blahblah-blah------blah-blah-blah!

Notice this important statement that is CONTRARY to what you are all claiming on this thread (along with all the other articles and what they express):

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

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.
--------------------------------------------------


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

SACRAMENTS </font>[/QUOTE]Isn't it true, Gene that this was probably published when ole King Henry wanted to dump his wife, rather than have a REAL meaning?

I realize that beliefs changed, but wasn't that the real reason for the change in the first place?