Q – What is your position on churches that teach from the modern bibles; like the NIV, ESV, NKJV, NASB, etc.?
A – (Short Answer) These translations are not authorized by a King or Queen from the royal line of Dauid and therefore should NOT be trusted. Furthermore, they all are completely, or at least in part, from corrupted manuscripts and we beleeue that they are not faithful BIBLES.
A - (Long Answer) Like we said earlier, the Word of God is perfect. If you ask most Pastors, or self-professed Scholars, they will say that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God, but when you ask which one is it? They start fumbling over their answers…
They say things like:
“It spread out in the original manuscripts” or “It has been carefully preserved and accurately translated…basically all bibles say the same thing… Don’t sweat the small stuff..”
Q – Do you believe that people that profess to be saved apart from the 1611 are in fact saved?
A – (Short Answer) The Bible teaches that everyone that continues to do good is borne of him. “If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that euery one which doeth righteousnesse, is borne of him.” – 1 Iohn 2:29
We do not iudge a man’s/woman’s eternal state from this side of glory (we leaue the iudging to the ONE TRUE WORD/IUDGE) but encourage all creatures to know him and the power of his resurrection.
A - (Long Answer) The perfect Bible in the pure language is “an hard saying” and “who can hear it?” We try to encourage his people to moue from “faith to faith” or from “fruit to fruit”… Some of vs haue shared our desire to seeke to be the remnant, the few, the chosen, the subiects of his kingdome. Remember, Not all Israel is Israel. Narrow is the way and STRAIT is the gate. Can you be saved? sure… but from what is the question? and from and by who? …and how do you define that salvation except by words? How do you define the savior except by words? And can those words be corrupted? Have they been? Are they still being corrupted? And if words can be corrupted, where is the Word that can NOT be corrupted? What are words made of? Are they not made up of specific letters and certain groupings thereof? These are faire questions that have logical answers. Each soule must seeke out the measure of trueth it desires and by which standard of measure it is defined, thereat will be the answer.
One thing we do know, the Bible talks of a great multitude that are saued from every tribe, tongue and nation… this group is large, but small compared to those that will perish. The 1611 is the standard measure of faith we accept and judge all "versions" of the truth thereby. They maybe saved by God, or they may not be saued by Him, It is not for vs to answer what the difference truely is between the two.. God will separate the the right from the wrong. God blesse.
Q – What was the King’s (King James) view of the APOCRYPHA? After all, He included "it" in the Original Bible he authorized, commissioned and publishedin A.D. 1611.
A – (Short Answer) The King (King Iames) commented on his omission of the Apocrypha in his book (Basilikon Doron:1599 A.D.) because it was papist. However, we don’t know what context he was speaking of when he said the word omit. For He clearly defended it (see long answer) in 1604 and included it in the Bible in 1611. Furthermore, in 1615, law was decreed to imprison anyone who printed the Bible WITHOUT the Apocrypha for a year. and a large fine. In Short, He beleeued in it, Defended it. We surmise that he omitted it from the Old Testament (for he was convinced by the Holy Spirit that it was not to be included in the Couenant Bookes: Old or New); but to ioin the two Couenants by placing it in the middst. Quite brilliant, God blesse him.
A - (Long Answer)
King James I at the Hampton Court Conference of 1604 (AFTER HE WROTE Basilicon Doron):
“Dr. Reynolds…insisted boldly on various points ; but when he came to the demand for the disuse of the apocrypha in the church service James could bear it no longer. He called for a Bible, read a chapter out of Ecclesiasticus, and expounded it according to his own views ; then turning to the lords of his council, he said, ” What trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus ? By my soul, I think Ecclesiasticus was a bishop, or they would never use him so.”
(John Cassell’s Illustrated History of England, text by William Howitt, (W. Kent & Co.:London), 1859, vol. 3p. 15)
It is hard to pin point the exact date where the King James Bible no longer contained the “Apocrypha.” It is clear that later editions of the KJV removed the “Apocrypha” appendix, but they continued to include cross-references to the “Apocrypha” until they too (like the Geneva Bible) were removed as well. Why were they removed? Was it do to over-crowded margins? The Anglican scholar William H. Daubney points out the obvious:
“These objectionable omissions [of the cross-references] were made after the custom arose of publishing Bibles without the Apocrypha. These apparently profess to be what they are not, entire copies of the Authorized Version … Plainly, the references to the Apocrypha told an inconvenient tale of the use which the Church intended should be made of it; so, either from dissenting influence without, or from prejudice within the Church, these references disappeared from the margin.” [The Use of the Apocrypha In the Christian Church (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1900), 17] What was the inconvenient tale these cross-references told? They showed that the so-called Apocrypha actually plays a much greater role that most modern Protestants are willing to admit. Moreover, the cross-references showed that the church believed that knowledge of the so-called “Apocrypha” and their use in the New Testament benefited Christians who wished to understand the Bible. Sadly today, many Protestants use the King James Bible have been handed on to them in an unaltered and uncompromised form. The reality is that its contents had undergone several substantial changes beginning with Martin Luther’s gathering together the Deuterocanon and placing it in an “Apocrypha” appendix and later when that appendix (and its cross-references) were removed altogether from Protestant Bibles.
I rest my case.