Posted on 09/08/2014 7:13:24 PM PDT by daniel1212
Movie :
KJB: The Book That Changed the World
Of all places, Hulu has this well done, interesting and edifying documentary (with ads) with actor John Rhys-Davies.
Describes King James 1 upbringing and and political events, including the Gunpowder Plot and shows historical background and aspects which led to this translation.
1:33 long. Worth watching. Has ads (choose priceline ones)
I agree, because it isn’t the entire Bible.
Another reason not to be a RC. You have now argued that the the apocrypha is critical for salvation, and so now you need to show how souls were regenerated by reading the apocryphal books, or were were even cited in preaching the gospel by which souls were regenerated, (Acts 2, 10, 13, etc.).
Even if they were, then reading them would not be necessary for salvation, as whatever was cited would be contained in the NT.
And that allusions to them or an an apparent reference to some (versus being stated as "Scripture," "the word of God," " "it is written," "Moses said") equates to sanction of them as inspired;
, and that what is exclusive to them was preached as essential to salvation? 2Mac. does not even teach purgatory or praying to the departed.
I am waiting.
I try not to make a statement without knowing if it is true. I researched Benjamin Wilson or whatever his name was. He had. “friend” who worked with him until they had an argument. I need o go back and read what it was about. I think the article I read had that in it. I had never heard of the church they were involved in. I still feel awful. I have had a bad headache for a few days now. I read bronchitis can cause them. I need to go to a deserted island with no power to read on my iPad! God bless.
FR keyword: guyfawkes
Thank you. I do not think I ever heard about that. You did good! God bless.
And just what books did the King Jimmy leave out?
So a RC (for at least the second time!) invokes a cultist to attack the KJV, which is far more in conformity with RC Bibles than his beliefs? Which is not surprising, since the Diaglott was produced by Benjamin Wilson, who was apparently baptized by Christadelphian founder John Thomas (though they later divided over the judgment seat and the resurrection), and was co-founder of the cultic Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith.
And who neither saw "the actual Biblical text" or had credentials in Greek, and from what i see supported the denial of the personal pre-existence of Christ before his birth, the incarnation doctrine, and the literal second coming, and the actual person of the devil and demons. And is used widely by Jehovah's Witnesses because of its anti-trinitarian bias, claiming (among other things) it supports their mistranslation of Jn. 1:1.
As to Wilson's doctrinal position the following is included in his obituary, printed in the Evening Bee of Sacramento, May 9, 1900: "'Among the doctrines and teachings of modern theology that he could not harmonize with what he believed to be the teachings of the early church were the following ... doctrine of eternal torment, inherent immortality of the soul, and the doctrine of the Trinity. . . ."
"Benjamin F. Wilson and the Emphatic Diaglott," The Herald of Christ's Kingdom, 41:68, July-August, 1964. From the foregoing it is clear that Wilson's theology and Russell's were very close, and from the facts pointed out here and in chapter 2, it appears probable that both Russell and Wilson drew from a common source, Dr. John Thomas. (Apostles of Denial By Edmond C. Gruss. p. 194 )
Professor Emeritus Edmond Gruss, of the Master's College in Southern California, observes how the Diaglott fit the needs of the newly formed Russellite religion: Wilson was self-educated; his work shows that he cer-tainly was not a scholar. Neither did he have the respect of those who were scholars. Obviously, his purpose was not to translate, but to justify his theological views....It may be concluded, then, that the Emphatic Diaglott was adopted because of its Christadelphian bias which agreed almost perfectly with the new Russellite group that was forming. The Russellites accepted the renderings of Wilson, for they did not have the linguistic ability either to evaluate or to determine their correctness, nor did they wish to question that which so perfectly supported their theories... 205 (Fast Facts on Jehovah's Witnesses By John Ankerberg, John Weldon. p. 77 )
Nor did Wilson even base the Diaglott on the Greek New Testament of the Textus Receptus (used by the KJV), but on a "poor dated recension" (Gruss) published in 1805 by Johann Jakob Griesbach. Griesbach, and gave priority to the Alexandrian and Western. Under each line was a rough translation in English representing what he saws as being the best meaning of the Greek language used in the passage.
Thus what this cultist cites as errors in the KJV would also apply to the Catholic DRB.
Meanwhile, what English translation do you hold as the most reliable?
A learned and balanced reply.
Oh no. Just click on the link and it should ask you what ads you want and then it should soon start
I am wondering why some do not/can not see the truth. You back up everything you post. You would think some are smart enough to research on their own. If I see something I do not understand, I research and make up my mind from the evidence not what someone says. God bless.
Ok thanks.
Reminder self-ping.
Quote-Are any INACCURACIES found in them enough to KEEP a soul from being saved by the facts that are CORRECT?
There is one rather big tradition that has been found in the bible, at least in the English bibles I have seen..
The name of the savior is still a greco roman latin name instead of an English translation or transliteration.
and considering the Messiah’s English name is title to one book in the old testament as Joshua and not Jesus in the same English bibles, that tells me tradition of the greco roman latin world trumps accuracy.
Now some have tried to change the Jesus references for that old testament ‘jesus’ into Joshua in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 ; because they confuse the reader.
The reader doesnt recognize joshua as the English name of the Messiah. That was just the Israeli general who led Israel to the promised land in the old testament.. has nothing to do with jesus who leads the greco roman latin world into the promised land.
That inaccuracy is not one of translation or transliteration as it is one of just following the greco roman latin tradition.
Joshua loves me, this I know wouldnt sell records. But joahua could have been used 900 times in our English bibles.
But it would at least be an accurate english name for the Messiah of Israel, if the old testament translation of Yahshua/Yeshua to Joshua can be believed.
But, what’s in a name?
scripture doesnt ‘really’ say salvation is found in a name does it?
What are the facts of the greco roman latin church?
That Jesus was born on December 25, died on good friday and raised on easter sunday.
Those ‘facts’ are not found in scripture.
And the entire greco roman latin world teaches and worship those inaccurate ‘facts’.
The mother and daughter churches and those who defend them better hope it all isn’t a salvation issue.
Greco roman latin names, holy days... seems like a whole new greco roman latin religion has been created to look and feel like the real Hebrew thing.
Only a master counterfeiter would be so bold as to attempt it...
Maybe it really is a salvation issue after all..
Indeed. I copied that for reference. Thanks!
Indeed, for salvation to ride on books that weren’t even “infallibly” recognized as Scripture until Trent seems quite the opposite of the apostolic witness to faith in Christ. When the philippian jailer asked, “ what must I do to be saved,” they didn’t tell him to make sure he reads the deuterocanonicals. They told him to believe in Jesus.
This sort of nonsense reminds me of what Jesus said about the Pharisees. They don’t go into the kingdom themselves, and they keep out others who would go in, building barriers instead of bridges. How much more generous Jesus was, allowing that even a small act of kindness to the least of believers would be understood as a kindness to Christ Himself. He is so much better than we are, that we have a hard time imagining Him correctly. Like that voice we hear on the phone, but when we see the face, it is far better than anything we expected.
Since that was not the argument, versus being the most trusted and used, then this cut and paste deals with another issue.
King James was a notorious sodomite, so we know what he really thought about the word of God.
And it is hard to hear the entire bible when it seems even in the weekly Sundays & Weekdays cycle Obadiah doesn't get a single reading, and only 1% of 1 Chronicles and 3% of 2 Chronicles, 5% of Leviticus and Lamentations, and 6% of Numbers and Proverbs, and 7% of Joshua and 8% of Ezra and Job (just in the under 10% category) are read.
The KJV has the plan of salvation and Jesus’s teachings. What more does one need? I think some of you are just upset that everyone can uread that and do not have to listen to someone’s interpretation of it. Of course, our ministers teach from the Bible. Mine goes verse by verse. You sound like you do not believe in the plan of salvation in the Bible. Why not? You can read it for yourself. It is so easy that children can understand it. Why can’t y’all?
He wanted the Bible in everyone’s hands, not just the elite. I read a little verse on FB.
Noah got drunk,
Jacob lied,
Moses murdered,
Rahab was a prostitute,
David had an affair,
God still used them,
He can use you, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.