Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

KJV vs. the 1611 edition


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Our church uses the KJV in preaching, and always uses Study materials with KJV quotes, but I am aware of another IFB in town and their website states they only use 1611 version.

Forgive me for my ignorance on the issue, but what is the difference between today's common KJV and the 1611?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The commonly used 1769 version KJV is the one most often read in IB and IFB congregations. Look up the 1769 on line, much of the 'ye' is gone, etc. in the 1769. The 1769 is all I use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 minutes ago, 1Timothy115 said:

The commonly used 1769 version KJV is the one most often read in IB and IFB congregations. Look up the 1769 on line, much of the 'ye' is gone, etc. in the 1769. The 1769 is all I use.

Thanks for the reply. I will look that up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Just now, Disciple.Luke said:

Really? I wasn't  aware that any of the King James variants had the apocrypha in them. I assumed only catholic editions inserted those texts. Interesting.

Thanks for the spelling correction...yep the 1611 KJV has the apocrypha.

Hey do you know any of the  Lindseys? They live over around central Ind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 minutes ago, Disciple.Luke said:

I don't believe I know any of the Lindseys. I am in Anderson, IN. 

They are in Indianapolis and one of them has a church there...Tim.

 

Edited by 1Timothy115
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

My wife bought me a 1611 photocopy bible when they were selling them for the 400th anniversary-what 2014?

Biggest differences are font styles and spelling-many words with older English style spelling, use of "f" for 's' in some cases, 'v' for 'u', and such things. and yes, Apocrypha. Thelater editions, for the most part, just updated spelling and letters and punctuation issues. And removed the Apocrypha. But it is fun to get our and read-tried preaching from it once but the spelling can throw you off sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 11:43 AM, 1Timothy115 said:

The commonly used 1769 version KJV is the one most often read in IB and IFB congregations. Look up the 1769 on line, much of the 'ye' is gone, etc. in the 1769. The 1769 is all I use.

It is true that there is a web site online that identifies its post-1900 edition of the KJV as being the 1769.  Also there are books about the KJV that say that our present KJV editions are the 1769.

It would be accurate and true to say that most present KJV editions are based on the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV.  At least a few KJV editions printed in 2000 and afterwards by Zondervan and Hendrickson are based on the 1873 Cambridge edition of Scrivener instead of on the 1769, and Cambridge printed one edition in 2005 and in 2011 [New Cambridge Paragraph Bible] edited by David Norton that is not based on the 1769.

According to the actual KJV edition edited by Benjamin Blayney and printed at Oxford in 1769, it would not be accurate to suggest that present KJV editions are identical in their English text to that edition.  The KJV edition identified as being the 1769 at a web site is not actually identical to the KJV edition printed at Oxford in 1769.  I know of only one present edition of the KJV that is a reprint of the 1769 Oxford, and it is only a partial edition ending after the book of Jeremiah.  It was available at Amazon, and in the copy I obtained it is identified as being "Nabu Public Domain Reprints."  This same partial edition of the KJV was available at the website books.google so that may be where its text was obtained.

At the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., I have examined an actual edition of the KJV that was printed by Oxford in 1769.  I also have the complete text of the 1769 Oxford KJV edition that I downloaded from a computer data base called The Eighteenth Century Collection, that can be found at some large university libraries.

The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV still included the Apocrypha.  The 1769 Oxford KJV still used a character that looked identical to an "f" for a long "s."  Thus, on the title page of the 1769 Oxford, the word "Revised" is printed as "Revifed."  In its 1769 English text, wise is printed as "wife."  Not including the hundreds or thousands of words in the 1769 that have a letter that looks like an "F" to stand for a long "s" sound, there are other spelling differences in it.  This use of "f" for a long "s" was not removed from KJV editions until around 1810.

Besides just the differences in spelling, the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV has its own set of differences that would distinguish it from present post-1900 KJV editions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
19 hours ago, Tyndale said:

It is true that there is a web site online that identifies its post-1900 edition of the KJV as being the 1769.  Also there are books about the KJV that say that our present KJV editions are the 1769.

It would be accurate and true to say that most present KJV editions are based on the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV.  At least a few KJV editions printed in 2000 and afterwards by Zondervan and Hendrickson are based on the 1873 Cambridge edition of Scrivener instead of on the 1769, and Cambridge printed one edition in 2005 and in 2011 [New Cambridge Paragraph Bible] edited by David Norton that is not based on the 1769.

