[geocentrism] Re: KJV, apocrypha
- From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:02:24 -0500
Hi, Nicholas. The Jews get to decide on whether or not the Apocrypha was
authentic scripture or not because the Apocrypha was written in the 400
years between the last OT writing and the appearance of Jesus to walk upon
this earth. So the Apocrypha was all written before Jesus came. The Jews
rejected it from their Jewish Canon and had no doubts in doing so.
Protestants read it and it leaves them cold, teaching doctrines contrary to
the rest of scripture and just not as they say "resonating."
Amongst Christians, only the Catholics have embraced the Apocrypha as
inspired scripture, and did so very late in the game, almost 2,000 years
after the Apocrypha was first written. In the late 1500s the Catholics
decided officially to canonize the Apocrphya. It's all included in your
Bible and pronounced as God-breathed scripture by the Catholic church. But
nonCatholic Christians say, no way.
There's lots of early church writings and ancient writings that there's
nothing wrong with reading, that we can learn a lot from. I know Marshall
Hall has stuff on his site about the apocrypha supporting a static earth.
But I wouldn't read that stuff thinking this is the inerrant Word of God. I
put more weight on the Didache and writings of the early church fathers than
the Apocrypha as far as being God-breathed in any way.
And IMHO likewise if the KJV translators went ahead and did a translation of
the Apocrypha that still doesn't make it Scripture, and it also doesn't
diminish their translation of the true Bible at all.
Even the New Testament canon was already well-established in the first
century and the Catholic Church just rubber-stamped what was already a
given. At least they didn't try to tamper with it. Martin Luther tried to
mess with the canon also and failed.
When it comes to preserving His Word, who can resist the Lord?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 7:11 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: KJV, apocrypha
> Cheryl,
> You seem to give post-Christ "Jews" great and final authority to
> determine what is in the canon of the OT (relating to the apocrypha).
> You have to admit at least that there is a difference of opinion. This
> being the case, why would you place any weight on the group of persons
> (referred to as Jews) which couldn't see things straight enough to
> accept Christ (and which failed to understand what is in the OT which
> identified that Jesus Christ is the Messiah) and who also reject the
> entire NT. They have no credibility in the matter (and their motivations
> are suspect, which impacts their believability), not to mention the fact
> that the real Bible believing Jews which have credibility in
> interpreting the OT (and what is in it) became Christians (leaving
> behind those who wrongfully claimed to adhere to the OT, who adopted a
> new Jewish faith, who we today refer to as Jews).
>
> The whole question of what is in the Bible is critical to the geostatic
> question (and the theological and moral implications of the geostatic
> position). With all due respect, I think this list hasn't dug deep
> enough here.
>
> I'll offer up a rationale. To determine the correct view of the cosmos,
> we look first to what God has told us, second to what we can further
> figure out from what He told us (e.g. If A, then B)--- (and third to
> what we can further figure out on our own from "science", to the extent
> this doesn't conflict with the first two steps). Our working assumption
> on this list seems to presume what He has told us in the Bible. Good
> enough for the sake of discussion. To be able to know what He has
> actually told us in the Bible, we need to know if the books (and
> words)we are looking at are actually in the Bible we think He gave us.
> Since there have over time been competing claims as to what is --(and is
> not)-- in the Bible, then to seriously undertake our geostatic quest, we
> better see if He gave us an infallible authority to tell us this. The
> non-Catholics cringe at this reality, since it points to the only
> organization claiming such authority and which can through a study of
> history also back up the claim (the Catholic Church is that authority).
> Some who have studied history will concede the Church infallibly decided
> the canon of the Bible, but they claim it can't infallibly get other
> things right. But if we are going to be certain it was right in setting
> the canon (so we can hang our hat on all those nonmoving earth clauses
> that we think exist), we ought to want to know if it is always
> infallible (in its official actions), because otherwise we are just
> wishfully and arbitrarily believing/claiming it was at least infallible
> when it set the canon--which history shows us it did (but that it was
> otherwise unreliable on the things you don't like). So, it seems to be
> intellectually honest in the quest, we ought to determine if history and
> the Bible demonstrate Christ gave the Catholic Church this infallible
> authority and then explore in what areas impacting the cosmos this
> infallible Church has also officially, infallibly spoken. (The
> non-Catholics don't generally like where this leads,, so you reject the
> pursuit, because finding the truth here means you're in the wrong Church
> and would have to change your practices, but that discussion is a
> logical extension which I understand goes beyond this list). Any other
> approach is simply starting in the middle of the line of logic and
> ignorring major premises.
>
> This anti-anything-Catholic posture keeps many from looking at the 1917
> miracle of the Sun at Fatima--in which 70,000 +/-people (non-Catholics
> and Catholics) witnessed the Sun actually come down from and girate in
> the sky---i.e. listen up---the Sun moved. But we don't explore the
> implications of what 70,000 people witnessed, presumably because to do
> so would give credence to a Catholic Miracle confirming Catholic
> doctrine occurring during an apparation in which Christ sent his Mother,
> the Blessed Virgin Mary, for a visit back to earth.
>
> Regards,
> Nick.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cheryl B. [mailto:c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 12:21 PM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: KJV, apocrypha
>
> Gary -- Glad to hear you're KJV. We need a Scripture we can rely on if
> we are to rely on Scripture for our authority. If none of them are
> right, how can we be trust scripture for authority at all?
