Scriptural proofs for KJVOnlyism

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Bartholomew,

did you see the title of this thread?? It was a request for scriptural proofs for the KJVOnly position. In other words, Where did God tell us to use only the KJV?

I gave you scriptural proofs! The Bible says the KJV is without error in exactly the same place as it states the following beliefs that you hold:

1. Textual criticism must be used to discern which words are really God's words.
2. Codex Vaticanus is an accurate manuscript.
3. God would only preserve his word in a multitude of imperfect manuscripts.
4. The NIV is the word of God.
5. Any "faithful translation" is the word of God.
6. There are 66 books in the Bible.
7. Only the original was inspired.

Now come on Larry, you (and those of a similar persuasion) continually tell us such things! You tell them us so often that you must know where the Bible teaches them! At guess what? KJVOnlyism is in the same place as these.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
I gave you scriptural proofs!

You did not use one verse of Scripture. How is that scriptural?? Do you have a different authority than Scripture??

[qb]1. Textual criticism must be used to discern which words are really God's words.

[/b]This is a simple fact that is true no matter what version you hold to. The KJV had to undergo textual criticism. In fact you practice textual criticism when you tell us that the KJV is right and everything else is wrong. Textual criticism means deciding between two or more readings.

2. Codex Vaticanus is an accurate manuscript.

I never said this. It is a manuscript fo God's word. You throw it out like it isn't. We treat it like it is. It is neither biblical nor unbiblical.. It is a simple fact that can be verified by looking at it.

3. God would only preserve his word in a multitude of imperfect manuscripts.

Again, history clearly tells us to be the case and the Bible confirms it through its own use of texts of Scripture that themselves were not perfectly preserved. God does not dispute this fact in his word.

4. The NIV is the word of God.

It claims to be. Just read it.

5. Any "faithful translation" is the word of God.

Clearly verified in Scripture by the quotation of the OT and NT texts. Christ and the apostles quoted things other than the KJV with absolute authority and expected you to obey them.

6. There are 66 books in the Bible.

This has been the uniform testimony of hte church for 1700 years.

7. Only the original was inspired.

2 Tim 3:16 -- the writings.

Now come on Larry, you (and those of a similar persuasion) continually tell us such things! You tell them us so often that you must know where the Bible teaches them! At guess what? KJVOnlyism is in the same place as these.

You have totally missed the boat in your effort to avoid the reality that you have no place where God tells you what you enforce on us. You keep telling us that one version is hte only word of God yet God never says that. Don't you think it strange?? You should

 

[AV Defender]

It is a simple fact that can be verified by looking at it.

You are so right.All one has to do is look at the name of it,VATCANUS;you know the Vatican!! The poly-versions read like it's Dark-Age counterpart,the Jesuit Rheims bible of the Dark-Age North-African Vatican text.But after all,whats in a name.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by JYD:
You are so right.All one has to do is look at the name of it,VATCANUS;you know the Vatican!! The poly-versions read like it's Dark-Age counterpart,the Jesuit Rheims bible of the Dark-Age North-African Vatican text.But after all,whats in a name.

Are you are unaware of the facts that you think that the name has something to do with its origin?? Surely you are not that unfamiliar with the truth. It was found there. The text predates the catholic church and has not been changed since the time of its copying. It is pure and utter foolishness to suggest some catholic conspiracy in the differences in the texts. That is a ridiculous argument that shows how unfamiliar you appear to be with what you are talking about.

What is a simple fact is that it is a manuscript of some of the NT documents. That does not testify to its accuracy any more than the fact that the existence of the TR testifies to its accuracy. It is a piece of evidence that has been wrongly omitted by some.

 

[Ransom]

JYD said:

Well, now that I think of it,the KJB was translated under the authority of a King,see Ecclesiastes 8:4;

Man, I love KJV-only eisegesis. You gotta laugh.

And God said He would Show His Word unto Jacob(Psalms 147:19),James is the English word for Jacob.

But this one, which I haven't heard before, is so funny that I've reserved all my little icons for it.

*

By Jacob, of course, the Psalmist means the nation of Israel as he makes clear in the next line.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bartholomew:
I gave you scriptural proofs!

