/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>544802

>Trying this hard

>Ignoring http://www.ccel.org/ccel/alexander_a/canon.iii.v.html

And please don't take the Holy Spirit's name so lightly. We don't want you to become condemned for it.

>>544805

What does the council of the Whore of Babylon have to do with anything?*

* which is what any fundamentalist Baptist would say

In any case, this thought is posited towards Ruckmanite Baptists, it has nothing to do with non-KJV Protestants. Or did KJV Baptists suddenly embrace the Church Fathers without notifying anyone?

To sum it up more concisely:

In order for the KJV to be inerrant, the translators of the KJV had to be inerrant (for they had the Holy Spirit), along with WHAT they translated. Which includes the apocrypha. If the apocrypha is not therefore inerrant, neither is the KJV inerrant.

So, if the KJV is inerrant because the translators were inerrant, you MUST ACCEPT all 73 books of the KJV. It is no longer apocrypha for anyone who believes in KJV Only.

>And please don't take the Holy Spirit's name so lightly. We don't want you to become condemned for it.

Sola Fide used to justify erroneous doctrine in the Holy Spirit's name is worse imo, lay your charge elsewhere.

>>544809

>Sola Fide used to justify erroneous doctrine

Give us your interpretation of whatever this doctrine you speak of is then in accordance with 1 peter 1:20. I think that since the writers put the books they did into the Bible that makes those the appropriate books to use, since they were surely inspired by God if they were writing scripture with the fruit of not making God a liar in accordance with matthew 7:15-20 and titus 1:2.

>Which includes the apocrypha

<If the apocrypha is not therefore inerrant, neither is the KJV inerrant.

<along with WHAT they translated

Actually scripture is inspired by God 1 peter 1:25. Does the apocrypha claim to be scripture given by God? Just because Paul wrote might have wrote down some notes on the wall of his prison doesn't make it inspired by God. Not any different here. Only scripture is given by inspiration of God unless you have a verse stating otherwise.

Quick, let's collect everything the translators ever wrote or translated! OP's flawless logic has proven to me that I need to collect it unto the manner of the Muhammadan's hadith!

>>544802

>if the KJV is the Word of God

Because it's the received text in English.

>and the KJV translators had the Holy Spirit (they must have, in order for the KJV to be the inerrant scripture),

All they necessarily had to do was transmit it. It's probably true they had the right understanding of the passages, but not necessary. Also, the later editions of the KJV were by different people as well.

>how come the "Apocrypha" is…apocrypha?

Because it's not inspired.

>I propose that KJV Baptists must accept the full 73 books of the Bible,

You're free to propose whatever you want.

>and reject the Lutheran 66.

The Masoretic text predates Luther. The apocrypha are not available except through the Greek Septuagint. There's no other source. That's why they have been specified as different, not because of Luther or anything he ever did, which is a hilarious catholic meme.

>the translators of the KJV had to be inerrant

All they were were good translators.

>So, if the KJV is inerrant because the translators were inerrant

Nah, it's just the word of God in English. They didn't create the sources that they translated from.

>you MUST ACCEPT all 73 books of the KJV. It is no longer apocrypha for anyone who believes in KJV Only.

Well first off, the translators were just good translators who didn't have an agenda in mind, and we can see this by the result of their work. But secondly, even they agreed that these were Apocrypha and not Scripture, so your logic fails anyway. And lastly, the later versions of the KJV such as the 1769 Paragraph edition KJV and every subsequent edition, also did not include updated translations for these. Nobody is going around saying that the 1611 first edition must be used, because obviously there is nothing special about the original translators compared to other honest translators that came before or after, as the case may be on inspection of their work. Bring an alternative Bible version to the table and we can see whether it fails or meets the criteria we have established.

>trying to use logic on protestants

Good luck OP

>>544842

>The "apocrypha" are Septuagint exclusive

Most of the books Protestants reject have had fragments in Hebrew or Aramaic recovered, in the Qumran caves or elsewhere. It's almost as though they were part of the Old Testament but the (((Masoretes))) and their predecessors removed it because they didn't like what those books said. Say, that sounds awfully familiar…

>>544802

>they must have, in order for the KJV to be the inerrant scripture

Why does that follow? The KJV is a perfect translation of the Hebrew Bible and the Textus Receptus. The Bible has inerrancy, the KJV just represents The Bible in English. It isn't new prophecy, and can be represented in other languages (The Luther Bible in German, the Reina-Valera in Spanish, or the Synodal Bible in Russian, for example)

>>544805

>Ignoring http://www.ccel.org/ccel/alexander_a/canon.iii.v.html

>That cherry-picked quotes.

>>544904

>Ch-ch-cherry picking! You can't win B-b-burpist!

>>544904

>muh cherrypicking

It's always this when folks don't have a reply, isn't it?

Simple. When in deep prayer about the Word of God, Luther's Bible grew legs and arms and then ripped out the apocrypha and said to spread the true word of God to the world.

>>544866

>It's almost as though they were part of the Old Testament but the (((Masoretes))) and their predecessors removed it because they didn't like what those books said.

Then they didn't do a very good job.

But seriously, God says multiple times in Scripture that his word will never pass away, that it's eternal, that it's incorruptible, that it will pass down from generation to generation. Nobody on earth could possibly "remove" Scripture, no matter how hard they tried. Read Jeremiah 36.

Long story short, anon, they won't find any new scripture in Qumran that we didn't already have.

>>544805

>>544927

>>544951

It is cherry picking I could go on about every one of them, save few that works are not easy to find.But it wouldn't even matter for they are biased and blind for the little fact that they do not even mention Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage i.e. the only councils that actually anathemised someone concernign Scripture and had power to do so, and latter was aprooved by Nicea II, Florence and Trent.

But for sing of good will:

practicalapologetics.blogspot.com/2013/07/early-church-fathers-on-apocrypha.html

>>545053

>Long story short, anon, they won't find any new scripture in Qumran that we didn't already have.

And we have all of Scripture 73 books, no more no less.

>>545053

Indeed, God's word has been perfectly preserved, and those of the New Covenant bear that duty now those of the Old spurned Him. The Septuagint is a copy of the Jewish Bible as it was before Jesus died for our sins; the Masoretic, a millennium after.

>>545060

I'm glad we have cleared up that neither Luther and the Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran have nothing to do with this. If only everyone could get that far, this would be an easy job.

>The Septuagint is a copy of the Jewish Bible as it was before Jesus died for our sins;

Then why does it find its source in Origen?

>the Masoretic, a millennium after.

If it was written in 1000 A.D, then why are there earlier identical copies? All believers before and after 1000 A.D. have had that same OT. Furthermore, nobody, absolutely nobody was forced to accept anything else until the council of Trent, which was the way some chose to react to the mass publication of the originals that they couldn't contain.

>God's word has been perfectly preserved,

So now that we're on the same page here, tell me why only the Old Testament Scriptures that I have in front of me have had perfectly preserved copies in the original language for all generations? I am not forced to believe in a bunch of Alexandrian Jews who were literal wizards and gods of translation yet couldn't even preserve the alleged "real" Old Testament they used to make their alleged perfect translation.

>>544880

The preface isn't inspired

>>544832

If the KJV was inspired by the Holy Spirit, at what point do you say "ok it wasn't inspired when they did this". You have to accept the apocrypha if you argue the translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

>>544842

What the Jews or Luther did have ZERO BEARING on a Holy Ghost inspired KJV.

If the translators were inspired and the KJV is the Word of God, you are accepting a truncated scripture, the apocrypha is thus inspired by the Holy Ghost.

You can not say the KJV is the word of God but then go back and say the apocrypha is not, is Luther or the Jews the Holy Ghost? No.

>Nobody on earth could possibly "remove" Scripture, no matter how hard they tried. Read Jeremiah 36.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT LUTHER DID. You MUST accept the Apocrypha.

>>544842

>Because it's not inspired.

It is inspired.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanonical-books-new-testament/

The Jews ripped it out of their texts because it obviously prophesied Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

>>544880

Do you not give thanks to the person who facilitates the completion of a project you wanted to do?

>>545113

>If the translators were inspired

They were just good translators. So were the translators of the 1769 Paragraph KJV and the guys who fixed a few spelling inconsistencies after that.

>You can not say the KJV is the word of God but then go back and say the apocrypha is not,

Yes I can, because the part of the KJV that is inspired is the words.

Meanwhile, the preface, apocrypha, maps, calendars, chapter and verse divisions, page divisions, and typesetting font of the 1611 KJV are not inspired.

>THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT LUTHER DID.

We've been over this. The Apocrypha are only known via Origen's Greek OT. There are no originals surviving, only that translation (which was paired with faulty translation of the other books as well).

>>545143

>putting inspired word of God alongside the preface and calendars

Blasphemy.

Your animus against Catholicism alone is what prevents you or any other Baptist from accepting the full scripture.

>>545160

Actually it's because they lack the ears to hear and eyes to see, see 1 corinthians 15:44.

