The Anti Christ?

The page has a lie on the first frame:
" ... King James Bible of 1611 ... ".
I've never found a place on the web* that
speaks of a "King James Bible" that actually
used the 1611 version. I know we have a
whole forum for discussing the KJBOnilist,
but please let this warning stand in this
place. The cited site has a lie in the
first sentence. I really don't expect much
truth in the rest of the site, though i
supposte theoreterically there might by
accident be some truth???



* note: I didn't look at all such places,
only about the first 200 or so.

 

Brother Ed: I would not write the whole site off because they use the KJ1611 reference to the English Bible. There may be a lot of valuable information stored there in that site, even though they are using the 1611 date (which was BTW a Catholic Bible, containing the Apocrypha). Many KJO folks fail to recognize that. Even I did not know it until I purchased a 1611 Bible for my library. The Bible in 1611 setting is very difficult to read, because of the archaic words and spelling. What the KJO folks are actually referring to is a later revision of that Bible (which does no longer carry the Apocrypha).

 

Now Mr. Ed, you know that the 1611 scripture is what we have today with the exceptions of some printing and textual errors that have been corrected.

Oh BTW, the website was great. I'm not saying that the Pope is the antichrist, but it sure does make you wonder about the catholic church. Who knows, maybe he is.

 

Correction: the "1611 Scripture" that Mr. Ed and I "have today." If your Bible doesn't contain the Apocrypha, then you don't have the "1611 Scripture."

 

Our Sunday sch. teachers mother collects bibles. So he bought her a KJV 1611, and brought it to church yesterday. The 1611 is not what we have today, let me tell you, you could not read it and understand it at all, and it contains the appocrapha(sp?).

 

According to scripture, the antichrist:

- denies Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22)
- denies the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22)
- does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (1 John 4:3, 2 John 2:7)

Niether the Pope, nor the Catholic Church fit this definition. Catholics affirm all these things, they don't deny them.

 

Correction: the "1611 Scripture" that Mr. Ed and I "have today." If your Bible doesn't contain the Apocrypha, then you don't have the "1611 Scripture." </font>[/QUOTE]Wrong Mr. Richmond, I said 1611 scripture, the Apocrypha was never considerd scripture and thank God it's not.

 

Sure the 1611 contained the Aprocrypha, but as I said above, it never was considered to be scripture. Sure some of the words have been updated from the old english language, but this does not take away the meaning from scripture.

 

OBL?

 

That doesn't change the fact that you are NOT using the TRUE 1611 Authorised Version. When one extols the doctrine of exclusion, one should ensure that they are utilizing the Version they claim. Contrary to what your profile says, you are NOT using the 1611 Authorised Version.

You are using the 1769 Scripture. But I am sure that you already knew that.........

 

In 1611, they utilized early modern English. Not even my copy of the Wiclif Translation (1380) was written in "the old english language." [sic]

 

I am still trying to get past the first page on the site. I have had it going for 15 min. now and it has done nothing. It is just playing that dredful music with the green caption.

Anyone else get past this? If so how?

 

I would not go as far as to say that the Pope is the antiChrist yet. That page does nothing to convince me. The refromers do a much better job.

Bryan
SDG

 

Jesus who?

The catholic church says that Jesus is the Christ that has not completely delivered us from sin but requires us to be baptized, confess to the priesthood (who is Christ's replacement on earth), offer the sacrifice of mass and the Eucharist which continually offers Christ (in literal flesh and blood) as a sacrifice for our sins, among many other things that are required for our salvation that we may never be assured will really come. They deny the words of the Father who says "I will remember their sins no more" and the words of the Son who said "It is finished." Yes, they confess that Jesus has come in the flesh and they claim that he continues to do so under the illusion of a wafer on the alter.

Because they use the title Jesus Christ, does not mean they believe in the Jesus Christ as taught in the scriptures. We are warned that there are others.

So indeed, they are not automatically ruled out under that basis. Be careful, for the catholic church has redefined terms that are familiar to us so that it appears that they are similiar to our faith when in deeper study you find that they do not mean the same thing we do when using the same word. Grace is an example of that. To be saved by grace for a catholic means to be saved through the graces that are listed above, baptism, mass, eucharist, etc. To a catholic, those are the "grace that saves."

~Lorelei

 

Hi Lorelei,

I'm not interested in debating Catholic doctrine with you, but the point is that the *person* of Jesus is same - the Son of God, divine, second person of the Trinity, born of a virgin. Those verses I posted from John's epistles don't go into lengthly expositions of theological implications of sacraments, etc. They just say that antichrist denies Jesus is the Christ (Catholics *affirm* Jesus is the Christ), denies the Father and the Son (Catholics *affirm* the Father and the Son), and do not confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh (Catholics confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh). You don't have to agree with Catholic doctrine, but the plain scriptural definition of "antichrist" does not fit the Catholics, despite your disagreement with their doctrine in other areas.

God bless,
Brian

 

Use your browser window slider
on the right (or the down arrow in the lower
right). It isn't a slide show, it is a
web page.

 

Ok, I went on it again today and the page this time loaded all the way. Last time I couldn't scroll down, there was no where to scroll. I knew it was not a slide show, I thought after the music the page would go somewhere.

Anyway, problem solved.

 

The 1611 bible was not Catholic; it was not put out by the roman church. I always thought it had the apocrypha because early English believers thought it truly was scripture, and I recall reading somewhere that it was a crime, at that time, to print a bible without those extra books. If you think it's a Catholic bible just read the introductory notes: lots of juicy pope bashing in there!