You did not use one verse of Scripture. How is that scriptural?? Do you have a different authority than Scripture??</font>[/QUOTE]No, I didn't name the scripture I was refering to - but to do so would have been to insult your intelligence, wouldn't it? I mean, I told you where the scripture is: the same place as the seven positions I outlined below. Since you MVers believe the Bible, instead of being heretics who just believe ideas of men (like us KJVOs), you surely know which scripture testifies those points, don't you? You don't need me to tell you where the Bible teaches your beliefs, do you? I didn't think so. So go and read that verse. It's the same verse that says KJVOnlyism is true.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
1. Textual criticism must be used to discern which words are really God's words.

This is a simple fact that is true no matter what version you hold to.</font>[/QUOTE]Yep, KJVOnlyism is in the same scripture that teaches what you just said.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
2. Codex Vaticanus is an accurate manuscript.

I never said this. It is a manuscript fo God's word. You throw it out like it isn't. We treat it like it is. It is neither biblical nor unbiblical.. It is a simple fact that can be verified by looking at it.</font>[/QUOTE]Many of a similar position to yourself hold that it is accurate. But wait - you say the position is "neither unbiblical nor biblical"? Surely you bible-believing MVers don't believe something that the Bible doesn't state? No, I didn't think so. But wait: KJVOnlyism is in the same verse as what you said there, too.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
3. God would only preserve his word in a multitude of imperfect manuscripts.

Again, history clearly tells us to be the case and the Bible confirms it through its own use of texts of Scripture that themselves were not perfectly preserved.</font>[/QUOTE]When the Bible quotes Bible texts it does not affirm that they are imperfect. Nor does it affirm that there existed no perfectly preserved texts. But of course, there is a Bible text that clearly states your position on this, isn't there? Good. And BTW - the same verse states KJVOnlyism.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
4. The NIV is the word of God.

It claims to be. Just read it.</font>[/QUOTE]Of course it does! Just go and read that verse that says "the NIV is the word of God"! Now, read the rest of that verse - it says "KJVOnlyism is true", too!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
5. Any "faithful translation" is the word of God.

Clearly verified in Scripture by the quotation of the OT and NT texts. Christ and the apostles quoted things other than the KJV with absolute authority and expected you to obey them.</font>[/QUOTE]Of course they did! But they also answered the point - they said any "fatihful translation" was the word of God. It's the same verse I keep talking about! And it's the same verse as KJVOnlyism!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
6. There are 66 books in the Bible.

This has been the uniform testimony of hte church for 1700 years.</font>[/QUOTE]No, it hasn't; but even if it has, why are you appealing to something that isn't the Bible? Go on, just quote that verse! It's the same verse as you find KJVOnlyism!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
7. Only the original was inspired.

2 Tim 3:16 -- the writings.</font>[/QUOTE]No, 2 Tim 3:16 doesn't say only the original was inspired. Why are you quoting that verse? Come on, just quote the verse that says what you believe. It's the same verse that states points 1-6. And it's the same verse as KJVOnlyism!

You have totally missed the boat in your effort to avoid the reality that you have no place where God tells you what you enforce on us. You keep telling us that one version is hte only word of God yet God never says that.

I've never tried to enforce anything on you. In fact, when I first came to Baptist Board, what I found was yourself and others attacking people like me who happen to believe that the modern versions do not improve upon the Authorised version. But I'm extremely surprised that you say "God never said that". Why, can't you read to the end of a verse??? He said it in exactly the same passage that affirms your beliefs; exaclty the same passage as affirms KJVOnlyism!!!

I'm so glad that both our positions are found in the Bible.

 

[Harald]

"Because the FOOLISHNESS of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." (1 Cor. 1:25, Anglican Version 1611; emph. added)

There you KJV Onlyites have your absolutely infallible and error free and inerrant and 100 per cent perfect and inspired only Word of God and absolute Final Authority in English. Which blasphemes the only Lord God with a vengeance, teaching God is possessed of an attribute known as FOOLISHNESS. Then if this KJV is your Final Authority why do you not teach that attribute with zeal?? Check up in Strong's concordance what the same KJV says about "foolishness", and the blasphemy of the KJV will be all the more obvious to you! And most Modern Versions ape the KJV, also teaching God has an attribute known as FOOLISHNESS, including the NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, ALT etc. etc. So far I have found only TWO single official English translations which do not thusly blaspheme Jehovah God in this very verse, they being the LITV and the MKJV. Both translate the underlying God-breathed Greek correctly. God is not the author of confusion. Yea, let God be true (not possessed of FOOLISHNESS), and each man a liar.

