I would like to start another thread on the Apocrypha and request that it not be shut down for any reason on my part but only at the moderators discretion.
But not just the Apocrypha but also to other items surrounding the AV1611 which were Church of Rome origin affecting, infecting the AV1611.
In the past when I have posted this information concerning the 1611KJV I have been insulted and condemned for “compromising the truth”.
This is typical (in my experience) of the KJVO to victimize the victim after they have come from afar and attacked the Word of God of many folks here at the BB with demonic phrases concerning certain translations of the Word of God along with insult and innuendo against the readers calling the recounting of historical fact “compromising the truth”.
Having said that:
The Apocrypha being (as quoted from the KJV translators):
These choices roundly condemned by our Baptist forefathers.
The inclusion of Apocrypha in the KJV 1611 First Edition is just another example of the equivocation of the 17th century Church of England, the confusion of which remains to this very day between the “high” and “low” Anglo-Catholic Church as to what in fact they really are; an "Anglo" but legitimate branch (in schism perhaps) of the Church of Rome or the autonomous Church of England (under however the titular leader of said church, the regent of the Crown).
Notice first that they invoke the testimony of Jerome (amongst many other renown "canonized saints") of the Church of Rome in order to lend some kind of eccliastical authority to the Apocrypha.
If the Apocryphal books are not canonical why include them? “for example of life and instruction of manners” they themselves answer. Therefore straddling the fence between the Pope and the King of England.
Well then should we then pray for the dead and promote the doctrine of purgatory (which is taught in the Maccabees)? High churchmen would say yes, low churchmen would say no.
If such heresy were included in another form in any of the MV's (even clearly identified as non-canonical) the KJVO would pronounce such a version as "satanic".
Though the 39 Articles of Religion say that the Apocrypha is non-canonical, the KJV Bible itself equivocates and includes the Apocrypha in the 1611 First Edition (and others) without using this very word: non-canonical.
In the AV1611 The Apocryphal books are included in the same font and format with chapter and verse tags just as the rest of the books of the Old and New Testaments and that without comment as to canonicity.
The Apocryphal books are cited along with other Scripture passages in the daily Scripture/Prayer calendar included in the First Edition to be read and contemplated. For example on October 6th under the heading of “Faith” passages from the Book of Judith are to be read.
To this day the KJV copyright of the Crown includes the Apocrypha.
KJVO speak of the Alexandrian/Church of Rome influence upon the MV’s as “Poisoning the well”.
Many anabaptists, dissenters and Puritans of the 17th-18th centuries lost body parts, suffered incarceration were strangled or burned at the stake because they spoke out against the “ecclesiastical” nature of the AV1611.
It is not true that all believers every where put their carte blanche stamp of approval upon the AV1611. In fact they fled to America where they could obey God rather than men because (in this same 21st century vernacular) the King of England had “poisoned the well” of the Scriptures in their estimation.
This persecution of the Church of England against us because of the rejection of the AV and opposition of other romish practices and equivocations of the CofE of those who went before us is part of our Baptist heritage.
HankD
But not just the Apocrypha but also to other items surrounding the AV1611 which were Church of Rome origin affecting, infecting the AV1611.
In the past when I have posted this information concerning the 1611KJV I have been insulted and condemned for “compromising the truth”.
This is typical (in my experience) of the KJVO to victimize the victim after they have come from afar and attacked the Word of God of many folks here at the BB with demonic phrases concerning certain translations of the Word of God along with insult and innuendo against the readers calling the recounting of historical fact “compromising the truth”.
Having said that:
The Apocrypha being (as quoted from the KJV translators):
The inclusion of the Apocrypha in the AV1611 is IMO an illustration of the theological confusion and equivocation on the part of the translators of the King James Bible 1611 First Edition. This should be viewed as an indication that the translators were strongly biased toward the errors of Rome starting with pado-baptism, celebration of "The Eucharist", extending to the content and choice of words (e.g. Bishop) of the translation of the Traditional Text, the AV1611.
These choices roundly condemned by our Baptist forefathers.
The inclusion of Apocrypha in the KJV 1611 First Edition is just another example of the equivocation of the 17th century Church of England, the confusion of which remains to this very day between the “high” and “low” Anglo-Catholic Church as to what in fact they really are; an "Anglo" but legitimate branch (in schism perhaps) of the Church of Rome or the autonomous Church of England (under however the titular leader of said church, the regent of the Crown).
Notice first that they invoke the testimony of Jerome (amongst many other renown "canonized saints") of the Church of Rome in order to lend some kind of eccliastical authority to the Apocrypha.
If the Apocryphal books are not canonical why include them? “for example of life and instruction of manners” they themselves answer. Therefore straddling the fence between the Pope and the King of England.
Well then should we then pray for the dead and promote the doctrine of purgatory (which is taught in the Maccabees)? High churchmen would say yes, low churchmen would say no.
If such heresy were included in another form in any of the MV's (even clearly identified as non-canonical) the KJVO would pronounce such a version as "satanic".
Though the 39 Articles of Religion say that the Apocrypha is non-canonical, the KJV Bible itself equivocates and includes the Apocrypha in the 1611 First Edition (and others) without using this very word: non-canonical.
In the AV1611 The Apocryphal books are included in the same font and format with chapter and verse tags just as the rest of the books of the Old and New Testaments and that without comment as to canonicity.
The Apocryphal books are cited along with other Scripture passages in the daily Scripture/Prayer calendar included in the First Edition to be read and contemplated. For example on October 6th under the heading of “Faith” passages from the Book of Judith are to be read.
To this day the KJV copyright of the Crown includes the Apocrypha.
KJVO speak of the Alexandrian/Church of Rome influence upon the MV’s as “Poisoning the well”.
Many anabaptists, dissenters and Puritans of the 17th-18th centuries lost body parts, suffered incarceration were strangled or burned at the stake because they spoke out against the “ecclesiastical” nature of the AV1611.
It is not true that all believers every where put their carte blanche stamp of approval upon the AV1611. In fact they fled to America where they could obey God rather than men because (in this same 21st century vernacular) the King of England had “poisoned the well” of the Scriptures in their estimation.
This persecution of the Church of England against us because of the rejection of the AV and opposition of other romish practices and equivocations of the CofE of those who went before us is part of our Baptist heritage.
HankD
