[Bobby-Joe]

Originally Posted by Catholic - Not Christian

If you want to help me answer the question

My question: Why do you deny the Deuterocanon, despite the fact that over 2/3 of ALL instances when the NT quotes the OT are directly from the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanon?

We don't deny the Deuterocanon friend, God denies it when He told King James to write The Bible in 1612.

[Catholic - Not Christian]

Originally Posted by Bobby-Joe

We don't deny the Deuterocanon friend, God denies it when He told King James to write The Bible in 1612.

Do you know why Martin Luther originally threw out the Deuterocanon and added to scripture? It didn't fit "his" idea of what the bible "should" say. Here's a quote:

"You tell me what a gread fuss the papists are making because the word 'alone' does not appear in the text of Paul. if your papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word 'alone', say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so.' and say: 'Papists and asses are one and the same thing.' I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very will that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text, it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that."
-Martin Luther, 1520 AD.

Now. The Septuagint was written roughly 200 years before Christ. It was a Jewish Canon of Scripture and contained the Deuterocanon. Over 2/3 of all instances when the NT quotes the OT were taken directly from the Septuagint. This means that the Apostles knew the Septuagint very well. It was their Scripture and they taught by it. And for 1500 years, it was included in every Bible ever made. Until Martin Luther decided he didn't like what it said and threw them out. It is history. Yet, you deny the Deuterocanon on the basis that King James agreed with you?

Please realize that these books were learned and taught by the Apostles.

If you would rather trust King James, the Lord be with you and good luck. But to remove from scripture is a grave sin.

[Bobby-Joe]

Originally Posted by Catholic - Not Christian

Do you know why Martin Luther originally threw out the Deuterocanon and added to scripture? It didn't fit "his" idea of what the bible "should" say. Here's a quote:

"You tell me what a gread fuss the papists are making because the word 'alone' does not appear in the text of Paul. if your papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word 'alone', say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so.' and say: 'Papists and asses are one and the same thing.' I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very will that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text, it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that."
-Martin Luther, 1520 AD.

Now. The Septuagint was written roughly 200 years before Christ. It was a Jewish Canon of Scripture and contained the Deuterocanon. Over 2/3 of all instances when the NT quotes the OT were taken directly from the Septuagint. This means that the Apostles knew the Septuagint very well. It was their Scripture and they taught by it. And for 1500 years, it was included in every Bible ever made. Until Martin Luther decided he didn't like what it said and threw them out. It is history. Yet, you deny the Deuterocanon on the basis that King James agreed with you?

Please realize that these books were learned and taught by the Apostles.

If you would rather trust King James, the Lord be with you and good luck. But to remove from scripture is a grave sin.

I fail to see what Judism has to do with Christianity. Some times you make no sense.

[Catholic - Not Christian]

Originally Posted by Bobby-Joe

I fail to see what Judism has to do with Christianity. Some times you make no sense.

Jesus was Jewish. The Apostles were Jewish. This was their Scripture. To them, the Deuterocanon was inspired by God.

But it's not good enough for you.

[Dr. Warren Wierdsbe]

Originally Posted by Catholic - Not Christian

Do you know why Martin Luther originally threw out the Deuterocanon and added to scripture? It didn't fit "his" idea of what the bible "should" say. Here's a quote:

"You tell me what a gread fuss the papists are making because the word 'alone' does not appear in the text of Paul. if your papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word 'alone', say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so.' and say: 'Papists and asses are one and the same thing.' I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very will that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text, it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that."
-Martin Luther, 1520 AD.

Now. The Septuagint was written roughly 200 years before Christ. It was a Jewish Canon of Scripture and contained the Deuterocanon. Over 2/3 of all instances when the NT quotes the OT were taken directly from the Septuagint. This means that the Apostles knew the Septuagint very well. It was their Scripture and they taught by it. And for 1500 years, it was included in every Bible ever made. Until Martin Luther decided he didn't like what it said and threw them out. It is history. Yet, you deny the Deuterocanon on the basis that King James agreed with you?

Please realize that these books were learned and taught by the Apostles.

If you would rather trust King James, the Lord be with you and good luck. But to remove from scripture is a grave sin.

I am aware of what the Septuagint contained. It contained the Word of God and the Deuterocanon. If the Apostles were so familiar with it, which I do not doubt, and quoted from the Septuagint, and the Deuterocanon were actually the Word of God, why did they never quote from those books? Had they done so, that would have been strong evidence that God approved those books. Since they never did, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain and an ounce of faith that God did NOT approve those books.