Harald

 

[Pastor Larry]

Bartholomew,

I can't help but think you aren't in tune with what we are asking here. It has been said by many that the KJV is the only word of God. We have been heretics, Bible-deniers, and other things for denying this. We have been said to be using perversions. Now this is strong language to use when your only support is the word of men. In fact, I would not use those words to describe beliefs that stem from the word of men. Therefore, since such strong language is being used, we want to know where God said this.

We have never said that you need to agree with our position to have the word of God. We have never said that you need to agree with us to be faithful believers and pastors. And that is a significant difference. We are willing to admit that God has not given clear revelation on this issue.[/i] Therefore, we speak clearly where Scripture speaks clearly and allow liberty where it does not.

All we are asking from you is to do the same. Speak clearly where God speaks clearly and allow liberty where he does not.

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
I've never tried to enforce anything on you. In fact, when I first came to Baptist Board, what I found was yourself and others attacking people like me who happen to believe that the modern versions do not improve upon the Authorised version

You have never seen me attack anyone who didn't believe the MV were an improvement. I have never done that.

But I'm extremely surprised that you say "God never said that". Why, can't you read to the end of a verse??? He said it in exactly the same passage that affirms your beliefs; exaclty the same passage as affirms KJVOnlyism!!!

This doesn't make much sense. Perhaps you can explain in a clearer way. We have asked for the verse where God identifies the KJV as the only word of God. That is a simple request. I didn't see you give any verse, much less read to the end of it.

The scriptural support for our position is clear:
1. The texts that affirm Scripture as God's word predate the 1611 and therefore, there are things other than the KJV that are the word of God.
2. the NIV is Scripture and 2 Tim 3:16-17 says that "all scripture is God-breathed." Therefore, the NIV is the God-breathed writing from God (as are the NASB, ESV, NKJV, etc).
3. The OT prophets, Jesus, and the apostles all referred to texts of Scripture that were not the KJV and that were indeed different than the KJV. Those non-KJV texts were held up as authoritative and inerrant and inspired. Therefore Jesus and the apostles agreed with our position--that things other than the KJV can and should be called the word of God.

I'm so glad that both our positions are found in the Bible.

I have shown you some of the evidence for mine. You have yet to show me any for yours.

 

[Scott J]

Bartholomew,

Your argument ignores the other side of the coin.

The two objections given against KJVOnlyism is that it has no scriptural proof and that it has no historical/mss proof. All seven of Pastor Larry's points either have scriptural or historical proofs. These proofs are real, tangible as opposed to the inventions of KJVOnlyism which cannot point to a reasonable foundation anywhere.

As Pastor Larry points out, the Bible is not entirely silent on the subject. The Bible quotes sources different from the KJV and call them the Word of God. Recently, there was an extended discussion about Luke 4 vs Isaiah 61. The two passages don't match. In fact, I doubt there are more than a handful of passages (if that) where the KJV NT quotes verbatum from the KJV OT. This fact in and of itself demonstrates that scripture places the importance on the meaning/message rather than the words used to communicate the meaning/message.

You cannot show a place where the KJV is established as the only Word of God in English. Therefore, other versions are not forbidden by scripture.

We can show places in scripture where something other than the KJV was considered the Word of God. Therefore, other versions are endorsed.

We can show a long history of things other than the KJV being considered the Word of God. Therefore, other versions are historically validated.

If you want to restrict the practices of other Christians, it is up to you to show your proof. If you can read and understand the KJV then no one is discouraging you from doing so. The point is that you have no scriptural nor historical basis for judging those who differ with your preference.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bartholomew:
But I'm extremely surprised that you say "God never said that". Why, can't you read to the end of a verse??? He said it in exactly the same passage that affirms your beliefs; exaclty the same passage as affirms KJVOnlyism!!!

