| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
gconan |
The Bookes called Apocrypha. |
Lead | |
|
|
|||
raniac |
Re: check out the kalander to. | ||
|
becides including the Apocrypha, the 1611 kjv kalender includes catholic holy days (i.e. the assumtion of mary and days dedicated to popes clement and the innocents). Yet the KJV-only crowd will tell us the the KJV is anti-catholic. Don't actions speak louder than words. If I say one thing and do something else, what basis does anyone have for believing me?
|
|||
brianrw |
Calendar | ||
|
becides including the Apocrypha, the 1611 kjv kalender includes catholic holy days (i.e. the assumtion of mary and days dedicated to popes clement and the innocents). Yet the KJV-only crowd will tell us the the KJV is anti-catholic. Don't actions speak louder than words. If I say one thing and do something else, what basis does anyone have for believing me?
It doesn't contain a day set aside for the "Assumption of Mary," it's the "Annun[ciation] of Mary," which merely denotes the announcement of the coming birth of our Lord. In case you're interested, it also has a date set aside for the "Papists conspiracie." Clement was given the title of "Pope" post-mortem (as most other "Popes") by the Catholic Church--he was merely a first-century bishop of Rome. Moreover, I believe "the Innocents," if I am not mistaken, refers to the children who were slain by Herod at about the time of the birth of Christ. You might have done better to find some other examples--but days set aside for the commemoration of various notable writers and Christians of the church does not make the holidays "Catholic," though indeed they may be a carrying over thereof. b.w. |
|||
raniac |
Re: Calendar | ||
|
Shalom,
I did spell it wrong (sorry). It is a bit hard to read the print the way its written. I looked again at home. And you were right. It just gives me the idea that they speak against the catholic church on one hand and then give it support on the other. I still havn't found any evidence that these days were existed before the catholic church ?canonized? them. Nor have I found any clear bible passage giving the church authority to declare holidays (seems to be a derivative of holy days) anyway. I think we should live everyday the same. << but days set aside for the commemoration of various notable writers and Christians of the church does not make the holidays "Catholic," though indeed they may be a carrying over thereof. >> True, but it gives the impression of respecting persons. If someone does something "noteworthy", then the person gets a day on the calendar--otherwise who care's? It just doesn't seem right to me. I know that this got some what off the subject, but I'm a history buff and enjoy learning new things. If anyone can give concrete evidence that I'm wrong, then I'll change my opinion. raniac |
|||
amarillo |
says Alberto | ||
|
i seem to remember a scene in the Alberto comics series (u know, the one that J.T. Chick published 2000 yrs ago) about secret Roman Catholics sitting among the KJB translators n insisting on getting the Apocrypha (n who knows what other RCC flavour) into the translation.
has anyone else seen it? Joseph Ng
"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB |
|||
brianrw |
Let every man be fully persuaded... | ||
|
I still havn't found any evidence that these days were existed before the catholic church ?canonized? them.
Holy days in the Anglican church isn't exactly my strong point, so I can't help you either way here... Nor have I found any clear bible passage giving the church authority to declare holidays (seems to be a derivative of holy days) anyway. I think we should live everyday the same. Of course I agree that certain "holy days" are not found in the bible--nor do I necessarily agree with the keeping of them. However, it is also written that, "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." (Romans 14:5). So long as it does not violate sound Christian doctrine, we certainly do have that liberty, so long as that liberty is not made to be religious bondage, or a stumblingblock to our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. b.w. |
|||
greenbranch |
Re: Let every man be fully persuaded... | ||
Quote: Or, so long as we don't cause someone else to stumble. |
|||
brianrw |
Re: Let every man be fully persuaded... | ||
|
Or, so long as we don't cause someone else to stumble.
Yeah--that too. I also forgot to mention the ever-important consideration that they shouldn't violate Christian doctrine, either... b.w. |
|||
|
|