>>545161

If you think the deuterocanonical books weren't ripped out after the fact by the Jews because it validated Christ and His words, the only blind one is you. Well, Luther too.

>>545160

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

>>545166

"The words of the LORD are pure, except for these books because they don't say what we want them to say :)"

fixed that for you

>>544831

>Only scripture is given by inspiration of God

Yes, but you are side-stepping the issue. The Apocrypha was written as scripture, with scripture. You saying that it isn't scripture is just leaning on circular reasoning.

If you pick and choose which parts of the KJV were inspired and which ones weren't, then what's keeping us from doing that now with the rest of the KJV?

>>544832

This is just moving goalposts. We aren't talking about some personal scribbles of the translators. We are talking about the translators sitting down with the intention of constructing the KJV Bible, and they included the Apocrypha.

>>545188

Where in the Apocrypha does it claim to be scripture?

>>545196

Where in each individual book of the Bible does each individual book of the Bible claim to be scripture? Where is the inspired Table of Contents?

>>545199

It's on the preface of each testament. The opening is "THE HOLY BIBLE CONTAINING THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS" The preface to the books written after Jesus came in the flesh are prefaced with "THE NEW TESTAMENT OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST" If you flip over to hebrews chapter 9-10 you can see that it equated the testaments of the books to the law, or after it I should say, to them.

Where now does it say that the books of the Apocrypha claim to be scripture?

>>545199

You're also free to claim the chapter and verse divisions are inspired, but nobody else seriously claims that. None of this is in a vacuum. We all know what was preserved and what wasn't. We all know what was added later versus what remained, we did, the translators did, everyone did.

The only way you people argue is to quietly reject the Scriptures that speak of the eternal, unchanging word of God.

>>545188

>The Apocrypha was written as scripture

The apocrypha denies it is scripture by saying there were no prophets

>>545209

>You're also free to claim the chapter and verse divisions are inspired

Well if they were in the final version and the fruits matthew 7:15-20 of it were in line with titus 1:2, then surely it is so. Don't revelation 20:17 it!

>>545211

Again, not that I like the apocrypha, but where is this said in it? That would confirm it's not scripture anyways.

>>545215

1 Maccabees 9:27 and 14:41

>>545223

I can't even imagine the mental gymnastics you'd have to go through to interpret those verses that way.

>>545223

He's >>545226 got a point. I don't see how these claim "The apocrypha denies it is scripture by saying there were no prophets"

>“So was there a great affliction in Israel, the like whereof was not since the time that a prophet was not seen among them.”

1 Maccabees 14:41

>“Also that the Jews and priests were well pleased that Simon should be their governor and high priest for ever, until there should arise a faithful prophet;”

I still don't see a verse that claims the apocrypha is scripture though. That's disregarding that 1 Maccabees 14:41 contradicts hebrews 5.

>>545228

That first greentext is 1 Maccabees 9:27

>>545228

>I don't see how these claim "The apocrypha denies it is scripture by saying there were no prophets"

It says there were no prophets at the time. Every book of the Old Testament was written by a prophet, therefore these books are not part of the Old Testament, since they say divine revelation was not continuing.

>>545231

Oh I see your reasoning. You are saying 1 Maccabees 9:27 is the implication of no prophets being around to write that book. Gotchya.

>>545211

>>545231

Do you not remember the claim being laid against the Jews, that they constantly killed God's sent prophets?

No prophet was seen among them because they were killed.

>>545244

The text says they ceased to appear

>>545248

Hard to appear when the high priests gank you

>>545249

They ain't getting offed before they do anything, anon

>>545251

Why wouldn't they? It's what they tried to do to Christ, and they did in fact kill Him.

>>545252

>Why wouldn't they?

Because the Jews have no reason to kill them if they aren't acting like prophets? Do you think they just went around killing random Jews? If they don't do anything prophetic there is no way to know they're prophets

>>545255

wut

The accusation was that they went and murdered their own God-sent prophets, and they did this even to their own messiah. God is good, the Jews not so much.

>Because the Jews have no reason to kill them if they aren't acting like prophets?

It's because they were acting like prophets that they were killed. Do you think the damned like hearing that they're damned?

>>545257

>they were acting like prophets

So prophets appeared?

>>545258

and were killed, thus satisfying the "not appearing" among them.

They went into the Temple and were killed by the high priests who didn't like what they had to say. Or was Christ/God lying when He said the Jews killed His prophets?

>>545260

Ok, so the text says "prophets ceased to appear", you say prophets appeared.

>>545262

You're arguing in the context of written scripture, if the prophets are killed in the Temple, then there was no written scripture to be passed on from them, or at their time of appearance.