According to the actual KJV edition edited by Benjamin Blayney and printed at Oxford in 1769, it would not be accurate to suggest that present KJV editions are identical in their English text to that edition.  The KJV edition identified as being the 1769 at a web site is not actually identical to the KJV edition printed at Oxford in 1769.  I know of only one present edition of the KJV that is a reprint of the 1769 Oxford, and it is only a partial edition ending after the book of Jeremiah.  It was available at Amazon, and in the copy I obtained it is identified as being "Nabu Public Domain Reprints."  This same partial edition of the KJV was available at the website books.google so that may be where its text was obtained.

At the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., I have examined an actual edition of the KJV that was printed by Oxford in 1769.  I also have the complete text of the 1769 Oxford KJV edition that I downloaded from a computer data base called The Eighteenth Century Collection, that can be found at some large university libraries.

The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV still included the Apocrypha.  The 1769 Oxford KJV still used a character that looked identical to an "f" for a long "s."  Thus, on the title page of the 1769 Oxford, the word "Revised" is printed as "Revifed."  In its 1769 English text, wise is printed as "wife."  Not including the hundreds or thousands of words in the 1769 that have a letter that looks like an "F" to stand for a long "s" sound, there are other spelling differences in it.  This use of "f" for a long "s" was not removed from KJV editions until around 1810.

Besides just the differences in spelling, the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV has its own set of differences that would distinguish it from present post-1900 KJV editions. 

Hi. I use a 1769 KJV, the commonly referred to Authorized Version. I've had the same exact version since the 1980s. It is a 1769. Also, my current Bible is a Cambridge Bible, 1769, which I have diligently compared to the first one I bought in 1982. I don't buy anything but Cambridge Bibles and the last two I bought are wide margin but, the text on each page is identical which allows for easy transpose notes from my older to my newer ones. There is no Apocrypha in my 1769 Cambridge Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, 1Timothy115 said:

Hi. I use a 1769 KJV, the commonly referred to Authorized Version. I've had the same exact version since the 1980s. It is a 1769. Also, my current Bible is a Cambridge Bible, 1769, which I have diligently compared to the first one I bought in 1982. I don't buy anything but Cambridge Bibles and the last two I bought are wide margin but, the text on each page is identical which allows for easy transpose notes from my older to my newer ones. There is no Apocrypha in my 1769 Cambridge Bible.

Which actual present edition of the KJV printed by Cambridge University Press do you use?

In 2011, Cambridge University Press was evidently printing at least six varying editions of the KJV.  Those six editions are the Concord edition, the Pitt Minion edition, the Standard Text Edition or Emerald edition, the 2011 Clarion edition, the 2011 Transetto Text edition, and the 2011 edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton.  Examples of actual differences between these six editions can be found.  These six present editions also differ from many earlier Cambridge editions including the 1629, 1638, 1743, 1762, and 1769 Cambridge.  

D. A. Waite claims that the KJV text in his Defined King James Bible is the "Cambridge 1769 Text unaltered," but that claim is incorrect.  There are actual differences in the text of an actual edition of the KJV printed by Cambridge in 1769 and the present KJV text in Waite's Defined KJB.  For one example, the 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV has "killedst" in its text at Acts 7:28 in agreement with the 1743 and 1762 Cambridge and some other 1700's editions where present Cambridge editions would have "diddest" or "didst."

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have examined a KJV edition printed in 1769 at Cambridge by John Archdeacon.  It still included the Apocrypha. 

Here are twelve example renderings from a 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV that would distinguish it from 1900's and later Cambridge editions.

Genesis 49:11  fole [spelling in agreement with 1769 Oxford and many KJV editions in the 1700's]

Genesis 50:16 sent messengers [plural in agreement with 1638 Cambridge, 1762 Cambridge and different from the 1769 Oxford that has "sent a messenger"]

Joshua 19:2   Beer-sheba, Sheba [in agreement with 1769 Oxford]

1 Samuel 2:13 priest's custom [in agreement with 1769 Oxford] [corrected to plural (priests' custom) in 1873 Cambridge and later Cambridge editions]

2 Chronicles 33:19  all his sins [in agreement with 1769 Oxford]

Psalm 18:47 unto me [in agreement with 1769 Oxford]

Psalm 31:8 my foot [in agreement with 1769 Oxford]

Psalm 60:4 feared [in agreement with 1769 Oxford]

Psalm 68:2 in the presence [in agreement with 1769 Oxford]

Psalm 141:9 snares [plural in agreement with 1769 Oxford]

Jeremiah 34:16 whom he [in agreement with 1769 Oxford]

Nahum 3:16 and fleeth away [in agreement with 1769 Oxford]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎4‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 8:55 AM, Tyndale said:

Which actual present edition of the KJV printed by Cambridge University Press do you use?

