Question about the history of Christianity

[dawg2]

Old English, think London Confessional.
Protestant Reformation.
Not that long ago, really.

Uh oh...not sure what to think about that...

 

[rjcruiser]

So what is he using for his "baseline" to ensure he is correct in his interpretation?

1611 KJV and the Holy Spirit




That was for you Dawg...just for you.

 

[dawg2]

1611 KJV and the Holy Spirit




That was for you Dawg...just for you.

...oh lordy...

Wait! Is he going to use the original 1611 KJV with the Deutercanonical books? Or the later revised version

 

[rjcruiser]

Old English, think London Confessional.
Protestant Reformation.
Not that long ago, really.

I think that is an uninformed guess...logical, but a guess at the most.

I'm sure he has been schooled in hebrew and greek and reads the original texts. I would imagine that he probably understands german as well as that is what much of Protestant theological study is written in.

Probably has a good knowledge of the ECF's as well....to get us back on topic. Just his view of the ECFs is that they were like us. Fallible

 

[WTM45]

I think that is an uninformed guess...logical, but a guess at the most.

I'm sure he has been schooled in hebrew and greek and reads the original texts. I would imagine that he probably understands german as well as that is what much of Protestant theological study is written in.

Probably has a good knowledge of the ECF's as well....to get us back on topic. Just his view of the ECFs is that they were like us. Fallible

I'm as informed as anyone who has viewed his website or read his blogs.
He has a lot posted to gather a good feel of his stance from.

Who is to say the ECF's are any less infalliable than any other book of the Bible, including those so deemed as unnecessary to the sheep?

 

[rjcruiser]

Who is to say the ECF's are any less infalliable than any other book of the Bible, including those so deemed as unnecessary to the sheep?

Rev 22:18-19

Never said their writings were unnecessary, just that they are not infallible nor on par with scripture.

 

[dawg2]

Rev 22:18-19

Never said their writings were unnecessary, just that they are not infallible nor on par with scripture.

I don't see where the ECF's add anything to scripture. I would emphasize that they support it.

 

[WTM45]

Rev 22:18-19

Never said their writings were unnecessary, just that they are not infallible nor on par with scripture.

I am confident, from our previous discussions, you know the history of the development of the current 1911 KJV.
So, I concede you may believe as you wish regarding it's interpretations, whether literally or figuratively.

It's OK to feel exclusive, just know not everyone will agree.

 

[rjcruiser]

I don't see where the ECF's add anything to scripture. I would emphasize that they support it.

Support is fine. Just like Luther's 95 theses @ Wittenburg.

It is when they are elevated to be on par with scripture that the problem occurs.

 

[Jeffriesw]

...oh lordy...

Wait! Is he going to use the original 1611 KJV with the Deutercanonical books? Or the later revised version

I have one of those (Not orignl of course) you would be suprised at some of the people who never realized they(Duet. books) were in there and then "Removed".

 

[WTM45]

But don't we have to individually accept what we deem as scripture?
Why have we let others make that determination for us?

 

[dawg2]

Support is fine. Just like Luther's 95 theses @ Wittenburg.

It is when they are elevated to be on par with scripture that the problem occurs.

I haven't seen that happen. I have seen that happen with Luther and Calvin though

 

[rjcruiser]

It's OK to feel exclusive, just know not everyone will agree.

I know that not everyone agree's with me. I'm reminded of that every night when I go home

 

[dawg2]

I have one of those (Not orignl of course) you would be suprised at some of the people who never realized they(Duet. books) were in there and then "Removed".

MANY have no idea it used to be in the original 1611 KJV. Which is why I find it somewhat "ironic" when people say "1611 ONLY!" yet I am not sure as to which they are referring...

 

[WTM45]

I know that not everyone agree's with me. I'm reminded of that every night when I go home

Me too!
And on the days when the wife and I BOTH work from home!
And on the weekends.
And on vacation.
And while doing chores and "honey-do's."
And while I'm asleep!

Pretty much every second of my life!

 

[Chemical_Jacket]

MANY have no idea it used to be in the original 1611 KJV. Which is why I find it somewhat "ironic" when people say "1611 ONLY!" yet I am not sure as to which they are referring...

I think it's safe to say anyone who would say "1611 only" is not including the Apocrypha.

 

[rjcruiser]

MANY have no idea it used to be in the original 1611 KJV. Which is why I find it somewhat "ironic" when people say "1611 ONLY!" yet I am not sure as to which they are referring...

When people say "1611 only" it shows their ignorance on the subject....that the person can't deal rationally. Impossible to reason with someone like that...but it keeps me from wasting my time.

 

[rjcruiser]

I think it's safe to say anyone who would say "1611 only" is not including the Apocrypha.

tsk tsk tsk. it is the deuterocanonical books.


And I'll add...if it is the 1611 KJV less the deutero books, it ain't the 1611 KJV.

 

[ddd-shooter]

I like the book of Judith

 

[Jeffriesw]

MANY have no idea it used to be in the original 1611 KJV. Which is why I find it somewhat "ironic" when people say "1611 ONLY!" yet I am not sure as to which they are referring...

By whose authority were they removed?