>
> Re Apocrypha, IMHO the translators' job was not to establish canon but
> rather to search the manuscripts of the canon they were given to find
> the true ones and then to render the most perfect, accurate translation
> they could, with God's annointing and help, provide.
>
> It appears to me they succeeded in rendering a perfect job of providing
> us with a perfect Bible. Typos made as a result of the typesetters that
> had to be corrected later I do not think qualifies later versions as
> "revisions,"
> but rather as tidying up the printing. The KJV itself was a culmination
> of the works of the Tyndale Bible, Geneva Bible, Bishops Bible, others
> also -- and the translators were familiar with all of them and used all
> of them in putting together the KJV.
>
> William Tyndale especially had most of his stuff included intact in the
> KJV.
> This was the time of Shakespeare and the culmination of the English
> language, and God's Word sounds like you would think His Word would
> sound in KJV.
>
> As to the apocrypha, the ones determining OT canon, the Jews, did not
> immediately triumph over the Catholics who wanted the apocrphyat
> included, did not resolve the dispute over the apocrypha until after the
> Middle Ages.
> The Jews had rejected this from their OT canon. The Jews have more
> authority in this regard as it pertains to the apocrypha so their
> opinion prevailed.
>
> I don't know about the stablish and establish. Seems like they are the
> same word. The argument I always hear used to discredit KJV is the use
> of hte word Easter.
>
> Cheryl
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary Shelton" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 3:09 AM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Plenum and firmament
>
>
> >
> > Cheryl,
> >
> > Don't sell yourself short. You'll be up to speed with me in no time.
>
> > I haven't a very long history with this subject at all. I kind of see
>
> > us coming from a similar background. As a born and raised 45 year old
> Baptist,
> > I also tend to say KJV, but it's this thing of inerrancy that still
> > has me bugged, I'll tell you. Yes, Dr. Bouw's a purist as far as the
> > KJV goes
> and
> > believes to be inerrant. But I don't know. I wonder how we can say
> > the
> KJV
> > is anything without specifying the exact KJV we are talking about?
> >
> > Did you know that when the 1611 KJV was printed it included the
> Apocrypha?
> > So what gives that we now do not have that in the KJV? If we are
> > going to ascribe some clearer connection to God for the translators of
>
> > our Bible version, hadn't we better learn just what the true product
> > is they came up with?
> >
> > I have read that our KJV came into existence about 1881. Again, I'm
> > no expert. But I do know that I own two KJV's. One renders the Psalm
>
> > (I believe it's 93:1 here) as "stablish" while the other as
> "establish".
> >
> > That's not a big deal perhaps, but it goes to show you there are
> differences
> > between even the modern printings of the KJV. I'm sure there are
> > vastly more erudite folks to talk about this than myself, however.
> >
> > No, I haven't read Gordon Bane. I'll google him when I get the
> chance.
> >
> > See, you're already asking the same question I have about the plenum
> > and
> the
> > firmament. Perhaps Robert or the others will chime in here.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Gary Shelton
> >
> >
> > > Gary -- I've not read your links yet, but I will. Being a woman, my
> brain
> > > doesn't work like the rest of yours. I don't get the engineering,
> > > math
> > and
> > > physics stuff the way you all seem to so easily grasp it all. But I
> have
> > > intuition, a sense of where to look for the truth, an intuitive
> > > sense of what it is when I recognize it. I am also logical. We all
>
> > > need logic
> and
> > > humility, a willingness to accept the truth once we find it. I do
> > > have
> > some
> > > biases/presuppositions -- I believe in God and I believe God is
> > > Good,
> and
> > I
> > > believe His Word is contained in the KJV only as Scripture.
> > >
> > > Other than that, I will consider anything as possible as long as it
> lines
> > up
> > > with the other three suppositions/biases I have.
> > >
> > > Have you read any of Gordon Bane's stuff, The Geocentric Bible?
> He
> says
> > > all the answers to cosmology are in the scriptures. He believes
> > > every scripture has a mate, that there's another scripture located
> > > somewhere between the two covers that explains and fulfils any other
> scripture.
> > >
> > > He speaks continuously of the plenum and the firmament. It is true,
>
> > > is
> it
> > > not, that the Copernican people don't believe in either one of these
>
> > > concepts? Is it not true also that a proper understanding of both
> > > of
> > these,
> > > plenum and firmament, will answer all the other questions?
> > >
> > > Is there agreement in this list/group as to what exactly the plenum
> > > and
> > the
> > > firmament is? If so, could you explain it to me kind of the way you
>
> > > did
> > the
> > > geocentric model?
> > >
> > > Cheryl
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Gary Shelton" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 2:58 AM
> > > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Cheryl,
> > > >
> > > > I have provided the following link before. But it is a very good
> > > > link
> > to
> > > a
> > > > heated discussion between Gary Hoge and Robert Sungenis. Mr. Hoge
> > firmly
> > > > believes that the geo satellites (synchronous and stationary and
> polar)
> > > > solidly prove the earth is turning. Mr. Sungenis denies that.
> > > >
> > > > You'd have to give Mr. Hoge the prize for this particular debate,
> > > > but
> I
> > > > don't think it's by any means the end of the debate.
> > > >
> > > > That link is:
> > > > http://catholicoutlook.com/gps1.php
> > > >
> > > > Read and learn all of this and you'll be very knowledgeable
> indeed.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > >
> > > > Gary Shelton
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 2/18/05
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> -- No attachments (even text) are allowed --
> -- Type: text/plain
> -- File: InterScan_Disclaimer.txt
>
>
>
Other related posts:
