No Doctrines Are Changed?

[Will J. Kinney]

Phillip, in answer to your Apocrypha question.

WHY DID THE 1611 KJV INCLUDE THE APOCRYPHA?

Early editions of the King James Bible (as well as many other Reformation Bibles, including the German Luther) contained the Apocrypha, but these books were included for historical reference only, not as additions to the canon of Scripture.

If you look at a copy of the original 1611 King James Bible, the book of Malachi ends with these words: "The end of the Prophets". Then the whole Apocrypha, which itself means "unknown, or spurious" is clearly marked off from the rest of the Scriptures by the words "Apocrypha" twice at the top of every page throughout. It then ends with these words: "The end of Apocrypha". Then on the next page is an elaborate woodcutting and it says: "The Newe Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

It is ironic and somewhat hypocritical of those who criticize the KJB for including the Apocrypha in its earlier printings, when they usually favor the modern English versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV. These versions are based primarily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, which actually contain the Apocrypha books and then some others as well mixed up within and scattered throughout the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures with no separation indicating that they are less than inspired and authoritative.

Alexander McClure, a biographer of the KJV translators, says: "...the Apocryphal books in those times were more read and accounted of than now, though by no means placed on a level with the canonical books of Scripture" (McClure, Translators Revived, p. 185). He then lists seven reasons assigned by the KJV translators for rejecting the Apocrypha as canonical.

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England clearly states that the Apocrypha have no scriptural authority. "...[the Church of England] doth not apply to them to establish any doctrine."

The Westminster Confession, which was written in England between 1643-48, only a few years after the publication of the King James Bible, says, "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings."

Martin Luther included a note on the Apocrypha that stated, "These are books not to be held in equal esteem with those of Holy Scripture..."

It is also important to understand that in the early King James Bibles, the Apocryphal books were placed between the Old and New Testaments rather than intermingled within the O.T. itself as is done in Catholic Bibles. In the Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic Bible), for example, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees follow Nehemiah; the Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus follow Ecclesiastes; Baruch follows Lamentations; etc.

The Apocrypha was never considered canonical by the Church of England or the KJV translators. It was only included in the Reformation Bibles (and not only in the KJV) for historical reference, much as notes, etc. are included in modern study Bibles.


Final Authority, p. 166-167, W. P. Grady, “Now of the many issues raised against the King James Bible, none is so hypocritical as that of the Apocrypha question. A typical example of Nicolaitan desperation is the sarcastic barb of Robert L. Sumner who wrote: “It is also interesting-and perhaps you are not aware of it-that the early editions of the Authorized Version contained the Apocrypha. Horrors!”

Although it is technically correct that the first editions of the King James Bible contained the Apocrypha, the complete picture is rarely given. What Dr. Sumner conveniently failed to mention is that the translators were careful to set these spurious books apart from the inspired text by inserting them between the Testaments. And to insure that there was no misunderstanding, they listed seven reasons why the apocryphal books were to be categorically rejected as part of the inspired canon.”

The Answer Book, p. 99-100, S. C. Gipp, “Question #34: QUESTION: Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha? ANSWER: Yes. EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.

First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of' the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.
That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.”

Two of the most important Greek manuscripts for modern textual criticism are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Vaticanus contains all of the Apocrypha with the exception of 1 and 2 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasses. Sinaiticus contains all of the Old Testament Apocrypha books as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas in the New Testament. (see A General Introduction To The Bible, by Geisler and Nix, Moody Press, pp.271-274; or The Text Of The New Testament, by Aland, Eerdmans Press, pp.107-109.)

QUESTION: Since the Greek texts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contain the Apocrypha as part of its text, and these two manuscripts are used for the basis of most modern Greek texts and English translations, is not your question a little misleading? Why would you reject the original KJV for having the Apocrypha between the Testaments while accepting ancient uncial manuscripts which contained the Apocrypha as part of the text?

The books of the Apocrypha were included in the King James Version from the first as a matter of course, as they had been in all versions of the English Bible from the time of Wycliffe (c. 1384), including Miles Coverdale 1535, and the Calvinist Geneva Bible of 1560. ... The deliberate omission of the Apocrypha from an English Bible is first noted in the 1640 edition of the Geneva Bible, ... Not until the nineteenth century, however, did the omission of the Apocrypha in Protestant Bibles become normal.

The Protestants in those days were obviously a victim of their times. Although the Apocrypha was found in Reformation Bibles (including the Geneva) since Wycliffe, it is clear that all of the Reformers opposed the Roman Catholic Church, and by the same token, rejected the Apocrypha as spurious. The feelings of the KJV translators, some of whom were Puritans, must necessarily be the same as those who produced the Westminster Confession of Faith (1645). In no uncertain terms, the Westminster divines wrote,

The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings (WCF 1:3).

 

[robycop3]

The preface of the AV 1611 is, of course, a work of man. However, if the later KJV editions are merely "updates" of the AV 1611, why was this preface left out of them? Do I smell yet another KJVO double standard?

 

[HankD]

Many Bible critics like to play the Greek game and impress the unlearned with their supposed superior knowledge of "the original Greek". The phrase "the original Greek" must be intoned with a certain degree of pious solemnity to produce the desired effect.

Alas, Will you have besmirched and insulted by your innuendo the KJV translators to whom you owe so great a debt for they used the following phrases themselves as having translated from:

"the originall Greeke"
"the originall tongues"
"the Originall sacred tongues"
"the originall in Hebrew"

In fact Will look at the "pious solemnity" they "intoned" concerning the "originall tongues"

Finally a fountaine of most pure water springing up unto everlasting life. And what marvaile? The originall thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the authour being God, not man; the enditer, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the Pen-men such as were sanctified from the wombe, and endewed with a principall portion of Gods spirit; the matter, veritie, pietie, puritie, uprightnesse; the forme, Gods word, Gods testimonie, Gods oracles, the word of trueth, the word of salvation,

HankD

[ March 23, 2004, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[ScottEmerson]

Thanks, Hank. Very nice.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Phillip, in answer to your Apocrypha question. WHY DID THE 1611 KJV INCLUDE THE APOCRYPHA?

Same old lame rhetoric. Just read the Bible reading charts for devotions and public reading included in the AV1611 (editions 1-3). All include BIBLE readings in the apocryphal books.

Shovel, shovel, shovel - maybe you can snow people who don't have a 1611, but those who read KNOW what it said. And what those Baptist-hating baby-baptizing Anglican priests thought.

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Many Bible critics like to play the Greek game and impress the unlearned with their supposed superior knowledge of "the original Greek". The phrase "the original Greek" must be intoned with a certain degree of pious solemnity to produce the desired effect.

Alas, Will you have besmirched and insulted by your innuendo the KJV translators to whom you owe so great a debt for they used the following phrases themselves as having translated from:

"the originall Greeke"
"the originall tongues"
"the Originall sacred tongues"
"the originall in Hebrew"

In fact Will look at the "pious solemnity" they "intoned" concerning the "originall tongues"

Finally a fountaine of most pure water springing up unto everlasting life. And what marvaile? The originall thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the authour being God, not man; the enditer, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the Pen-men such as were sanctified from the wombe, and endewed with a principall portion of Gods spirit; the matter, veritie, pietie, puritie, uprightnesse; the forme, Gods word, Gods testimonie, Gods oracles, the word of trueth, the word of salvation,

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Hank, your logic is consistent and a breath of fresh air.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Phillip, in answer to your Apocrypha question. WHY DID THE 1611 KJV INCLUDE THE APOCRYPHA?

Same old lame rhetoric. Just read the Bible reading charts for devotions and public reading included in the AV1611 (editions 1-3). All include BIBLE readings in the apocryphal books.

Shovel, shovel, shovel - maybe you can snow people who don't have a 1611, but those who read KNOW what it said. And what those Baptist-hating baby-baptizing Anglican priests thought. </font>[/QUOTE]Sounds like what you are saying is the same thing the Mormons teach. They teach that if you say something long enough and hard enough people will eventually believe you.

Many will believe most anything that someone else says because they don't study.

You are so right when you mention about the KJV being loaded with Anglican theology. One wouldn't have to go very far to investigate how the word baptism came in to being.

Seems as though there are those who just want to spew out what they think they know and actually believe and conveniently ignore real challenges.

 

[riverwalker]

robycop3, I liked your post and a great testimony, however, was it the KJV that was used to lead you to the Lord?

)

Hey, just kidding! ('bout the KJV...uh, nevermind, I think some will take this to the extreme.)

Great testiomny, none the less.

Robert

 

[robycop3]

Robert, about all I knew about the KJV before I was saved was that it existed. Dad's "home" Bible was the NASB, & before that, the ASV. When I'd hear a radio preacher using all that archaic English, I wondered why he was preaching Shakespeare.

 

[gb93433]

I was led to Christ by a man using the ASV that had most of the scripture he used memorized.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

gb posts: "You are so right when you mention about the KJV being loaded with Anglican theology. One wouldn't have to go very far to investigate how the word baptism came in to being.
Seems as though there are those who just want to spew out what they think they know and actually believe and conveniently ignore real challenges."

gb, this is really interesting coming from you. Would you care to tell us all about the word baptism, where it came from, and how " there are those who just want to spew out what they think they know and actually believe and conveniently ignore real challenges."?

Since none of you have attempted to address any of the examples I originally brought up, - other than Ed and Larry who did try to explain away how the new versions are wrong when they teach we can "hasten" or "speed" the coming of the day of God, - your insights about the word baptism should be quite informative.

Care to tell us all about it and how the King James Bible got it wrong?

Doubtful.

Will Kinney

 

[Ed Edwards]

Will J. Kinney: "Since none of you have attempted to address any of the examples I originally brought up, - other than Ed and Larry who did try to explain away how the new versions are wrong when they teach we can "hasten" or "speed" the coming of the day of God,"

Interesting that you should see it that way.
What I thought I was trying to do is that one
can get the "hasten" right out of the KJV.
Prior to the mid 1700s it seems most schisms
were national. The interior to nations
and international schisms 1750-1950 were
all sponsored by the KJV - by people reading
the same words different ways.

BTW, while we are saying nice things about each other,
Will is one of the most knowledgable KJBOs that
has ever posted on this board. He never does these
things which other KJBOs have done:
Copy a web page they have not read yet
(and wouldn't understand if they did read)
In fact it seems that Will actually writes some of
his posts. They can be seen on his home page at:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/

or on a rabid KJBO bulletin board at:

http://www.onlinebaptist.com/messageboards/viewforum.php?f=3

(footnote on this second site. You have to be a member
to read. But most partipicants on this BB site have
already been banned from that site. I.E. read, don't post.)

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
gb posts: "You are so right when you mention about the KJV being loaded with Anglican theology. One wouldn't have to go very far to investigate how the word baptism came in to being.
Seems as though there are those who just want to spew out what they think they know and actually believe and conveniently ignore real challenges."

gb, this is really interesting coming from you. Would you care to tell us all about the word baptism, where it came from, and how " there are those who just want to spew out what they think they know and actually believe and conveniently ignore real challenges."?

Since none of you have attempted to address any of the examples I originally brought up, - other than Ed and Larry who did try to explain away how the new versions are wrong when they teach we can "hasten" or "speed" the coming of the day of God, - your insights about the word baptism should be quite informative.

Care to tell us all about it and how the King James Bible got it wrong?

Doubtful.

Will Kinney

If you were to take a look at the text of the OT and the intertestamental period on into the NT and beyond you will find that the word baptism never existed. It is a made up word by transliterating the word into an English word. Baptism is not a translation but a transliteration. When the translators came to the Greek word “baptisma”, being pedobaptists they sought to get around a direct translation of that word. So they transliterated the Greek word. They did the same thing for baptize. If ever one takes a look at some Greek-English lexicons covering the period from the OT through and beyond the NT he will find that the word means to dip, immerse or wash. It is also used to describe a ship that sank. But the pedobaptists didn't want to expose themselves and go against what a pedobaptist believes so they did the less honorable thing and not translate the word but transliterate it.

That kind translation to favor your theology rather than letting the text speak first is not translation but dishonesty. That is what is commonly called eisegesis. It is reading one's theology into the text rather then letting the text determine one's theology.

Even lexicons written by pedobaptists today will give the meaning as to dip, immerse or wash. But the pedobaptist "translators" of the time didn't do that.

Some would say that the word already existed before the KJV. But does that give them license to do the same things themselves. That had started a mass confusion of what that word actually means. That then continued to build a erroneous tradition which exists today.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by gb93433:
When the translators came to the Greek word “baptisma”, being pedobaptists they sought to get around a direct translation of that word. So they transliterated the Greek word.

The above is simply untrue.

As far as criticism of the word Baptism is concerned, let me point out a few facts, not opinions.

First, our English word baptism was not transliterated from the Greek word baptizo, by the King James translators, but was an English word in common usage since five hundred years before the King James translators began their work. The word did not come into the language as a transliteration of the Greek, but from the French "Baptiste", at the time of the Norman conquest in 1066! The French got it from the Romans (Latin) as the Romans moved north into Gaul (present day France). It was the Romans who got it from the Greek, and carried it throughout their empire, where it has lived on in French, Italian, Spanish, English, and other languages, even after the death of the Latin language.

Secondly great ignorance and inconsistency is shown by criticizing the word baptism, while calling yourself a Baptist, which comes from the same word! If we are to remove the word baptism from our King James Bibles, we must also remove "angel," "apostasy," "apostle," "blaspheme," "blasphemous," "blasphemy," "paradise," "psalm," "prophecy," and "prophet!" In fact, you are going to have to remove about seventy percent of the English language, for it is just about that much that has come from foreign sources.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
When the translators came to the Greek word “baptisma”, being pedobaptists they sought to get around a direct translation of that word. So they transliterated the Greek word.

The above is simply untrue.

As far as criticism of the word Baptism is concerned, let me point out a few facts, not opinions.

First, our English word baptism was not transliterated from the Greek word baptizo, by the King James translators, but was an English word in common usage since five hundred years before the King James translators began their work. The word did not come into the language as a transliteration of the Greek, but from the French "Baptiste", at the time of the Norman conquest in 1066! The French got it from the Romans (Latin) as the Romans moved north into Gaul (present day France). It was the Romans who got it from the Greek, and carried it throughout their empire, where it has lived on in French, Italian, Spanish, English, and other languages, even after the death of the Latin language.

Secondly great ignorance and inconsistency is shown by criticizing the word baptism, while calling yourself a Baptist, which comes from the same word! If we are to remove the word baptism from our King James Bibles, we must also remove "angel," "apostasy," "apostle," "blaspheme," "blasphemous," "blasphemy," "paradise," "psalm," "prophecy," and "prophet!" In fact, you are going to have to remove about seventy percent of the English language, for it is just about that much that has come from foreign sources. </font>[/QUOTE]Even if I believed what you wrote it still does not convince me that it was not a transliteration form the Greek into the French. And who were the French other than pedobaptists?

I never said that the KJV translators came up with the word. I said, “the translators.” From what I have been able to tell pedobaptists have been around since the Early Church Fathers. But the meaning of that word sure went downhill from its original meaning and even tried to be explained away at times.

Read your own writing, "The French got it from the Romans (Latin) as the Romans moved north into Gaul (present day France). It was the Romans who got it from the Greek, and carried it throughout their empire, where it has lived on in French, Italian, Spanish, English, and other languages, even after the death of the Latin language." According to you it started with the Greek and moved forward.

Know of any of those who were not pedobaptists?

Just read Baptist history. Who called them Baptists and why were they persecuted?