In Christ
Warren

[Catholic - Not Christian]

Originally Posted by Dr. Warren Wierdsbe

I am aware of what the Septuagint contained. It contained the Word of God and the Deuterocanon. If the Apostles were so familiar with it, which I do not doubt, and quoted from the Septuagint, and the Deuterocanon were actually the Word of God, why did they never quote from those books? Had they done so, that would have been strong evidence that God approved those books. Since they never did, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain and an ounce of faith that God did NOT approve those books.

In Christ
Warren

Following this logic, we should throw out 8 other OT books such as the Song of Songs which were not quoted either.

Fact is, the Apostles studied the Septuagint. All of it. Whether they quoted it or not. However, I can give you one example that, while not a quote, refers to an OT passage that you will not find in your bible, but in the real Bible in 2 Maccabees 7.

Hebrews 11:35: "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release that they might rise again to a better life."

Fact still remains. You landovers refuse to read the same scripture as the Apostles, proof that many of their quotes are taken directly from that book.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Originally Posted by Catholic - Not Christian

Do you know why Martin Luther originally threw out the Deuterocanon and added to scripture? It didn't fit "his" idea of what the bible "should" say. Here's a quote:

You will recall earlier that I pointed you to a Chick Tract. I did this because I could have wasted several thousand words on you and you simply would not have listened. (As it happened, you still did not.)

Here Luther obviously became fed up with the incessant whining of the Pope and other idiot objectors - if he had explained it once, he had explained it a 1000 times to them - this was Luther saying, "Sod them, tell them I said so."

Originally Posted by Catholic - Not Christian

[...]I can give you one example that, while not a quote, refers to an OT passage that you will not find in your bible, but in the real Bible in 2 Maccabees 7.

Hebrews 11:35: "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release that they might rise again to a better life."

Not much of a find - I put it down to a coincidence.

Now listen up to Archbishop Ussher's view of the servants of the anti-christ,

Archbishop Ussher called a meeting of the Irish bishops in his house in November of 1626, the result being the "Judgement of the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of Ireland". This begins: "The religion of the papists is superstitious and idolatrous; their faith and doctrine erroneous and heretical; their church in respect of both, apostatical; to give them therefore a toleration, or to consent that they may freely exercise their religion, and profess their faith and doctrine, is a grievous sin."

and this from the man who scholarly works proved the earth was formed by God in 4004BC!

[Catholic - Not Christian]

Originally Posted by Ezekiel Bathfire

You will recall earlier that I pointed you to a Chick Tract. I did this because I could have wasted several thousand words on you and you simply would not have listened. (As it happened, you still did not.)

Listened to what? All this told me was that we "should take out the Deuterocanon because they are satanic!!" Yeah. Did you really expect me to accept your opinion as a reason?

Well my opinion is the Catholic Church is right. Hey! Why aren't you listening!!!??? Oh sorry, that was an opinion...

Get real man. If there was some actual fact in this "chick tract" that I overlooked, bring it to the table brother, and I'll be happy to discuss it.

Here Luther obviously became fed up with the incessant whining of the Pope and other idiot objectors - if he had explained it once, he had explained it a 1000 times to them - this was Luther saying, "Sod them, tell them I said so."

Well if you can't take for what it is, the Lord be with you.

Not much of a find - I put it down to a coincidence.

Maybe you should read 2 Maccabees for yourself before you blow off inspired scripture. Id like to see you trying to explain that one to Jesus on Judgment day...

Now listen up to Archbishop Ussher's view of the servants of the anti-christ, and this from the man who scholarly works proved the earth was formed by God in 4004BC!

Alright. More opinions... You guys are so much fun...
This thread is about the KJV. Let's keep it that way.

[Dr. Warren Wierdsbe]

Originally Posted by Catholic - Not Christian

Following this logic, we should throw out 8 other OT books such as the Song of Songs which were not quoted either.

Fact is, the Apostles studied the Septuagint. All of it. Whether they quoted it or not. However, I can give you one example that, while not a quote, refers to an OT passage that you will not find in your bible, but in the real Bible in 2 Maccabees 7.

Hebrews 11:35: "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release that they might rise again to a better life."

Fact still remains. You landovers refuse to read the same scripture as the Apostles, proof that many of their quotes are taken directly from that book.

Well of course I know the passage of which you speak and its basis in Maccabees. It does show Paul's early life steeped in the "classics" of his time, including the Word of God in the Septuagint and the other books there. His refusal to quote that passage as Scripture and simply use it as a history lesson speaks many volumes about what God thinks about Maccabees.

And while Song of Solomon IS Scripture, it's hardly helpful as quotation material since it's a bit racy for anyone under 30.

In Christ
Warren

[Catholic - Not Christian]

Originally Posted by Dr. Warren Wierdsbe

Well of course I know the passage of which you speak and its basis in Maccabees. It does show Paul's early life steeped in the "classics" of his time, including the Word of God in the Septuagint and the other books there.

Note again, these were not considered "classics". They were inspired scripture for the Apostles. The septuagint was the official canon of the greek jewish "bible". No where do they deny the deuterocanon. In fact, he brings direct mention to it here in Hebrews as if it happened. He has no doubt it fact. He preaches the story of 2 Maccabees, which you all deny.

His refusal to quote that passage as Scripture and simply use it as a history lesson speaks many volumes about what God thinks about Maccabees.

Refusal? He said "I have not time to tell of..." (Hebrews 11:32). He listed it along with numerous other OT passages. Or do you think he would would "refuse" to tell them to?
No. He said he does not have time.

And while Song of Solomon IS Scripture, it's hardly helpful as quotation material since it's a bit racy for anyone under 30.

Ezra? Nehemiah? Esther? Ecclesiastes?
Or are these too racy too?

For anyone new to this thread. The KJV is false for not including the deuterocanon which was used by the apostles in the greek septuagint.
Discussion is open.

[WWJDnow]

Originally Posted by Catholic - Not Christian

Did it ever occur to you that there might, just maybe, be two people in the Bible existing with the same name??? And that maybe, just maybe, your Bible is in error and in fact it was no brother of Goliath but rather another man with the same name? I see this in itself as no reason to forsake my NAS Bible.

No, it didn't occur to me, since 1 Chronicles 20 tells us that Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath. Check your NAS Bible, it even it got this one right.

This is fatal mistake. Especially for you being a Bible Onlyist. Tell me then, does it or does it not have to be stated in the Bible? Or are we now free to make such assumptions?

The Bible doesn't tell us that Adam had a penis, but I'm pretty sure that he did. You, on the other hand, don't seem to have balls, since you won't stand up to your publicly praying pope and say "this is wrong."

God loves all his children equally

Chapter and verse, please. No, wait, you NEVER give chapter and verse when I ask for it, because you can't. So I'm just going to throw the BS flag on this one. Stop making up lies about God.

Catholics Priests do not only do "missionary work"

That's Catholic slang for buggering the local boys.

The point is, why should I listen to you and not to the other onlyists out there?

I don't care whether you listen. God told me to preach the Gospel to all creatures. Personally, I don't give a damn if you rot in Hell because you don't listen.

No. That is not an answer. Tell me why the Vaticanus manuscripts were flawed. Unless you have no answer???

Let's see. They have lacunae, they have added text in Matthew 27, nobody knows their origin, and they're held in the possession of a so-called church whose leader is both a Nazi and so ungodly that he prays in public when the Bible clearly says that is wrong.

[WWJDnow]

Originally Posted by -matty-

If this is not the Bible saying that people of any nation ('foreigners') can, and will, be 'Saved' then what is?

That's exactly what it says, and thank you for pointing out this most excellent and often underappreciated verse. However, just because persons of all nations can be saved doesn't mean that persons of all nations are equally likely to be saved.

As I understand it, the Christianity that America was founded on was the English Christianity of the time. This Christianity was a breakoff of Catholicsm, which was done by the English King Henry VIII when the Catholic Church did not want him to divorce his wife so he could marry another woman.

Catherine of Aragon was a whore who was never properly married to Henry VIII, so Henry needed and received no divorce. The King was a Christian, so he refused to pay the bribe that the Pope required to acknowledge this fact and grant an annulment, so Henry cleaned house. Unfortunately, the Anglican Church degraded over the centuries into a den of homosexuality, but it's foundations were rock solid.

[Remy Lebeau]

Originally Posted by Catholic - Not Christian

*ATTEMPT TO AVOID THE QUESTION - ONCE AGAIN - DELETED*
Now. Address the rest of my "dribble"

I'm going to ask you one last time before I put you on moderation:

Do you or do you not believe that God supports pedophilia, pedophiles and their protectors?

Yes, you do.

Or

No, you don't.

Yes or No, papist?

Give me a simple yes or no. Failure to answer "yes" or "no" will result in you being placed on moderation. You until 5PM CST to reply.