In 2011, Cambridge University Press was evidently printing at least six varying editions of the KJV.  Those six editions are the Concord edition, the Pitt Minion edition, the Standard Text Edition or Emerald edition, the 2011 Clarion edition, the 2011 Transetto Text edition, and the 2011 edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton.  Examples of actual differences between these six editions can be found.  These six present editions also differ from many earlier Cambridge editions including the 1629, 1638, 1743, 1762, and 1769 Cambridge.  

D. A. Waite claims that the KJV text in his Defined King James Bible is the "Cambridge 1769 Text unaltered," but that claim is incorrect.  There are actual differences in the text of an actual edition of the KJV printed by Cambridge in 1769 and the present KJV text in Waite's Defined KJB.  For one example, the 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV has "killedst" in its text at Acts 7:28 in agreement with the 1743 and 1762 Cambridge and some other 1700's editions where present Cambridge editions would have "diddest" or "didst."

I have a Cambridge, wide margin, 1769 KJV, commonly more commonly referred to as the AV. Printed in Great Britain at the University Press, Cambridge. That's all I have for you...sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This is my KJV, it can be bought in many Walmart stores and many book stores.

 411+gcVdUiL.jpgbible.jpg

 

Here is a pic of the real 1611, John 3:16

3-16.jpg

And here is a pic from my Bible

316.jpg

I belong to a KJV only church that uses the common AV but many and I was one of them call it the 1611. It is the AV but not the 1611. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I could be wrong but I think that in general, people are not referring specifically to the first 1611 edition when referring to the (1611) KJB.  "1611" is merely a "label."  Again, this is true in general conversation - not conversations about "The HIstory of the Bible" where these differences are important.!  But I could be wrong.

My userid (1611mac) hints that for me God gave us the KJB through the circumstances that He created in 1611.  Yes, there were some MAN MADE errors and mistakes but the "1769" edition (and others) is really simply the 1611 with all appropriate corrections made.   People often try to "correct" me when I refer to the 1611 KJB trying to educate me about all the later "corrected" editions.  My reply is... God gave it to us....  so I'm sticking with the "1611" term even if man did mess it up with transcribing and printing errors, including the Apocrypha, etc.   Remember.. the men who "assembled" God's word were not perfect.  I believe the Apocrypha was included for reference much like the Dedicatory, and as Notes and References in our Bibles today.  

Note that I do NOT believe that the KJB was given by inspiration or "advanced" or "additional" revelation.  Similarly, no "new" revelation was given between 1611 and 1769....  the existing text was "fixed" and "corrected."

I also refer to the "1611" or "Authorized Version" sometimes as in these days if you tell someone to "Buy a King James Bible" they come back with a NEW King James Bible.

So for me... whether one refers to the 1611, the 1769, the Authorized Version, etc... we all know what we mean... no big deal.  (Just don't refer to the NEW KJB).   But I'm no expert...  

As info... The following is from David Cloud's "Bible Version Question and Answer Database" in regard to The Apocrypha in the KJB.

 

 1. Early editions of the English Bible (as well as other Reformation Bibles, including the

German Luther and the Olivetan French) contained the Apocrypha, but these books were

included for historical reference only, not as additions to the canon of Scripture. Alexander

McClure, a biographer of the KJV translators, says: “... the Apocryphal books in those times

were more read and accounted of than now, though by no means placed on a level with the

canonical books of Scripture” (McClure, Translators Revived , p. 185). He then lists seven

reasons assigned by the KJV translators for rejecting the Apocrypha as canonical. (1) Not one of

them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the

Old Testament. (2) Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration. (3) These books were

never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never

sanctioned by our Lord. (4) They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the

first four centuries of the Christian Church. (5) They contain fabulous statements, and statements

which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of

Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different

places. (6) It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and

sinless perfection. (7) It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination, and

magical incantation.

2. The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England clearly state that the Apocryphal books

have no scriptural authority. “... [the Church of England] doth not apply to them to establish any

doctrine.”

3. It is important to understand that in the early King James Bibles, the Apocryphal books were

placed by themselves between the Old and New Testaments rather than intermingled among the

canonical O.T. books as is done in Catholic Bibles. In the Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic Bible), for

example, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees follow Nehemiah; the Book of Wisdom and

Ecclesiasticus follow Ecclesiastes; Baruch follows Lamentations; etc. Thus the very location of

the apocryphal books denotes the canonical authority (or lack thereof) attributed to them by a

Bible’s publisher.

[from David Cloud's "The Bible Version Question and Answer Database"

 

Edited by 1611mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Razor earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...