When were God's prophets produced and slain?

In any case >>545188 as this guy says, this is goal-post moving.

If the KJV was inspired, then so was the Apocrypha, and should be fully incorporated into any doctrine claiming the KJV is inspired and inerrant.

I suppose b24b0d is a Lutheran Protestant, but the point of thread is arguing within the doctrine of the inspired KJV, and what a logical extension of it results in.

>>545211

Actually does not matter, if the KJV was given to us by the Holy Ghost, then the Apocrypha should be considered fully authoritative.

>>545269

>You're arguing in the context of written scripture, if the prophets are killed in the Temple, then there was no written scripture to be passed on from them, or at their time of appearance.

<So there was great distress in Israel, the worst since the time when prophets ceased to appear among them.

>When were God's prophets produced and slain?

And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.

1 Kings 19:10

>>545087

<It's the Origen wrote the Septuagint meme again

Holy shit, you MT defenders seriously need to stop saying this. This isn't a "creative interpretation" of a verse, it's a denial of the historical fact that the Septuagint was written for the Ptolemaic Pharaoh in the 3rd century BC. And yes, we do also have fragments of the Septuagint that corroborate it, along with historical accounts.

>Why are there earlier identical copies?

There are earlier identical fragments, but that's a huge way off proving that none of the MT text been altered. The earliest existing full codex is easily the Septuagint.

>How could a bunch of Alexandrian Jews preserved the OT in Greek when the Hebrew was lost?

Firstly, even the Jews admit the Septuagint was divinely inspired, the same Jews you hold as the preservers of the OT. Secondly, you imply that the Septuagint was confined to Alexandria when the entirety of the Hellenized Jewish community (a big proportion of the Jews at the time) used it, naturally including the early Christians. If you take "perfect preservation" to mean the OT exists in Hebrew exactly as each was written, then you have to contend with both the fact that the earliest complete Hebrew codex is very late and Jewish accounts of the codification of their scriptures being post-Second Temple (rabbinical debates as to which books were scripture or not that I can't imagine any Christian would respect).

>>545273

>If the KJV was inspired, then so was the Apocrypha,

What about the maps and the preface?

>>545284

>it's a denial of the historical fact that the Septuagint was written for the Ptolemaic Pharaoh in the 3rd century BC.

The five books of Moses you mean. Origen was the source of the full OT in Greek. Just because somebody slap the name LXX on it doesn't make it so. And again, I don't believe in or trust in literal godlike wizards living in Alexandria either. But you really should show, while remaining consistent, that Origen's work wasn't his own add-on to it or just a completely different translation.

>The earliest existing full codex is easily the Septuagint.

Except that it's a translation, so no it isn't.

>Firstly, even the Jews admit the Septuagint was divinely inspired,

It doesn't matter what they say. Their oral torah and whatever they produced are non-scripture, not Scripture. And that is the whole issue of debate here.

>the same Jews you hold as the preservers of the OT.

No, God is the preserver of his word. Only he can be trusted.

>when the entirety of the Hellenized Jewish community (a big proportion of the Jews at the time) used it, naturally including the early Christians.

Then why is there no actual proof of this other than Origen. You realize with the NT in hand they could easily use it to translate his OT into Greek where it was quoted.

>then you have to contend with both the fact that the earliest complete Hebrew codex is very late

I need not contend with that fact for one second, because by faith I know God has kept his word intact and known, no matter what.

>and Jewish accounts of the codification of their scriptures being post-Second Temple

That is automatically wrong, because of Scripture laid down in 2 Timothy 3.

>>545317

maps and preface are not parts of scripture, the inspired translations of the Apocrypha are

Why does Martin Luther have primacy over the Holy Spirit?

>>545317

>No, God is the preserver of his word. Only he can be trusted.

you keep saying that, but it's pretty clear you trust the Jews and Luther over God or the Holy Spirit

>>545321

See

>>545273

>if the KJV was inspired, then so were the maps and the preface and should be fully incorporated into any doctrine claiming the KJV is inspired and inerrant.

>>545325

Silly argument; maps and preface are merely…maps and a book preface.

The Apocrypha is scripture that was translated with the rest of KJV.

I have not gotten a straight answer for any of my questions yet. So let me say it AGAIN.

- If the KJV and the translators were inspired by the Holy Ghost, so were the Apocrypha.

- Disregarding what any Jews or Protestant reformers thought, the KJV translation projected was directly influenced by the Holy Spirit, thus sanctioning the Apocrypha as official, holy scripture.

Now, why do you deny it?

>>545326

<Apocrypha as official, holy scripture.

Where in the Apocrypha does it claim to be scripture?

Then you said

<Where in each individual book of the Bible does each individual book of the Bible claim to be scripture?

Then I asked and stated

>It's on the preface of each testament. The opening is "THE HOLY BIBLE CONTAINING THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS" The preface to the books written after Jesus came in the flesh are prefaced with "THE NEW TESTAMENT OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST" If you flip over to hebrews chapter 9-10 you can see that it equated the testaments of the books to the law, or after it I should say, to them.

Where now does it say that the books of the Apocrypha claim to be scripture? If it's scripture then how do you explain the contradiction between 1 Maccabees 14:41 and hebrews 5?

>>545326

>Silly argument; maps and preface are merely…maps and a book preface.

Exactly. And apocrypha are merely apocrypha.

>If the KJV and the translators were inspired by the Holy Ghost, so were the Apocrypha.

The translators themselves say they are apocrypha, so by YOUR logic, they must be right. Again, that's by YOUR logic. I'm not looking to get quote-mined here. I myself do NOT think they were prophets, because that is ridiculous. Don't even try to say I believe that, I'm merely showing how easy your presumption is to debunk.

Like I already said, I merely think they were good translators, just like the ones who made the 1769 edition that I already mentioned which you seemed to ignore repeatedly in your quote mining efforts.

>>545329

>Where in the Apocrypha does it claim to be scripture?

It doesn't need to. If the KJV was given directly to us by God as His perfect Word, you must accept the apocrypha. Or did God err by giving us the apocrypha? God doesn't lie see Titus 1:2

>If it's scripture then how do you explain the contradiction between 1 Maccabees 14:41 and hebrews 5?

Again, are you calling God a liar? See Titus 1:2.

Why would He give us this non-scripture?

>Like I already said, I merely think they were good translators

I'm speaking to those that claim the KJV is the inerrant Word of God, if this does not pertain to you, why are you here?

>>545332

>I'm speaking to those that claim the KJV is the inerrant Word of God

I do think that. But not the preface, apocrypha, calendars, maps, appendices, chapter and verse divisions, page divisions, spacing, indentation, or typesetting. All of these except the chapter and verse divisions were changed at some point in later editions.

>>545332

<Why would He give us this non-scripture?

He didn't, because the apocrypha is not scripture silly.

I am not claiming the KJV is the Word of God. I am claiming that the word of God/scripture is given by God. With the KJV falling under such a classification as the word of God.

But the Apocrypha makes no such claim that you have shown to being scripture. But clearly the KJV has made such a claim.

>>545333

Then you're in error. If God gave us the Apocrypha, you must accept it, or you therefore claim God is in error.

You're not fooling anyone by equating the Apocrypha with maps or prefaces, or anyone else.

>>545334

>He didn't, because the apocrypha is not scripture silly.

Anyone that claims the KJV is the inerrant Word of God therefore claims that the Holy Spirit officially sanctioned the work as the authoritative Gospel/Word of God. There is no ifs and buts about this doctrine.

If you do not believe the KJV was given to us by the Holy Spirit, this has nothing to do with you.

>>545336

<If you do not believe the KJV was given to us by the Holy Spirit, this has nothing to do with you.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Word of God =/= word of God. Do you even hebrews 4:12 and John 1:1-3? I realise this is a christ centered board but you are not making any sense. Did you even read what I said? I clearly said

>With the KJV falling under such a classification as the word of God.

Are you a robot?

>>545344

Brother, if you genuinely think what you're saying is logical I will pray for you.

>>545317

>The five books of Moses you mean. Origen was the source of the full OT in Greek.

For fuck sake

And they being the subjects of the Macedonians, selected from those of highest character among them seventy elders, versed in the Scriptures, and skilled in the Greek dialect, and sent them to him with the divine books. And each having severally translated each prophetic book, and all the translations being compared together, they agreed both in meaning and expression. For it was the counsel of God carried out for the benefit of Grecian ears. It was not alien to the inspiration of God, who gave the prophecy, also to produce the translation, and make it as it were Greek prophecy. Since the Scriptures having perished in the captivity of Nabuchodonosor, Esdras the Levite, the priest, in the time of Artaxerxes king of the Persians, having become inspired in the exercise of prophecy restored again the whole of the ancient Scriptures.

Clement of Alexandria, who died before Orgien knew how to write.

>>545433

>Since the Scriptures having perished in the captivity of Nabuchodonosor,

Whoever wrote this doesn't believe Isaiah 59:21.

Best KJV Study Bible???