This doesn't make much sense. Perhaps you can explain in a clearer way. We have asked for the verse where God identifies the KJV as the only word of God. That is a simple request. I didn't see you give any verse, much less read to the end of it.</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for your post, Pastor.

Basically, I was being totally sarcastic. This thread demands scriptural evidence for KJVOnlyism. Of course, the Bible never mentions the KJV, so it can never be done in the way being demanded. You all knew that when the thread was started. However, I was pointing out that you believe many things about what the Bible is without the Bible telling you so. The Bible does not state that this or that manuscript is "reliable"; it does not state that only the original was inspired; it does not state that God only preserved his word in imperfect manuscripts; and it does not even state which books make up the Bible! My point is that you cannot produce direct scriptural statements to back up your beliefs about what the Bible is; so it is hypocritical for anyone like yourself to demand KJVOs produce such evidence. Like I said, the same verse that testifies to there being 66 books in the Bible is the same verse that says the KJV is without error (i.e. the verse doesn't exist).

The scriptural support for our position is clear:
1. The texts that affirm Scripture as God's word predate the 1611 and therefore, there are things other than the KJV that are the word of God.

That does not necessarily follow. There were things before 1611 (and therefore not the KJV) that were the word of God; but that does not mean there are things now that are the word of God besides the KJV. Besides, all KJVOs I know of teach that the MVs contain the word of God, anyway. Your point does not address the question of whether the KJV is superior to other English versions, or whether it has errors in it. But read your own quotation again: it is NOT appealing to a Bible verse! Yet this thread demands such evidence from KJVOs!

2. the NIV is Scripture and 2 Tim 3:16-17 says that "all scripture is God-breathed." Therefore, the NIV is the God-breathed writing from God (as are the NASB, ESV, NKJV, etc).

I think this quotation proves my point exactly. Where does the Bible say this is a reference to the NIV? Where does it say the NIV is scripture??? It doesn't. You've decided it from somewhere else. It's just like when you ask, "where does the Bible teach KJVOnlyism"? Somebody says, "Psalm 12:6&7". Then you say, "where's the Bible say that's a reference to the KJV?" It doesn't; it was decided from somewhere else. Besides, I could equally use the same argument to prove my point:

1."All scripture is God-breathed."
2.The KJV is scripture.
3.Therefore all the KJV is "God-breathed."
4.God is perfect and cannot lie.
5.Therefore the KJV is perfect and contians no lies.

Finally, I'd point out that a few posts ago you were using this text to refer just to the originals. Now you're saying it applies to the NIV. Which is it?

3. The OT prophets, Jesus, and the apostles all referred to texts of Scripture that were not the KJV and that were indeed different than the KJV. Those non-KJV texts were held up as authoritative and inerrant and inspired. Therefore Jesus and the apostles agreed with our position--that things other than the KJV can and should be called the word of God.

No, this point does not follow, either. Just because Jesus and the apostles had texts that weren't the KJV that were inspired and innerant does NOT mean that you have texts that are inspired and innerant and not the KJV. Do you have these texts? And besides, if Jesus and the apostles had texts that were considered inerrant and inspired, why do you say that only the original was inspired?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I'm so glad that both our positions are found in the Bible.

I have shown you some of the evidence for mine. You have yet to show me any for yours. </font>[/QUOTE]And in so doing you've proved my point: that you demand evidence for KJVOs of the kind you are not willing to advance for your own ideas. Without meaning to sound rude, that is hypocritical.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Scott J:
The two objections given against KJVOnlyism is that it has no scriptural proof and that it has no historical/mss proof.

And neither has your position. Why, you can't even prove that anyone actually exists!

All seven of Pastor Larry's points either have scriptural or historical proofs. These proofs are real, tangible as opposed to the inventions of KJVOnlyism which cannot point to a reasonable foundation anywhere.

Well, they were my points, but I think Pastor Larry believes them. In this thread you demanded scriptural proof of KJVOnlyism. As I have shown you, such scriptural proof does not exist for any of those seven points. That does not mean they are neccessarily wrong, but it does show you have immense double-standards.

The Bible quotes sources different from the KJV and call them the Word of God...This fact in and of itself demonstrates that scripture places the importance on the meaning/message rather than the words used to communicate the meaning/message.

