What I found in My King James Bible

(Picture of St. Jerome)

For some time, I have been wanting to do a report on this. I promised several months ago to do it, especially on the FCFC site (oddly,or not, I was banned for "nonbiblical" views-after posting biblical verses supportive of the Catholic position).

After my grandfather was moved to a Veterans home to recover, we had to clean out his house, knowing he would not return as his health was declining. After a few happy months there, he passed away 2 yrs ago. He was as a ayoung child aconvert, thanks to his mother and lived a good and decent Catholic:

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord; and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace. Amen.

I somehow got a hold of a KJV bible that he had. It was never opened and was in mint condition. I kept it for the archeology sections and other info. I should note that on my old site at manicfish, I posted several articles on the faulty KJV translations and shoddy work going in to make it, plus many that were quesitonable cultists. None the less, we should use it when possible against the Protestants and use it as a resource. As we shall see, the following excerpts crush the Protestant theology and support Catholicism.

The following is what I found in this copy. My words will be in blue, the qoutes from the KJV bible in red:

The copy in question is a King James Bible, printed in 1958 and copyrighted in USA. It is called the King James Memorial Bible.

Dedication:

..Queen Elizabeth of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this Land, that men should have been in doubt which they were to walk;

So, the Queen, a vicious perscutor of Catholics, is "of happy memory"-a term used usually in regards to the Pope and other Catholic clergy. Elizabeth earned the term "bloody" far more than her cousin Mary. The dedication continues to laud her as a Sun, etc, etc. The clouds of darkness is a veiled reference to those coniving, evil "Papists" I am sure.

Introducing the Bible
by Huber L. Drumwright(1)

From Page 3:

The term "bible" was not used to designate the Holy Scriptures until the time of the early Church Fathers about 400 AD.

Well, so if the term was not used, where then is the word "bible" IN THE Text? Since it was not, are then we and the Protestants using an extra-biblical source? As it is not in the book, apparently so. We will also see down the road he reveals more Catholic doctrine in adverse to Protestant theology. Next time you talk to a Protestant, ask him/her where IN THE TEXT is the word "bible".

Also, if we are going to go by the Bible ALONE, what is up with these Fathers? Why are they called "fathers" as some Protestants loathe the term? What happened in 400 AD? Well, lets continue.....

During the 1200 or more years when its materials were being written, the Bible did not circulate as a single book.

Wait, then, how can we go by the Bible ALONE? Sola Scriptura falls apart as the Bible was not available to everyone to read nad decide for themselves waht is-and is not-true. Who were these surpressors of the Word then? No answer and apparently, no blame imputed to those bible-chaining papists.

It was not until the 4th century AD that all of its units were copied together in a single codex or volume.

So, what happened in the 4th century? Most Protestants deny a heirarchical Church (2), so was it a movement of the spirit, moving through all Bible belivers at once? Oops, since the Bible was no together, I guess there was no Sola Scriptura, so I guess it was some-what-joint mind control of all true beleivers. How did they all get together and where was the democratic votes to nominte these men that decided the canonicity of the books? Who took the lead in this (according to Protestants) democractic bottowm-up Church?

As the Orthodx beleive in the highest authority as a Council-and have not had one for over 1200 yrs-how did this monumental achievement happen? It goes back to the unanswered question-if Christ and/of the Apostles wanted Sola Scriptura-why did they not put the Bible together sooner? Were they slack? Why did not Christ just drop the Authorized KJV Bible down in boxes as he arose into the sky and departed (3).

Pages 4-5

It was not unitl the close of the first Christian century, at the Rabbinical Council of Jamnia (about 90 AD) that hte rest of the Old Testement was finally fixed and declared authoratative...

We, here is a stark admission that the Protestant bible was based on a Jewish rabbinical gathering. A problem-the Jewish faith was now superseded by the authority of the Church Christ established, his body (4). Now adays, many Protestants are arguin the old covenant is still in force, but that was not always the teaching of the ancient Church. First, what does Paul say is the upholder and protector of the truth?

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1Tim 3:15). So, what Church, the Church Christ established, not rabbinical judiasm, which rejected Chirst.

By the time of Jamina, the Catholic Church-the only true body of Christ, was alive, well and functioning. Judiasm was persecuting Christians both in Israel and throughout the Empire. We already had 2-3 Popes reigning. We already had the Council of Jerusalem. The Jamina Council had no authority, anymore than they do now or what some Buddhist gathering might decree. Luther, Calvin and Co. cite St. Jerome's opposition to the so-called "Apocrapha" was not scripture. One Church Father doeth not make a infallible decision make. Also, whay then did Luther and Co cling to one Father in rejecting that which they did not like, but rejected the copious writing of other Fathers, including Jerome that agreed together in the Real Presence, Authority of the Pope, etc, etc??

...(he names the many disputed books and then notes...) and doubts about their authority continued until the Council of Jamina.

Again, see above..also, note how he Capitlizes the name of the gathering, maybe its proper Englsih-I was not the best in grammer, but it makes it sound authoratative, which-for real Christians, it was not. He then continues a discourse noting the "Apocarapha" failed to gain acceptance for 2 centuries bofore Christ and 1 century AFTER Jamina. Again, as he-and Catholic history attests, the Bible was not canonized until the 4th century, so...?

He also note steh full Bible was in the Wycliff bible, Wycliff seen by many as a proto-Protestant by Protestants.

The Apocarapha were included in the Canon of the Septuagint, the translation of the Old Testement made for the Greek-speaking Jews of Aexandria. WHICH BECAME THE BIBLE OF THE EARLY CHURCH (emphesis mine); these books also appear in the Old Latin Bible, as well as the Latin Vulagate, Jerome's revision. They were carried over into the early German translation of the Latin Bible in the 14th century. (He then goes into talk about them 'APocarapha" being in the Wycliff Bible).

Well now, there we have it. The so-called Apocrapha was a part of the Early Church, in Jerome's Bible and still in the 14th century bible. So, the first Bible Luther probably had had the books as well. A great admission, but more to follow......

Both the Greek and Roman Church have ALWAYS RECOGNIZED THE APOCRAPHA AS CANONICAL (Emphesis mine). The Exclusion of these books from the Bible came as a result of the Reformation. When Luther translated the Old Testement from the Hebrew, these books were of course absent; but recognizing their presence in the Latin Bible, Luther translated them and put them in a group by themselves, between Testements.

Wow, again-a stark admission. First, that the oldest Churches, those of the East and the authoratative Body of Christ, the Catholic Church, have always recognized the canonicity of the so-called "Apocrapha". Two, that Luther-apparently on his own authority, translated the Hebrew Masoretic script-adopted at Jamina, a non-authorative council by a revoked Covenant church wihout authority, without the Body of Christ and active persecutor of the Body. Luther could not get around Jerome's Bible, apporved by Pope Damasus and his succesors. Luther put them in between Testsements? Whose authority did he do these things? HIs own, as his own "pope", that individualistic subjectivism, so the hallmark of Protestantism and society's breakdown.

There they remained in most Protestant Bibles unitl the 19th century, when publishers, led by the British and Foreign Bible Society, VOLUNTARILY (emphesis mine) began to omit them.

There we have it again, the Protestants on their own decision, apparently at a publishers level, decided to cut them completely out of scripture. Dod we hear this admission today in Protestant churches? Nope, not at all. Admitted on the FCFC site? Definately not at all. When Jack Chick states these books were a plot (haw haw haw) by Catholics to get Protestants "Catholcized", does he talk about this at al-well, we all know his multi-million dollar empire of carny literature would start to come down around him and his sad, poisonous spew, coming from the pit of his Father(see John 8:44 and John's letters in regards to the AntiChrist).

Ask again, by whose authority do they do these things?

Page 7, he continues

It was the Greek translation of the Old Testement, the Septuagint, begun in Egypt in the 3rd century BC, that the order of hte books altered. Since the SEPTUAGINT WAS THE BIBLE OF THE EARLY CHURCH (emphesis mine), it order was followed.

Again, if the Septuagint was the version of the early CHurch, then Protestants have to ask:

1. Was the early Church wrong?
2. If not, why does MY church not use the Septuagint.

Many will claim this is part of the corruption of the early Church, yet they never-ever can show definitive proof that the Church as completely and utterly destroyed. The allegations of Pope Gregory, Constantine, etc-they are undocument charges not backed up by history or any common sense. No credible historian believes them, only the under-educated masses of the fundamentalist churches. Only those in it for the profit like Chick, LaHaye, etc.

More revealing on page 8:

The writer details something that many Protestants refuse to admit, that prior to Luther, there wer many versions out there, in native languages. Going strictly from this writer, there was also:

Tynadale's Bible (1526)
Coverdale's Version (1535)
John Rogers' Bible (1537)
Geneva Bible (1560)
Bishops Bible (1568)
KJV (1611)

Also, just prior to the KJV, the Douay-Rheims (cited in this article).

Further..

At the end of the first Christian century, as we have seen, the Jewish rabbis, at the Council of Jamina, closed the canon of Hebrew books to be considered authorative.

Not to kick a dead horse, but what authority does this post-Old Testement covenant group have? Why listen to rabbis that rejected Christ and worked hard to crack down-often using the power of the State to do so? He also notes why the Jamnia COuncil adopted what it did, noting in the 3rd reason:

(3) the disputes with Christians over their interpretations of the Jewish Scriptures in preaching and writing.

Ok, sooo...the Catholics sided with their brethern from this time, the Protestants sided with the enemy of the Church and its first persecutors. Ok then, got it. He goes on to note disputed books that the Church authoratatively decided on in late 4th century.

He continues...

As far as it is known, it was the Easter letter of Archbishop Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 AD that first listed the 27 books of our New Testement as authoratative. Jerome, by his Latin translation of these same 27 books (382 AD) further established this list as canonical for hte Churches.

Well, what have we here. A bishop (ask the average Protestant where HIS bishop is-they must carry the name "bishop" per scripture, no some mealy-mouthed flopping they use to mean minister) AUTHORATATIVLY decided what was and was not scripture!! So too did Jerome, working on behalf of Pope Damasus! There then we have an authoratative Church, not a bottom up democracy that most Protestants defend and speel as the "biblical model".

It was the Catholic Church that decided the Canon. It was Holy Mother Church that decided disputes and make the decisions.




CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE TRANSLATION

In this section, the writer again lays out a timeline of events, noting that the Septuagint was the Bible of the Early Church and still is with the Orthodox and Catholics. He then states that Wycliff completes teh English language Bible in 1382 (so much for the Church keeping the Bible in Latin only to keep the "people" from reading it!). He notes that the Gutenberg Bible wa an edition of the Latin Vulgate. He notes that Erasmus completed his Bible-in Greek- in 1516. He admits tha chapters and verse divisions came about long after Jamnia and the Early Fathers, by Catholics.

SUMMARY

So, it was the Protestants that sided with the Jews and against the Early Church. They looked to an authoratative source-the post OT covenant Jews. They rejected the Body of Christ and considred Christ a liar that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail".

Thanks to the writer of this part of my KJV Bible, for he makes a good case for Holy Mother the Church. In order to turn this off, you have to accept the Revolt of Luther, Calvin, et al. They proclaimed loudly Non Servium!

Something to note-from one of the books cut out and thrown away by the Protestants (read and and you will see why):

And when they had joined battle, it happened that a few of the Jews were slain. 35 But Dositheus, a horseman, one of Bacenor's band, a valiant man, took hold of Gorgias: and when he would have taken him alive, a certain horseman of the Thracians came upon him, and cut off his shoulder: and so Gorgias escaped to Maresa.

36 But when they that were with Esdrin had fought long, and were weary, Judas called upon the Lord to be their helper, and leader of the battle: 37 Then beginning in his own language, and singing hymns with a loud voice, he put Gorgias' soldiers to flight. 38 So Judas having gathered together his army, came into the city Odollam: and when the seventh day came, they purified themselves according to the custom, and kept the sabbath in the place. 39 And the day following Judas cam with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers. 40 And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain.

41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. 42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. 43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, 44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) 45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them (5).

We see now the connection? Not only was this book rejected for its obvious reference to Purgatory, but the slain were killed due to the fact they carried idols of Jamnia! The false church of Judiasm met there, decided the Masoretic text and this was adopted by the Protestants-in opposition to the Early Church, the Catholic Church. A coincidence? I think, probably not.


Notes:
1. Drumwright is a deceased member of the faculty at SouthWestern Baptist Theological Seminary
http://www.dtl.org/versions/misc/translators.htm
2. Good refute:http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html
3. Lk 24:51-53
4. Col 1:24; Eph 1:23, 5:23;
5. 2nd Mach :36-45




(picture is of the DR Version Bible, the most authoratative and accurate Bible-I use this as my official bible and the RSV-CE edition for study and highlighting, etc)