[Catholic - Not Christian]

Originally Posted by Remy Lebeau

I'm going to ask you one last time before I put you on moderation:

Do you or do you not believe that God supports pedophilia, pedophiles and their protectors?

Yes, you do.

Or

No, you don't.

Yes or No, papist?

Give me a simple yes or no. Failure to answer "yes" or "no" will result in you being placed on moderation. You until 5PM CST to reply.

Yes, I have made deliberate attempts to confuse you. Just relax for a second and try to understand that it's OK for a preist to molest a child and it's OK for other priest and the Pope to protect them through walls of silence and vatican decrees.

Yes.
The Pope protects pedophiles. The Pope is God's vicar on earth. Therefore, God protects and supports pedophilia.

[Catholic - Not Christian]

Originally Posted by WWJDnow

No, it didn't occur to me, since 1 Chronicles 20 tells us that Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath. Check your NAS Bible, it even it got this one right.

I will concede on the matter that my Bible does indeed seem read Goliath died twice. I will ask a priest about the matter and return to you.

The Bible doesn't tell us that Adam had a penis, but I'm pretty sure that he did. You, on the other hand, don't seem to have balls, since you won't stand up to your publicly praying pope and say "this is wrong."

I was recently chastised for saying "Why not?" when speaking of praying to saints. However, this is getting off topic. We are speaking of the KJV and Deuterocanon, now human Anatomy.

Chapter and verse, please. No, wait, you NEVER give chapter and verse when I ask for it, because you can't. So I'm just going to throw the BS flag on this one. Stop making up lies about God.

That's because I would get an infraction. The passage is in Wisdom, part of Deuterocanon, which you deny.

Let's see. They have lacunae, they have added text in Matthew 27, nobody knows their origin

If you be more specific I would be happy to talk.

[Catholic Crusader]

Originally Posted by Catholic - Not Christian

Yes, I have made deliberate attempts to confuse you. Just relax for a second and try to understand that it's OK for a preist to molest a child and it's OK for other priest and the Pope to protect them through walls of silence and vatican decrees.

Yes.
The Pope protects pedophiles. The Pope is God's vicar on earth. Therefore, God protects and supports pedophilia.

Hey, I gave you a yes or no answer. Why am I still on moderation? I made a new account to speak my mind.

[WWJDnow]

Originally Posted by Catholic - Not Christian

If you be more specific I would be happy to talk.

Oh joy.

Check THIS out.

[Remy Lebeau]

Originally Posted by Catholic - Not Christian

Yes, I have made deliberate attempts to confuse you. Just relax for a second and try to understand that it's OK for a preist to molest a child and it's OK for other priest and the Pope to protect them through walls of silence and vatican decrees.

Yes.
The Pope protects pedophiles. The Pope is God's vicar on earth. Therefore, God protects and supports pedophilia.

And that is why Catholics are NOT Christians!!! Your answer should have been Yes AND No if we define pedophilia by secular connotation.

God only sanctions "pedophilia" between a man and a young girl IF they are war booty...

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." - Number 31:17-18

"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her." - Deuteronomy 21:10-14

...NOT young boys. We both know how Jesus feels about homosexuality of any kind. Well, maybe you don't. You are a catholic afterall.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." - Leviticus 20:13

But as you read above (probably for the first time seeing as you're a catholic) even when it's a young girl the man must take her as his wife until he gets tired of her and tosses her out on the streets. But it's not actually pedophilia if the two parties are married.

This concludes our debate. That's another victory for Jesus!!! PRAISE!!!!

[Nobar King]

Congratulations. That's two victories in less than one week!

[Catholic - Not Christian]

Originally Posted by Remy Lebeau

And that is why Catholics are NOT Christians!!! Your answer should have been Yes AND No if we define pedophilia by secular connotation.

God only sanctions "pedophilia" between a man and a young girl IF they are war booty...

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." - Number 31:17-18

"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her." - Deuteronomy 21:10-14

...NOT young boys. We both know how Jesus feels about homosexuality of any kind. Well, maybe you don't. You are a catholic afterall.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." - Leviticus 20:13

But as you read above (probably for the first time seeing as you're a catholic) even when it's a young girl the man must take her as his wife until he gets tired of her and tosses her out on the streets. But it's not actually pedophilia if the two parties are married.

This concludes our debate. That's another victory for Jesus!!! PRAISE!!!!

How does this justify the King James in any way shape or form?
That is the topic of this thread.