And how does this prove that the KJV has errors in it???

You cannot show a place where the KJV is established as the only Word of God in English.

My bedroom?

Therefore, other versions are not forbidden by scripture.

This does not follow!!!

We can show places in scripture where something other than the KJV was considered the Word of God. Therefore, other versions are endorsed.

Again, this does not follow! Show us where it says the NIV is one of these versions. I have no problem with something other than the KJV being considered the word of God. John 1:1 in the NIV is the word of God. But can you prove that all the scriptures at the time of Christ had errors in them?

We can show a long history of things other than the KJV being considered the Word of God.

Yes: The Koran, the book of Mormon, etc...

Therefore, other versions are historically validated.

Opinions don't prove things.

If you want to restrict the practices of other Christians, it is up to you to show your proof.

I challenge you to find any post I have made where I've tried to restrict Christian practice on this issue. However, I've found you and others telling me I can't believe my KJV has no errors. And, like I showed, you cannot produce scriptural proof for your position. You seem to have massive double-standards.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
This thread demands scriptural evidence for KJVOnlyism. Of course, the Bible never mentions the KJV, so it can never be done in the way being demanded. You all knew that when the thread was started.

Absolutely right. What we are getting at is that people are telling us what God's standard is (the KJV) without having any support from God to demonstrate it. That is the problem. I have often said that I don't care what version people use. Just use it.

But there are a great many people saying that MVs are perversions and Satanic and that we shouldn't use them. They do not have on iota of biblical support which means their authority is something other than the Bible. That is the point we are getting at. If our authority is the Bible, then we need to use the Bible to support our dogmatic statements. If you have a preference fine; but let it be a preference ...

I ahve given biblical evidence for my position. You may not like but there it is. I have not told anyone that there are sinning by using the KJV or told anyone that the KJV is perverted or Satanic. There in lies the difference. When people start calling the word of God satanic and perverted, they are on dangererous ground. They need to be rebuked and corrected.

 

[neal4christ]

You are so right.All one has to do is look at the name of it,VATCANUS;you know the Vatican!!

Well, I guess it bothers you that the KJV reads like the Latin Vulgate at times, you know, the official Bible of the Vatican for many centuries. Like in the Book of Revelation and that all so famous passage in Isaiah where Satan is referred to Lucifer (which is Latin). So I guess your roots run deeper with the Vatican than you think! Especially since the TR was put together by a Catholic humanist, Erasmus!

Neal

 

[AV Defender]

Well, I guess it bothers you that the KJV reads like the Latin Vulgate at times, you know, the official Bible of the Vatican for many centuries.

It should bother YOU that the poly-versions read like the Dark-age Jesuit Rheims Vatican bible that derives from Jerome's Vatican text that kept Europe in the Dark-Ages for 1000 years.I guess the translators of the "better easier to read bibles" hopes no one knows about Church History;not to mention they did not translate the Apocryphal books that were deemed by the Pope as Holy Writ in the Alexandrian family of texts.

[ February 17, 2003, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
The two objections given against KJVOnlyism is that it has no scriptural proof and that it has no historical/mss proof.

And neither has your position.</font>[/QUOTE] Yes, It does. Scripture tells us that God inspired the scriptures through prophets and holy men of old. It tells us that it was given by inspiration of God. At the same time, it is a historical fact that variants were introduced early in the copying and translating process. We have over 5000 Greek mss, 12,000+ ancient versions, and 12,000+ ancient quotes that testify to the same message in spite of being varied in their wording. My position is that the Word of God is sure and providentially preserved in a wonderful way in spite of the fact that the original autographs, and thus the perfect wording, is long lost.

Why, you can't even prove that anyone actually exists!

Of course I can. In the beginning God created...

As I have shown you, such scriptural proof does not exist for any of those seven points.

No. You did not prove this.

That does not mean they are neccessarily wrong, but it does show you have immense double-standards.

No. Just one standard- TRUTH. The first component is what does scripture say or not say in the case of versional onlyism. The second component is what do the known historical facts prove or not prove.

