Use of the NKJV?

Don't want to insert myself in the argument, just define a term.

Ad hominem - Latin for "to the person."

Oxford Concise.
1. Relating to or associated with a particular person.
2. (Of an argument) appealing to the emotions and not to reason.

 

For those who are using the term "ad hominem" please look it up first before you use it. It really doesn't help your argument when you misapply terms.

Neal

 

There was a time when I did not know what "ad hominem" meant, and it annoyed me when I followed debates and this popped up, and I had to guess what it meant. So I took and checked it up in some dictionary. After that I think I've myself used it only once, probably due to not being so fond of latin as I am of English. People ought not to suppose all know what some latin term means, nor ought one use a term one does not at all know what it means. It just leads to awkward situations and confusion. Just a parenthesis...


Harald

 

Ad hominem: Against (the) man.

When all else fails and one has run out of facts, a personal attack upon one's debating opponent is thought by some to be useful.

HankD

 

MV-Neverist writes:
>>So what? the Apocrypha was not deemed scripture
>>then;just like Scofields notes nowdays.Ad
>>hominem

I am now convinced that you are baiting me.

The difference is that Scofield never (let me say that again: never) [one more time: NEVER] offered up his notes as being Scripture. There is a HUGE difference and everyone else on this board knows it. [My original Scofield KJV is quite possibly my favorite version of the KJV, with the obvious exception of the 1611 repro. (for different reasons.)] If you are honestly implying that Scofield was brazen enough to make such a claim, then you have a real problem.

The Apocrypha is intermingled with the Word of God, and is offered as such. If it were merely for reference purposes, it would not have been placed in with the Scriptures. Do you have a copy of the 1611 KJV? I do, and it is there. Reference or otherwise, it is still there. A "perfect translation" of God's Word would not contain it, as with the Geneva Bible, or the ESV.

One last time: Scofield _never_ offered up his notes as being Scripture.

 

By the way, Harald and Hank: thanks for stating that for me. You are absolutely right.

 

. . . Oh, my favorite version?
The Christian Life Bible (NKJV) published by the Thomas Nelson Publishers.

 

I'm sorry, but I think you are wrong. As with Schofield, the KJV translators did NOT consider the Apocrypha to be the word of God. The following is taken from Article VI of the Anglican "Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion" (remember, the KJV was an Anglican translation):

Looks like they thought they were uninspired to me...

WHY??? Having non-canonical books in a volume does NOT make the canonical books imperfect!!! It does NOT mean their translation must be faulty! If Paul had sent his first letter to the Corinthians in the same envelope as an uninspired letter (I'm not saying they had envelopes), would that have made BOTH imperfect???

 

The 39 Articles of Faith have changed over the years.

Also, though the 39 Articles of Faith say one thing the practice of the Church of England has often said another. Such is the case concerning baptismal regeneration and transubstantiation.
Denying with their words but affirming by their actions.

For instance:

The Apocrypha is not inspired but it is OK for "example of life" and "instruction of manners" but not apply them to establish any doctrine" ???

This orwellian double-speak they learned from their "mother" the RCC from whom they never have cut the umbilical cord except to deny the blood line from their father the Pope.

BTW if I handed you a sandwich and you found out that the bread was pure but the meat in between was corrupt, would you eat the sandwich and what would you think of me?

HankD

[ May 13, 2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Bartholomew writes:
>>Looks like they thought they were uninspired to
>>me...

Thanks for reinforcing my argument. That is a very widely distributed piece, and simply reinforces the reason to OMIT them, as did the authors of the Geneva Bible. Despite how they felt, it is still there. That is precisely why the KJV fails the "God's perfect Word" test that I hear so many KJVOnly'ers claim. In addition to the Puritans, the Pilgrims also did not (and absolutely would not) use the KJV, seeing it as a legal document.

Don't get me wrong: I love the KJV as much as you do. That is the copy of the Word of God that I take with me to church. I actually take my 1611 repro. with me, despite the fact that it contains the Apocrypha.

Regardless of that, I find it disturbing that you still maintain that Scofield offered his notes up as Scripture. Once again, if you honestly believe that, then you have a problem.

 

They were written in 1571 - that's BEFORE the AV. If you have any evidence that they DIDN'T read like this in 1611 - that they said something DIFFERENT about the Apocrypha - please show me.

Of course many Anglicans have not believed their own articles of faith; but so have people from every denomination. The current situation of many Anglicans being almost papist comes from the 19th century Oxford Movement. Please provide evidence that the majority of Anglicans of the 17th century believed in baptismal regeneration and transubstansiation.

This may (or may not) be wrong; but it is not Orwellian double-speak. Do you believe that books about the lives of Christians of the past can be good examples for your life? Do you use them to formulate doctrine? And besides, the Anglicans certianly DID cut thier "umbilical cord" with Rome. To suggest otherwise is just wrong. The fact that over the last 100 years they've been going back there doesn't change that.

 

No, it is not STILL THERE. Editions from as early as 1629 omitted it.

Prove it. If the original manuscript of 1 Corinthians was sown onto a book of Greek myths, would that suddenly produce errors in the text of 1 Corinthians???

Once again, I am beginning to wonder whether you read my post.

 

As I have said before, we have an amazing thing which comes out of the KJVO movement, Baptists (this is a Baptist only forum) supporting the Anglican/Catholic Church of England which persecuted our spiritual forefathers who spoke out against the error of this Church, the sprinkling of babies, the celebration of the "eucharist" by a "priest", etc. The CoE Who also forbids autonomy of a local church, denies soul liberty and imprisoned John Bunyan for 12 years for baptising believers.

The point is that they had not the spiritual sense to exclude the Aprocrypha from the Bible (along with many other deeds some mentioned above).

Inspite of all this, we are told by the radical KJVO that God endowed the translators commissioned by this Church with the ability given to the prophets and apostles through the Holy Spirit to "God-breath" their translation (which btw from 1613-1769 had to be continually revised).

To include a book (or books) which is good for "example of life" and "instruction of manners" accepted by the Church of Rome as Scripture anywhere in my Bible and then tell me it is not really the Bible, to me is double-speak.

HankD

[ May 13, 2003, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Bartholomew writes:
>>Once again, I am beginning to wonder whether
>>you read my post.

This is becoming quite monotonous.....

The original KJV contains the Apocrypha, period. The KJV fails the "ONLY English translation of God's Perfect Word" test, plain and simple. Yes, it was revised and yes, we have all seen the text you reproduced on this thread; however, the bottom line is that it was there. For that reason alone, you CANNOT say that the KJV is the only place to find "God's Perfect Word." Furthermore, why would "God's Perfect Word" need to be revised? The Geneva Bible never contained the Apocrypha. Let me say that again: the Geneva Bible never contained the Apocrypha.
You said that the KJV was God's "Perfect Word" and you still have not proven it: not even to someone (like me for instance) who LOVES the KJV. You then posted an " ad hominem " attack against me, and subsequently challenged ME to prove it.
It has been said that the KJV is the ONLY true English translation that is the Word of God. It was also said that any other translation is heresy. I maintain that this is not only false, it is not Scriptural. I have a Geneva Bible right here by my computer, and by the time I post this, I will have my ESV as well. Prove to us that these translations are anything less than God's Holy Word.

 

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
>>Despite how they felt, it is still there.

Bartholomew responds:
>>No, it is not STILL THERE. Editions from as
>>early as 1629 omitted it.

You are mistaken. I have a repro. right here in front of me. Indeed, it is "STILL THERE."
Of course you are implying that I stated that it is in the later revisions of the KJV - a statement that I obviously did not make.

 

Well,it has already been shown to be for historical reference only;it also shows,much to your dismay,that the Apocrypha was in the Alexandrian family of Manuscripts as Holy Writ.Period..

What test is this?

Great! Then you know what is?? Please tell us what is perfect and infallible so I can have a copy too.

Bingo!! That is the same thing I've been wondering about the nonsense thats been going on since 1881;I mean,if the RV replaced the KJB,why revise it?? Why do we need to replace versions every 6 months?? Does English get archaic twice a year??

So? again,SO?? The underlying text behind the Geneva and the KJB did not either.Next!!!

I say it also.And you have not proven it isn't .

And I ask you to do the same.And if can,will you please tell us Bible believers WHAT you used to correct it with?? I would love to see it.

Congradulations!!! you are now the proud owner of a RE-HASHED commie RSV of the NCCC.Way to go!!

 

No, the point is that they DID have the spiritual sense to exclude the apocrypha in editions from 1629; and that they DIDN'T believe it was inspired before that anyway. Besides, the Apocrypha doesn't make the canon imperfect anymore than do maps, or Schofield's study notes. I'm not defending everyting the Anglicans do (I recently left that church myself), but that doesn't mean God didn't work THROUGH them.

 

I agree. Why won't you answer my question?

If I found the original manuscript of 1 Corinthians, and taped it to a Book of Mormon, would that make the text of 1 Corinthians imperfect??? Please answer this question. If the answer is "no", then your argument against the AV has been proven to be false. Oh, and BTW - how can you attack the AV for originally including the Apocrypha, and yet defend the Geneva Bible, that was FULL of UNINSPIRED notes???

 

This has been an interesting discussion about the Apocrypha. I wonder how many versionolaters have read the works of Jack Chick, but have never read the apocrypha.

 

Oh, and Baptist in Richmond: regarding "the Geneva Bible never contained the Apocrypha" argument...

Who made up the Apocrypha for this edition?

If it never had the Apocrypha, what are the 80 books? Or do you believe we SHOULD have 80 books in the Bible?

How could "other editions" of the Geneva Bible have had "minimal" notes in the Apocrypha, unless the Apocrpha was included???

Note even this anti-Protestant site admits the Anglicans didn't consider the Apocrypha on the same level as the Bible, and also shows the Geneva DID include it.

Oh, I wonder who put that pesky Apocrypha in there...

Well, well, well.

Need I say more? And let's let the Geneva Bible itself finish the argument:

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.