The translators did not take the word apostolos and transliterate it messenger. They did not transliterate the word presbuteros and call it bishop. They didn’t transliterate the word episkopos and call it pastor. They did not transliterate the word poimen and call it pastor. They did not transliterate the word kardia and call it heart. They did not transliterate the word theos and call it god. When I take a look at the Greek text I can think of very few words that even come close in English spelling compared to a Greek transliteration. I can think of none of them where there is any controversy other than baptism which should be translated immersed, dipped, or washed. So I think you are way off base when you wrote, “If we are to remove the word baptism from our King James Bibles, we must also remove "angel," "apostasy," "apostle," "blaspheme," "blasphemous," "blasphemy," "paradise," "psalm," "prophecy," and "prophet!" In fact, you are going to have to remove about seventy percent of the English language, for it is just about that much that has come from foreign sources.”

When one translates, the person goes from the original source document and translates it into the receptor language that the recipient understands. We understand English. Baptism is religious jargon that did not exist with the NT people. They would have understood what we mean when we say immersed. That same word was not just used in the NT but also had a secular history of usage. So why change that very important way of usage unless you have a hidden agenda.

You would have to admit when all is said and done that it was the pedobaptists who diluted the word. Why did they not translate the word with an appropriate word of dip, immerse, wash, or sank? To support a lack of criticism of baptism is to support pedobaptism and not a faithful, truthful translation of the word. I am surprised that you would call yourself a Baptist and not support a faithful, clear translation of the word baptizo and baptisma. Why muddy the waters as a pedobaptist would? Unless you are pedobaptist.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Know of any of those who were not pedobaptists?

Yes.

Just read Baptist history.

Funny you should mention that. Brother Cassidy is on sabbatical from the Seminary and I have been teaching his class on Baptist History.

Who called them Baptists and why were they persecuted?

We were first called "Baptists" in the beginning of the 16th century and we were called by that name by Romanists as well as by Protestants. What's your point?

The translators did not take the word apostolos and transliterate it messenger.

No, they transliterated it "apostle."

When I take a look at the Greek text I can think of very few words that even come close in English spelling compared to a Greek transliteration.

I listed them for you, remember?

Baptism is religious jargon that did not exist with the NT people.

I see. So, are you saying your are not a Baptist? If you are not a Baptist what are you doing in the Baptist Only section of the Baptist Board?

Why did they not translate the word with an appropriate word of dip, immerse, wash, or sank?

I'm glad you asked!

Any competent researcher can see from a quick look into the standard reference book on the origin and usage of the English language, "The Oxford English Dictionary", (any good library will have one) that "immerse" did not appear in English until 1605, the year after the King James translators started their work, and even then, did not have the same meaning as it does today. The word "immerse" originally meant to "merge with", and only came to mean "submerge in" in 1613, two years after the King James Bible was published. As far as "dip" is concerned, the word is used ten times in the King James Bible, and never once is it used to describe Christian Baptism. It is used nine times in the Old Testament, and only once in the New Testament to describe what the rich man in hell requested Abraham to have Lazarus do with his finger because of his terrible thirst. It means to partially place something in water. Baptism is not the partial immersion, but the total immersion of the candidate in water.

To support a lack of criticism of baptism is to support pedobaptism and not a faithful, truthful translation of the word.

So, again, are you saying you are not a Baptist?

I am surprised that you would call yourself a Baptist and not support a faithful, clear translation of the word baptizo and baptisma.

LOL! Now you are trying to have it both ways! You criticize the word baptize while calling yourself a Baptist! If one is wrong, both are wrong and you are here under false pretenses.

Why muddy the waters as a pedobaptist would? Unless you are pedobaptist.

Why make lying insinuations about me unless you are a liar?

 

[gb93433]

skanwmatos:

Baptists were called Baptist by others not the immersers themselves.

As a Baptist are you saying that you support outside translations of the Greek word? Why not skanwmatos the immerser? I just don't see how you can support that theologically, historically, and textually.

Why muddy the waters? That kind of murkiness has opened the door for all kinds of theology which I believe is incorrect. It has kept open the door for infant baptism. It has opened the door for pentecostals in their second blessing theology. That is the reason why I criticize it. I prefer to stick closer to the actual translation rather than open a wider door of theology. If you even look at lexicons published by non-immersers they will give the correct meaning of the word but their theology does not coincide with the definition they just gave. The Greek word means to dip, immerse, or wash. Why open the door to include more than it should? Even if they didn't have a word for immerse until later, why continue in the same tradition? We have that word today. If we truly do use the Greek manuscripts then why not translate it from them without using a tradition that is wrong. Why not correct it now?

Why make lying insinuations about me unless you are a liar?

That is your assumption not mine. Pedobaptists want to keep things the way they are. It makes room for their theology. It is amazing how they can wiggle in there. Why not reduce that wiggle room to where it once was.

Was not even Jewish self baptism historically by immersion? So why should we not keep it the same way. The word means to dip, immerse, or wash so why not translate it that way in its proper context?

I can trace my Baptist roots back about four centuries. But my theology can be traced back to Jesus. So are you a Baptist or an immerser? I am a Baptist because of the label of others. But I am an immerser historically. I am sure you do know that some of the very early Baptists did sprinkle early on. Certainly I am not one of them. Historically and even some today Baptists include a wide variety of theologies. Some of which I would be ashamed to call myself a Baptist and aligning myself with them. I understand there were some of those posting on the BB at one time until they were removed.

"Any competent researcher can see from a quick look into the standard reference book on the origin and usage of the English language, "The Oxford English Dictionary", (any good library will have one) that "immerse" did not appear in English until 1605, the year after the King James translators started their work, and even then, did not have the same meaning as it does today. The word "immerse" originally meant to "merge with", and only came to mean "submerge in" in 1613, two years after the King James Bible was published. As far as "dip" is concerned, the word is used ten times in the King James Bible, and never once is it used to describe Christian Baptism. It is used nine times in the Old Testament, and only once in the New Testament to describe what the rich man in hell requested Abraham to have Lazarus do with his finger because of his terrible thirst. It means to partially place something in water. Baptism is not the partial immersion, but the total immersion of the candidate in water."

Thank you for that information. I learned something new.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Hi brother Ed, you posted:&gt;&gt;Will J. Kinney: "Since none of you have attempted to address any of the examples I originally brought up, - other than Ed and Larry who did try to explain away how the new versions are wrong when they teach we can "hasten" or "speed" the coming of the day of God,"

ED&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Interesting that you should see it that way.
What I thought I was trying to do is that one
can get the "hasten" right out of the KJV.

Ed, there is a definite difference between to "hasten UNTO" something, and "to hasten" something.

In the one case (the KJB and other versions reading) it is we who are speeding towards that Day, which is already fixed in time and place according to God's plan.

In the other case, it is we who are speeding that Day to come closer to us, and making it come faster or sooner. This is unbiblical and contradicts the other Scriptures I posted.

Thanks though for your thoughts and at least attempting to defend the NASB, NIV, ESV reading. It just happens to be the wrong one.

God bless,

Will

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Hi Skanwmatos, thanks for the information you posted about the word and practice of baptism.

I didn't know you knew Mr. Cassidy. I have seen several of his articles online and have talked with him a few times online too. He has a lot of good things to say and I agree with him on many issues.

gb says: "The word means to dip, immerse, or wash so why not translate it that way in its proper context? "

gb, not even your nasb, niv, esv, rsv etc. translate it as dip, immerse, or wash. Maybe you should write your own bible version like Archy should. That way you will be satisfied. Of course I'm sure your "bible" will be different from Archy's, but Hey, you each can form your own church- maybe call yourselves the Fundamental, Independant Dippers. It might just catch on. One can only hope, right?

God bless,

Will Kinney

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Ed, there is a definite difference between to "hasten UNTO" something, and "to hasten" something.

Yes, and your KJB contains
them both. Your KJB contains both and
knowing a bit about the nature of God i
suspect BOTH are absolutely 100% Holy
Spirit Fire Breathed TRUTH. You just
can't corner a Good God into one book