It really isn't as hard as you seem determined to make it. God inspired the originals. The message of the originals was providentially preserved by the imperfect efforts of men. Finally, the weight of the total evidence shows that none of the message is lost. This is the premise behind the frequent challenge for you all to show a deleted doctrine.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The Bible quotes sources different from the KJV and call them the Word of God...This fact in and of itself demonstrates that scripture places the importance on the meaning/message rather than the words used to communicate the meaning/message.

And how does this prove that the KJV has errors in it???</font>[/QUOTE] That was not the intent. The purpose was to show that the KJV is not the exclusive holder of the title "Word of God".

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You cannot show a place where the KJV is established as the only Word of God in English.

My bedroom?

</font>[/QUOTE] Maybe. But that hardly establishes it anywhere else.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Therefore, other versions are not forbidden by scripture.

This does not follow!!!</font>[/QUOTE] Yes it does... unless you intend to speak where God has remained silent.... Oh yeah, that's exactly what KJVOnlyism is all about, huh?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />We can show places in scripture where something other than the KJV was considered the Word of God. Therefore, other versions are endorsed.

Again, this does not follow! Show us where it says the NIV is one of these versions.</font>[/QUOTE] Touchet. The same place it says that the KJV is one of those versions.

I have no problem with something other than the KJV being considered the word of God. John 1:1 in the NIV is the word of God. But can you prove that all the scriptures at the time of Christ had errors in them?

No. But it can be proven that the scriptures at the time of Christ had variants... and that they varied from the Hebrew text used by the KJV. See the extended discussion on Luke 4 vs. Isaiah 61 in the KJV.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />We can show a long history of things other than the KJV being considered the Word of God.

Yes: The Koran, the book of Mormon, etc...</font>[/QUOTE] By your lack of an intelligent response, am I to assume that you do not have an intelligent response?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Therefore, other versions are historically validated.

Opinions don't prove things.</font>[/QUOTE] I am fine with that as long as you are. KJVOnlyism has no support whatsoever outside the opinions of unstable men. The versions I refer to aren't just validated by opinions however. They are validated by consistency of message.

However, I've found you and others telling me I can't believe my KJV has no errors.

No you haven't. You have found me telling you that your belief has no solid factual foundation... and you have yet to give a response of truthful substance.

And, like I showed, you cannot produce scriptural proof for your position.

... and like we have told you, much of our position is expressly proven by scripture. The rest is not disproven by scripture and agrees with literally mountains of evidence.

You seem to have massive double-standards.

No. Again, only one standard- TRUTH. Prove your position scripturally or prove it historically.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by JYD:
It should bother YOU that the poly-versions read like the Dark-age Jesuit Rheims Vatican bible that derives from Jerome's Vatican text that kept Europe in the Dark-Ages for 1000 years.I guess the translators of the "better easier to read bibles" hopes no one knows about Church History;not to mention they did not translate the Apocryphal books that that were deemed by the Pope as Holy Writ in the Alexandrian family of texts.

OK. I'll bite. Please cite the passages that prove these accusations.

 

[neal4christ]

It should bother YOU that the poly-versions read like

You know, you have a remarkable ability to dodge the real issue and change the subject. You are the one that brought up the subject of the Vatican. Please answer this question, yes or no, no changing the subject: Does it bother you that the KJV reads like and borrows from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, the official Bible of the Vatican for centuries, or that the TR was compiled by a Catholic humanist name Erasmus?

Please, yes or no only. I know the manuscript Vaticanus bothers you, so we are not talking about that.

Thank you.
Neal

 

[neal4christ]

that were deemed by the Pope as Holy Writ in the Alexandrian family of texts.

Please notice that the KJV did translate the Apocrypha and include it in the AV1611.

Neal

 

[AV Defender]

Please notice that the KJV did translate the Apocrypha and include it in the AV1611.

Your wrong, The Protesent Text of the Reformation never had the Apocrypha in it's Canon,but the Alexandrian Texts DO! The texts poly-versions hail from.

 

[HankD]

Not only that, it was forbidden that a KJB be printed WITHOUT the Apocrypha by the Church of England for many years after the original publication.

JYD, check this out...

http://www.thebiblerevival.com/teachings/books/0042/

Here is a photocopy of a page from the KJV 1611 Apocrypha...

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1967/apocry.htm

HankD

[ February 17, 2003, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]